Tag: government spending
5 Reasons Barack Obama Isn’t George W. Bush

5 Reasons Barack Obama Isn’t George W. Bush

October’s jobs report — which estimated that 271,000 Americans found work last month — left Republicans befuddled or dredging up statistics that they did not know existed a few months ago, mostly showing Baby Boomers are finally able to retire.

After years of demanding, “Where are the jobs?” we’re in the middle of what could be the second best year for job creation of this century — after 2014. This relative boom in employment has come after taxes have risen on the rich and as over 17 million Americans have gained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

Still, Republican candidates for president are torn.

Most of them think America should go back to 2008 before all of Obama’s economic stimulating, health insuring, and regulating of Wall Street ruined everything. Others think it is 2008 with America’s economy, foreign policy, and image cratering around the world. Only Donald Trump seems to agree that both now and 2008 were terrible. Apparently the billionaire racist would like to bring America back to the mid-1980s, when our deficit was skyrocketing and we were about to face a record stock market crash. (By the way, Trump was trumpeting a slightly different varietal of his xenophobia as he blasted Reagan in the 1980s. But back then his target was the Japanese.)

Regardless, Republicans are all running for president based on the premise that Barack Obama is a failure on the magnitude of George W. Bush.

This argument makes sense to Republican voters, who tend to shield themselves from science, facts, and basic anatomy lessons. But it is simply insane to anyone else.

In early November 2007, Bush’s Gallup approval rating was 32 percent. At this comparable moment in his presidency, Barack Obama’s approval is at 49 percent, reaching toward the 50 percent mark he hasn’t hit since just after his re-election.

Eventually, Republicans will have to speak to people who think an America that’s safer, stronger and has better access to health care than at any time in our existence in history isn’t all that bad. To prepare them, here are a few charts that show clearly why Barack Obama isn’t George W. Bush.

1. Job Growth under Obama has come entirely from the private sector. Job growth under W. came entirely from the public sector.

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 9.49.54 AM

Click to enlarge

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 9.49.45 AM

Click to enlarge

These charts from The Washington Post‘s Philip Bump reveal that George W. Bush was a much better socialist than Barack Obama.

2. Unlike W., Obama has made extraordinary leaps toward making America energy independent.

CS_qozzWcAAHiwB

Click to enlarge

A lot of those gains have come from increased oil drilling and fracking. But thanks to the green energy revolution sparked by Obama’s Stimulus, America’s solar industry now exists and is growing like “kudzu,” explains Politico‘s Mike Grunwald, who wrote the seminal book on how the Obama Adminstration prevented a depression while remaking our economy.

3. People are actually gaining health insurance under Barack Obama.

CS0CXzPUcAAOEZL

Click to enlarge

Now Republicans may think this is bad thing. But many Americans actually prefer 17.6 million people gaining health insurance to 7.9 million losing coverage.

4. The deficit is actually falling under Barack Obama as government spending is growing at the slowest rate since the 1950s.

Bush_Obama_Deficit_2014

Click to enlarge

Bush_Obama_Spending_2014

Click to enlarge

The deficit just hit an 8-year low. As the creator of these charts — OurFuture.org‘s Dave Johnson — notes, government spending shouldn’t be this low. Not when we could be borrowing money at incredibly low interest rates and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. But it is. So attacking the guy who cut the deficit every year of his presidency to the guy who blew the surplus to deliver the first decade without any net job growth since the Depression, probably isn’t a great idea.

5. Barack Obama hasn’t had any 9/11s yet.

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 10.10.59 AM

Click to enlarge

I hope I didn’t jinx us. I know this is a horrible thing to brag about, and President Obama never would. But with Jeb Bush making the ridiculous boast that his brother “kept us safe,” we should consider this a key metric.

We should also consider this:

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 7.59.17 AM

There are plenty of reasons to criticize President Obama. But as usual, none of them are heard from Republicans.

For instance, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are definitely disasters — as they were when Obama came into office. The difference is only a few Americans are dying in these disasters each year, rather than the dozens of casualties a year that the president inherited in 2009.

But by almost every measure, America is better positioned now than it has been in this century. Of course, that leaves us with much to improve. Yet Republicans should try to understand that comparing the guy who dug us into a ditch to the guy who dug us out makes them appear craven and delusional. Which is possibly why the Republican base enjoys it so much.

‘Checkbook’ Websites Shine Light On State Spending

‘Checkbook’ Websites Shine Light On State Spending

By Jenni Bergal, Stateline.org (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel was mortified when a consumer watchdog group last year gave his state a D-minus for transparency in providing online access to information on government spending.

So he decided to do something about it.

In December, Mandel’s office launched a user-friendly, cutting-edge financial transparency website that this year earned Ohio the only A-plus in a national review of state websites that tell the public how state government spends taxpayer money.

Every state now runs some kind of public accountability — or “checkbook” — site. The goal is to increase transparency and accountability. But while many states have been ramping up their efforts to make their sites accessible and comprehensive, some still have a long way to go. Eighteen states were graded between C and F in an annual evaluation of the sites this year by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

State checkbook websites vary considerably. Some are easy to use and provide lots of information with one click, making it easy for users to unearth individual payments to a person or company. Others are difficult to navigate or don’t contain as much information.

“There is a lot of variation. If you were to compare Ohio with Alaska or Idaho, you’d see huge differences in how user-friendly it is,” said Phineas Baxandall, a senior analyst at U.S. PIRG, which published this year’s ratings in March.

Every year, states spend hundreds of billions of dollars contracting with private vendors and nonprofits, handing out subsidies, such as tax credits, to companies to spur development and making other expenditures. States created the checkbook websites to open up information about that spending to the public. The sites tell taxpayers who is getting the money, and what for.

“It’s extremely important because you have a new set of eyes on this information, not just those of someone in government,” said LaVita Tuff, a policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes open government.

State financial officials say that checkbook websites can help save money by identifying inefficiencies and reducing the amount of time spent by staff filling information requests. Posting contract information on the websites can result in more competitive bidding and lower bids. For example, interested vendors might see that they could win a contract by offering a lower price, and state agencies might see that they could consolidate contracts to get a better deal.

Massachusetts saved $3 million by eliminating paper, postage and printing expenses related to information requests by state agencies and paperwork from vendors, according to U.S. PIRG. Texas was able to renegotiate its copier machine lease and save $33 million over three years. And in South Dakota, a reporter used the website to launch an investigation into subsidies that led to the state saving about $19 million by eliminating redundancies.

“I think these websites are very important,” said Kinney Poynter, executive director of the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers. “More transparency provides better information for all of those involved, whether they be citizens, contractors or legislative bodies.”

The U.S. PIRG report, in its sixth year, evaluates and grades states on their online transparency initiatives and how well they provide access to spending data. It examines whether checkbook sites offer comprehensive, one-stop, one-click access to users and make large sets of data easy to download.

A growing number of states are doing a better job, the report found. Fourteen got an A this year, up from eight last year. Louisiana and Illinois were among those that got bumped up.

Other states that made strides included Colorado, which got a B-plus after it re-launched its portal, now easier to use, and Kansas, which vaulted from a D-minus to a B by overhauling its site to make information more accessible and easier to download.

Connecticut, which got an A for the first time this year, recently launched OpenCheckbook, an easy to use, comprehensive site that allows users to search real-time information about payments to vendors, nonprofits and others.

“You not only have direct access to micro and macro information about the operation of state government, but you can search it, compare it, trend it and download big data sets,” said State Comptroller Kevin Lembo, a Democrat. “I’d like to think that we’re pushing the envelope in this area.”

Lembo said that because government officials “like to keep information close,” checkbook websites are especially important for transparency.

“We don’t like other people telling us we’re doing things wrong,” he said. “The result of pulling information in and holding it tight is that public confidence continues to erode.”

Lembo said he was so pleased with OpenCheckbook, which was paid for with existing funds in his budget, that last month he launched OpenBudget, a new feature that will let users compare what was budgeted to what was actually spent.

But not all states have improved their websites enough, according to the U.S. PIRG report.

Fifteen got a C or a D. And California, Alaska and Idaho were graded an F in 2014 and again in 2015. Two of the three don’t have a central one-stop database for searching or viewing details on spending, the report found. Not one of the three provides information on economic development subsidies.

“These three are not user-friendly,” said U.S. PIRG’s Baxandall, who co-authored the report. “It’s like finding a needle in a haystack.”

Photo: Catch up on your state government. RikkisRefuge Other via Flickr

The Gingrich-Adams Lesson

The Gingrich-Adams Lesson

WASHINGTON — Let us now praise Newt Gingrich. Yes, Newt Gingrich.

There he was, the scourge of Big Government, on the op-ed page of The New York Times Wednesday calling for a doubling of the National Institutes of Health budget. “It’s irresponsible and shortsighted, not prudent, to let financing for basic research dwindle,” he wrote, noting that government investments in preventing and curing disease could save the government money in direct health care costs.

Gingrich aficionados know that this is not a new position for him. He’s always favored large-scale spending on medical research, and the former Speaker said he was proud that he and President Bill Clinton agreed on doubling NIH funding in the 1990s.

But his argument raises a larger issue that is clouded by the very anti-government rhetoric that Gingrich and his conservative allies regularly deploy: Throughout our history, the federal government has been one of the country’s most productive investors — in our economy, in research and development, and in the future. Talking about all of Washington’s spending as if it were waste or assuming that private investment is always more productive than public investment is simply wrong, as Gingrich’s own praise for the NIH acknowledges.

Those of us on the progressive side can muddle this point ourselves when we re-label every government expenditure we favor as an “investment.” We can always find ways of defending this habit. For example, public spending on education can fairly be called “an investment in human capital,” even if that’s a rather ugly phrase. Food stamps can be similarly characterized since hungry kids tend to learn less in school.

Nonetheless, I’d be happy to see liberals make a bargain with conservatives: a promise of more restraint about using the word “investment” in exchange for an end to rhetorical broadsides against government that never acknowledge how constructive government spending can be.

My favorite unsung president understood this. In his remarkable and prophetic First Annual Message to Congress in 1825, John Quincy Adams explained how energetic federal action could advance the common good. “Roads and canals, by multiplying and facilitating the communications and intercourse between distant regions and multitudes of men, are among the most important means of improvement,” Adams wrote. “But moral, political, intellectual improvement are duties assigned by the Author of Our Existence to social no less than to individual man.”

Government, he said, could undertake “the progressive improvement of the condition of the governed” by “promoting the improvement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, the cultivation and encouragement of the mechanic and of the elegant arts, the advancement of literature, and the progress of the sciences, ornamental and profound.” Adams should be honored as the father of the space program, since he proposed the establishment of our first astronomical observatory.

He lost to Andrew Jackson in 1828, but in his single term, Adams delivered. “By 1826,” Daniel Walker Howe wrote in “What Hath God Wrought,” his history of the period, “the federal government had become the largest entrepreneur in the American economy.”

Journalistic conventions require me to say at this point that our younger daughter (our family’s one scientifically minded member) interned at NIH and plans to do so again. But my point is not primarily about NIH, much as I admire its work, but about following the logic of Gingrich’s argument. He notes that “government is unique” because “It alone can bring the necessary resources to bear.”

There are public goods, including pure and experimental research, in which private industry simply won’t invest, on the prudent grounds that there are no obvious or immediate financial returns. One way to promote public investment is to find new ways to ensure that when government-led scientific efforts eventually lead to private gain, taxpayers get a proper share of the profits, which can be used to support further research.

Fiscal mavens have also suggested that the federal government divide its budget between investment or capital spending and operating spending. Of course we will argue fiercely about which programs belong in which part of the budget. But when Congress can’t even pass transportation bills, such a mechanism might remind us that concern for the next generation encompasses not just how much debt we leave them but also how much we invest today in the world they will inherit.

“The spirit of improvement is abroad upon the earth,” Adams declared 190 years ago. One of government’s most noble purposes is to fulfill our obligation to keep that spirit alive.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. Twitter: @EJDionne.

Photo: Political Graveyard via Flickr

How Are Federal Dollars Divided Among States?

How Are Federal Dollars Divided Among States?

By Jake Grovum, Stateline.org (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Benefits for Americans, chiefly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, dominate the federal spending that gets transferred to states through grants, contracts and other programs.

But among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, there are stark differences in how the billions spent on these and other initiatives are distributed, according to new data compiled by the Pew Charitable Trusts (which also funds Stateline).

A Stateline analysis of the data shows that some states that receive a relatively small share of federal spending in a given category rely on it heavily.

Vermont, for example, is just 45th among the states and the District of Columbia in grant spending received, at $1.88 billion. But that sum represents a fourth of the federal spending it receives overall. Kansas, meanwhile, gets roughly the same dollar amount in grants as Vermont. But that sum is just 8 percent of the state’s federal spending, because of the state’s heavy reliance on retirement benefits, which comprise more than 40 percent of its share of federal spending.

The variations are even more pronounced in states that receive extremely high levels of federal spending overall, because of their sheer size. California, for instance, receives more than $100 billion in retirement spending; the next-closest state is Florida, with nearly $77 billion. But even California’s huge sum represents just a third of its overall federal spending, where for Florida, it’s 40 percent. California is either the top or second-highest recipient of federal dollars in each of the five categories below.

Overall, the federal government spent more than $3 trillion in the states last year. The spending is spread across five broad categories:

Retirement benefits such as Social Security, veterans benefits and disability

Nonretirement benefits such as Medicare, food stamps and unemployment insurance

Grants that cover Medicaid, transportation, education, housing and other programs

Contracts for purchases of goods and services, half of which involve the military

Salaries and wages, including civilian and military personnel

Each state’s mix of federal spending matters in how it advocates for its interests in Congress, a reality more critical during times of budget cuts or other disruptions in Washington — like concern over sequestration and the federal government shutdown last fall.

Some states get more federal dollars in certain categories thanks to simple demographics. Florida, for example, gets the second-highest dollar amount of retirement benefits, behind only California. Others owe their advantage to economic realities: The top five states in contracts, for example, are government- and defense-heavy Virginia, California, Texas, Maryland and the District.

As an example of the variation, the report points to Alaska and Louisiana, where federal spending was equivalent to 18 percent of each state’s gross domestic product last year. But in Louisiana, federal salaries and wages were equal to 1.4 percent of the state’s GDP; in Alaska, it was 4.4 percent. As a result, the report said, “Alaska’s economy would likely be more affected than Louisiana’s by federal salary and wage cuts.”

Different states emerge as most reliant on certain types of federal spending. For retirement benefits, Oregon, Arkansas and New Hampshire all receive more than 41 percent of their federal spending from that category. On the other end are Virginia, Alaska and the District, receiving a fourth or less of their federal spending in that category.

In nonretirement benefits, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey receive more than a third of their federal funding in that category. Again at the other end are Alaska, Virginia and the District, with 15 percent or less.

The grants category presents a mixed picture as well: Vermont, New York and Alaska receive more than a quarter of their federal spending in that category. Florida, Kansas and Virginia are the bottom three, receiving less than 10 percent of their federal dollars this way.

The rankings reverse, however, when it comes to the salaries and wages and contracts categories. Washington, D.C., for instance, gets more than 44 percent of its federal spending from pay to federal employees, followed by Hawaii at nearly a third and Alaska at one-fourth. Wisconsin, Michigan and Connecticut, meanwhile, get less than 5 percent of their federal spending in this category.

Virginia and the District each receive more than third of their federal spending in the form of contracts, followed by Maryland at 28 percent. For the bottom three states, Oregon, Arkansas and Delaware, the share coming from contracts is less than 4 percent.

Taken together, the data present an important state-by-state picture of how federal spending is divvied up among them, said Lindsay Koshgarian, research director at the National Priorities Project, which does its own analysis of federal spending by state. And, she added, the numbers offer insight into how each state benefits from federal spending.

“We all pay taxes and we all do a fair amount of griping about the taxes that we pay,” Koshgarian said. “But we do, in fact, get something for those taxes.”

Photo: Ervins Strauhmanis via Flickr