a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment
cgod  ·  4817 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Debunking the Bunk
One of the nice things about the Heritage numbers is that they don't count receipts from mandatory programs like medicare premiums. These offsetting receipts shave off almost 10% of the mandatory program costs. Sure Heritage cherry picked the best chart from OMB to show growth in Mandatory, and even if you factor out offsets mandatory grew a bit more then discretionary. I'll cherry pick my own figures and add money that the government didn't pay because of revenue off-sets in mandatory spending.

Discretionary spending 1980-276 bil 1989-488 bil Mandatory spending 1980-262 bil 1989- 486 bil

Taxation became regressive, payroll taxes burden as a share of GDP went up, Cooperate taxes went down, payroll taxes went down for all, but with greater decreases for big earners. This is often cited as a reason the economy did well during the Reagan years, but if you are looking for similar historical comparisons of times when the economy grew for averages of more then 5% a year for more than 5 years the factor that is found in every example since WWI is higher government spending.

This might be the single example where regressive taxes increased growth for an extended period of time, but I suspect government spending was the thing that did it. I think Reagan was all for this spending, and give him a large share of the credit for the recovery in the 80's. You might not, and what that would mean to me is that it wasn't Reagan, but congress that caused significant growth in the 80's.