The original subtitle of my blog has long-ago been eclipsed. I am trying out a new one. Our tributes usually wear a lot of copper.
Dispatches from District 48
Archive for the ‘Government’ Category.
The original subtitle of my blog has long-ago been eclipsed. I am trying out a new one. Our tributes usually wear a lot of copper.
As much fun as it is to mock the US Postal Service, their inability to restructure their costs is not all their fault. Every time they try to close a facility, they get met by opposition from about everywhere. Here is an example where Berkely, CA is doing all it can to prevent the USPS from selling a post office building.
The Postal Service over the summer began moving ahead with a plan to sell its 1914 Beaux-Arts post office in the heart of Berkeley near the old city hall and a park named after Martin Luther King Jr. The move drew howls from residents worried that the building would turn into condominiums or office space, even drawing dissidents to camp out for days by the columned building entrance.
Now, opponents are gaining traction with an unorthodox zoning restriction: that the mustard-colored building must remain open to the public
The Berkeley Planning Commission last month approved a measure that would restrict the use of the post office and adjacent government buildings to government agencies or public uses like a theater. Residential use and many other private functions would be banned by the action, which requires City Council approval.
This is simply bizarre. What, do residents have so many fond memories of their time spent in the line at the post office that they want these golden memories preserved? The assumptions made by local opponents are just bizarre -- they seem OK if the building is used for offices of the Social Security Administration but not if it is used for private offices. Why would anyone possibly care. From my experience, private urban office buildings tend to be cleaner and better maintained than government offices.
An anonymous quote from an employee at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
"Let me give you the honest truth: A lot of FMCS employees don't do a hell of a lot, including myself. Personally, the reason that I've stayed is that I just don't feel like working that hard, plus the location on K Street is great, plus we all have these oversized offices with windows, plus management doesn't seem to care if we stay out at lunch a long time. Can you blame me?"
This is actually the least of the problems in the agency -- fraud appears to be rampant. The Washington Examiner has a five part series.
On October 31, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a speech at the National Press Club, "If Congress doesn't step up to act to protect some of these important places that have been identified by communities and people throughout the country, then the President will take action. There's no question that if Congress doesn't act, we will." Jewell was referring to designating huge swaths of public lands as National Monuments. When she calls on Congress to “step up,” she may be ignoring that local citizens, including some recreationists and businesses near public lands where Wilderness or other special designations are being considered, may not support such action.
Just what we need - even more land that the Department of Interior can block with gates and guards next time they are unhappy with their budget.
It is an amazing spectacle to see Senators Feinstein and McCain, both A-OK with NSA spying on ordinary American citizens, draw the line at NSA spying on foreign politicians. A reasonable person would say that tapping the German leader's phone is a hell of a lot closer to the NSA's true brief than tapping mine, but our political leaders believe the opposite.
That is because they have come to believe that politicians and government officials are a special class with special rights and privileges. They don't have to follow labor law (Congress is exempt), they don't have to deal with the Obamacare exchanges (Congress is exempt), they don't even have to follow the same laws, like DWI (DC police typically help drunk Congresspersons home rather than arrest them).
Apparently, the public wants to preserve the house where the Apple Computer was born. OK. So is some private non-profit gathering money to buy it and preserve it? Has the local town appropriated money to buy it and take it over?
None of the above. The town is simply designating the house as a landmark, imposing all sorts of new costs on the current owner. This is a taking, and should be treated as such
It doesn't seem like Patricia Jobs, sister of famed Apple co-founder Steve, is exactly onboard with her family home being designated a "historic resource" by the Los Altos Historical Commission. Not that it matters, anyway. According to the San Jose Mercury News, the decision to preserve the one-story home at 2066 Crist Drive where Jobs got a start building the first Apple computers was made independent of her consent. The distinction, which Patricia can still appeal, also means any renovations/repairs to the home would first have to be reviewed by the commission -- so you can understand why the honor's both a blessing and a curse.
If a city government cannot bring itself to end something so obviously abusive as pension spiking, what hope is there of any real reforms on tougher matters? Government employees are increasingly running government in their own favor.
After nearly three hours of contentious debate, Phoenix city leaders were so divided over how to tackle pension “spiking” on Tuesday that they ended up doing nothing at all.
They walked into the City Council chambers prepared to make changes, but after splintering into three ideological factions, voted 5-4 against a plan to combat spiking, generally seen as the artificial inflation of a city employee’s income to boost his or her retirement benefit.
Several high-profile cases have come to light, pushing the effort to eliminate pension boosting to the forefront of the council’s agenda.
Former Phoenix City Manager David Cavazos, who retired last week to lead another city, was able to apply unused sick pay and other perks to spike his pension to an estimated $235,863, the second-largest retirement benefit in city history.
Earlier this month, a subcommittee of council members proposed modest reforms that they said would reduce pension spiking and provide transparency. They said the plan treated existing employees fairly and avoided potential litigation.
But the proposal fell apart Tuesday night, when a group of liberal-leaning council members joined the body’s fiscal conservatives in voting against it, though their rationales were vastly different.
After the motion to approve the proposal failed, the meeting ended. The result, greeted by cheers from employee unions in the crowd
The Florida auditor sitting in my one-man office was shocked to learn I would not be in the rest of the week. I said you scheduled the audit visit for today, so I changed my plans and am in the office today, but leave tomorrow. Apparently she assumed that the audit schedule gave her the right to stay as long as she wanted. She was planning to sit in my office for another 2-5 days. I told her sorry, but if she wanted to book 5 days, she should have booked five days. And by the way, if she had tried in advance to make me sit dormant in my office all week, I would not have agreed to the visit.
This is just insane in an Internet world. Everything she asked for in advance was sent to her electronically. Even though she is sitting right next to me, her requests to me for more data have come by email. I can't figure any reason why she is even here, unless Florida finds it cheaper to fly her around and use other people's offices rather than provide her with one of her own.
By the way, this is fairly typical of a lot of government workers in my experience. If they block a meeting on their calendar for the whole afternoon, they want it to last the whole afternoon. There are a lot of jobs out there where people are most comfortable proving their worth by showing that their calendars are always full.
It took into the mid-1960's for the Federal government to accumulate $328 billion in debt (yeah, I know, nominal dollars). It rose that much in one day last week.
You may be wondering under what authority the government is taking actions during the government shutdown. We had a meeting with the Chief of the US Forest Service on Friday. This is the specific text the Administration is using to justify all of its shutdown actions
(a)(1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not—
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;
(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law;
(C) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation of funds required to be sequestered under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; or
(D) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money required to be sequestered under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
I will leave it as an extra credit exercise for the reader to explain how this text justifies either a) spending extra money to barricade war memorials on the Washington Mall or b) closing privately-funded parks that take not a single dime of government money. All these tests have everything to do with limiting government expenditures, not limiting citizen access to public lands.
We had some delays (in part because the government is taking a holiday from the shutdown today, so everything is REALLY closed) but we file our lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order on the US Forest Service in the morning.
From the Washington Examiner. Because tenants have to be evicted when their landlord goes on paid vacation.
National Park Service officials cited the government shutdown as the reason for ordering an elderly Nevada couple out of their home, which sits on federal land.
"Unfortunately overnight stays are not permitted until a budget is passed and the park can reopen," an NPS spokesman explained to KTNV.
Ralph and Joyce Spencer, aged 80 and 77, respectively, own their home, but the government owns the land on which it sits.
"I had to be sure and get his walker and his scooter that he has to go in," Joyce Spencer told the local news outlet. "We're not hurt in any way except it might cost me if I have to go buy more pants."
Of course, I am in the exact same position
One interesting note - many state parks operate on Federal land using almost exactly the same king of lease contract (called a special use permit) we have to privately operate parks and campgrounds. If private parks with this type of lease with the USFS have to close, shouldn't state parks as well? For example, both Slide Rock SP in Arizona and Burney Falls SP in California operation using the same kind of lease as we do.
Here is my letter to my Congresspersons:
Senator John McCain
Senator Jeff Flake
Representative David Schweikert
Help! Administration Orders Shut Down of Privately-Operated Parks in National Forest
Parks that require no Federal money, and actually pay rent to the Treasury, are being required to close
My company, based in North Phoenix, operates over 100 US Forest Service campgrounds and day use areas under concession contract. Yesterday, as in all past government shutdowns, the Department of Agriculture and US Forest Service confirmed we would stay open during the government shutdown. This makes total sense, since our operations are self-sufficient (we are fully funded by user fees at the gate), we get no federal funds, we employ no government workers on these sites, and we actually pay rent into the Treasury.
However, today, we have been told by senior member of the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture that people “above the department”, which I presume means the White House, plan to order the Forest Service to needlessly and illegally close all private operations. I can only assume their intention is to artificially increase the cost of the shutdown as some sort of political ploy.
The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation.
I urge you to help stop the Administration from lawlessly taking arbitrary and illegal actions to artificially worsen the shutdown by hurting innocent hikers and campers. I am not asking you to restore any funding, because no funding is required to keep these operations open. I am asking that the Administration be required to only close government services that actually require budget resources.
I mentioned in an earlier article that the Administration is threatening to close US Forest Service parks it does not even fund or run, privately operated parks that happen to have the Federal government as a landlord. In fact, in our case, we pay the US Forest Service between 8 and 22 percent of revenues as a concession fee, so by threatening to close us it is costing them, not saving them extra money.
National Park Officials closed down the educational Claude Moore Colonial Farm near the CIA in McLean, Va., even though the federal government doesn't fund or staff the park popular with children and schools. Just because the privately-operated park is on Park Service land, making the federal government simply its landlord, the agency decided to close it.
A Claude Moore Colonial Farm official said that the privately-funded staff is on the job Wednesday, but barred from letting anybody visit the historically accurate buildings or animals. Anna Eberly, the managing director, sent out an email decrying the decision and rude National Park Service staff handling the closure.
Pointing to Park Service claims that parks have to be closed because the agency can’t afford staff during the government closure, Eberly wrote: “What utter crap. We have operated the Farm successfully for 32 years after the NPS cut the Farm from its budget in 1980 and are fully staffed and prepared to open today. But there are barricades at the Pavilions and entrance to the Farm. And if you were to park on the grass and visit on your own, you run the risk of being arrested. Of course, that will cost the NPS staff salaries to police the Farm against intruders while leaving it open will cost them nothing.”
She added: “In all the years I have worked with the National Park Service, first as a volunteer for six years in Richmond where I grew up, then as an NPS employee at the for eight very long years and now enjoyably as managing director for the last 32 years — I have never worked with a more arrogant, arbitrary and vindictive group representing the NPS. I deeply apologize that we have to disappoint you today by being closed but know that we are working while the National Park Service is not — as usual.”
This is purely political -- it costs rather than saves the government money.
For several days now I have been highlighting article after article (here and here) where the only service downside of the government shutdown anyone can come up with is the closure of parks. Here is another example, from the AP entitled "Lawmakers feeling heat from Government Shutdown". Its all parks:
Some 800,000 federal workers deemed nonessential were staying home again Wednesday in the first partial shutdown since the winter of 1995-96.
Across the nation, America roped off its most hallowed symbols: the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, the Statue of Liberty in New York, Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, the Washington Monument.
Its natural wonders — the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Smoky Mountains and more — put up “Closed” signs and shooed campers away.
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said he was getting pleas from businesses that rely on tourists. “The restaurants, the hotels, the grocery stores, the gasoline stations, they’re all very devastated with the closing of the parks,” he said.
The far-flung effects reached France, where tourists were barred from the U.S. cemetery overlooking the D-Day beaches at Normandy. Twenty-four military cemeteries abroad have been closed.
Only 22,000 of those 800,000 run parks. Apparently none of the others do anything we will miss. Oh, they come up with one new one:
Even fall football is in jeopardy. The Defense Department said it wasn’t clear that service academies would be able to participate in sports, putting Saturday’s Army vs. Boston College and Air Force vs. Navy football games on hold, with a decision to be made Thursday.
Eek! I joke about this but I fear that today this is going to bite me right in the butt. Our company operates campgrounds on land we lease from the US Forest Service. Since we pay all expenses of the operation, take no government money, and employ no government workers, we have never closed in a shutdown and the US Forest Service confirmed at noon yesterday we would not have to close this time. But apparently someone above the US Forest Service somewhere in the Administration is proposing to reverse this, and illegally close us. My guess is that they realize parks are the only thing the public misses, and so the Administration trying to see if it can close more of them, even ones that are operated privately and off the government budget.
Update: This is very similar to what is happening in DC. By trying to close us, the USFS is actually costing themselves more money (since we pay rent to them based on our revenues) with the only goal being to make the closure worse. The Administration has ordered the same thing to occur in DC parks, where they are spending far more money "closing" monuments than they do just having them open all the time
Yesterday, the sight of a group of World War II veterans storming the barricaded monument built in their honor in Washington, D.C., became the buzzworthy moment from the first day of our federal shutdown. The open-air, unmanned outdoor memorial had been barricaded to keep people from "visiting" due to the government shutdown, though there was no real (as in “non-political”) reason to have done so. Barricades certainly wouldn’t prevent vandals from busting in there at night if they wanted to. It was an absurd, petty move.
This morning, Charlie Spiering of the Washington Examiner returned to the memorial to find a gaggle of “essential” government workers there to barricade it once again. He tweeted that the employees fled after cameras started filming them working, but then came back to attach “closed” signs. A couple of them appear to be talking to the media. The barricades are apparently there, but have not been tied together and are therefore easily removed.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said it will close its offices at 1:30 p.m. Other agencies, such as the Labor Department, expect most employees to be gone by mid-day, but haven't set a specific time.
Once they head home, furloughed employees are under strict orders not to do any work. That means no sneaking glances at Blackberries or smart phones to check emails, no turning on laptop computers, no checking office voicemail, and no use of any other government-issued equipment.
This is not good management. This is not good government. This a the management equivalent of a tantrum thrown by a four-year-old. We'll show them! Any private white collar workers who feel they are truly off the clock when they are at home and under no obligation to make sure all is going well in their assigned area of responsibility should tell us all where they work in the comments below.
If you signed up for Obamacare, and then suddenly had a ton of spam in your email box trying to sell you stuff tailored to your pre-existing health conditions and other private health information, you would be pissed, right?
In the last two months my email box has been overrun with spam from people try to "help" me re-register for the government contractor data base, like this one:
I am registered merely because I have one tiny contract to clean bathrooms in California and I cannot get paid unless I am in the system. I checked my settings in the various government systems to confirm that yes, indeed, I had set it to not display my information publicly. But that does not seem to do a bit of good. Everyone on the planet seems to have my email, my name, and my account expiration dates and CAGE code. Wonderful.
I wrote earlier that the only downside the AP could find with the looming shutdown were National Park closures. I am not exaggerating. It is the only thing they have. Here is the CNN site about 45 minutes before midnight. I added the red arrow
As I wrote earlier, the only other function the 800,000 to-be-furloughed government employees seem to have is drawing a paycheck. Clicking on the article above the parks article entitled "multibillion$$ hit", we find absolutely no hint that these employees do anything of economic value or that their lost work will hurt the economy. The only thing that they apparently usefully do is spend tax money
A government shutdown could cost the still-struggling U.S. economy roughly $1 billion a week in pay lost by furloughed federal workers. And that's only the tip of the iceberg....
The total economic impact is likely to be at least 10 times greater than the simple calculation of wages lost by federal workers, said Brian Kessler, economist with Moody's Analytics. His firm estimates that a three to four week shutdown will cost the economy about $55 billion.
Really? There is a 10x Keynesian multiplier on these people's paychecks? I would sure love to see what kinds of stuff they spend money on because I have never heard of a number that absurdly high.
What else can they think of to worry about beyond these lost paychecks? Only one other specific is mentioned in the article. Get ready for it -- the national parks will close!
Many federal contractors will also have to cut back on staffing if they don't get the business they normally do from the government. There's also a large variety of businesses that depend on the government to conduct their normal operations -- tourism businessesthat depend on national parks staying open, for example.
So there you have it. The government shutdown does two things: It closes the national parks and lays off 800,000 people who apparently do no valuable work (other than keep parks open!) but who have the highest Keynesian multipliers on their spending of any individuals in the nation.
First, you did not read the title wrong. A government shutdown means only about a third of the government actually shuts down. But the more amazing thing is that given multiple opportunities to name what we would lose if this one third goes away, all anyone can name is parks. This is from a Q&A by the Associated Press via Zero Hedge, which says we would lose parks and have some delays in new disability applications and, uh, we would lose parks.
About one-third of the government will shut down. About 800,000 of about 2.1 million federal employees will be sent home without pay. National parks will close.
NASA will continue to keep workers at Mission Control in Houston and elsewhere to support the International Space station, where two Americans and four other people live. Aside from that only about 3 percent of NASA's 18,000 workers will keep working.
The military and other agencies involving safety and security would continue to function. These include air traffic controllers, border patrol and law enforcement officers. Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits payments would continue, but there could be delays in processing new disability applications.
A partial shutdown that lasts no more than a few days wouldn't likely nick the economy much. But if the shutdown were to persist for two weeks or more, the economy would likely begin to slow, economists say.
Extended closures of national parks would hurt hotels, restaurants and other tourism-related businesses. Delays in processing visas for overseas visitors could interrupt trade. And the one-third of the federal workforce that lost pay would cut back on spending, thereby slowing growth.
So there you have it -- we lay off 800,000 government workers and the only two losses the AP can come up with is that national parks will close and those 800,000 people will have less to spend. Since the NPS employs about 22,000 people, this means that the other 778,000 have a contribution to the economy that consists mainly of drawing and then spending a salary?
I would love to see the government shutdown rules modified to add National Parks to the critical assets that remain open in a shutdown, since this seems the only thing anyone cares about. Then it would be fascinating to see how the downside of the shutdown would be spun. I can see the headlines now. "AP: Millions of TPS reports go unfiled".
Update: My company runs parks under concession contract in the National Forest and for other government agencies. In all previous shutdowns, we have remained open, since we pay money into the government budget rather than draw money out, and since the parks we operate employ no government workers. This time, though, we are starting to get notices we have to shut down too. This may be an attempt by the administration to artificially make the shutdown worse than it needs to be. I will update you as I learn more.
I am just floored at the political incompetence of the Republicans in Congress. Conservatives are arguing that it is all about how the media unfairly makes Republicans the bad guys in all budget fights, and I think there is some truth in that. But this was something that was known in advance, and which could be planned for. I am not a political expert, but if the press really creates a messaging headwind for Republicans, then that means that they need to begin early and push often on a consistent message.
I thought the attempt to roll back Obamacare altogether was an absurd overreach that was merely attempted to help Congressmen head off primary challenges from the Right. But even so, the GOP only settled on this approach to the budget battle at the absolute last minute. What they really needed to do was pick a realistic item they were going to fight for, all agree to it 3-4 weeks ago, and then press like hell at every opportunity on the message for that one thing.
Now even political insiders can't name what is in the mish mash bill the House sent yesterday to the Senate. I know it has a one year individual mandate delay (just in time to bail the Administration out of dire implementation issues) and a few other random things. Of COURSE Republicans are going to lose the messaging war when they have not even bothered to message at all, even to those of us who could be convinced to start cutting government almost anywhere.
Dave Weigel notes a conundrum today: according to a new poll, 54 percent of the public disapproves of Barack Obama's handling of the deficit. And yet, as the chart on the right shows, the deficit is shrinking dramatically. Last year it dropped by $200 billion, and this year, thanks to a recovering economy, lower spending from the sequester, and the increased taxes in the fiscal cliff deal, it's projected to fall another $450 billion.
Weigel notes that this has deprived conservative yakkers of one of their favorite applause lines: "You don't hear Republicans lulz-ing at Obama for failing to 'cut the deficit in half in my first four years,' because he basically did this, albeit in four and a half." That's true. It's also true that contrary to Republican orthodoxy, it turns out that raising taxes on the rich does bring in higher revenues and therefore reduces the deficit.
The logic here is that Obama has been diligent about cutting the deficit, so therefore Republicans are wrong to try to use the debt ceiling and continuing resolution as a vehicle for forcing more cuts.
It is just possible that a person from another planet landing today might buy this story, but how can anyone who has lived through the last 5 years read this without laughing their butts off? Every one of Obama's budgets have been dead on arrival, even within his own party, because they have raised spending to such stupid levels. There has not been even a hint of fiscal responsibility in them. And the Democratic Senate has passed one budget in something like five years**.
The only fiscal discipline at all has come from the Republican House, and they have only had success in keeping these deficit down by ... using continuing resolutions and debt ceilings as bargaining chips. This is the President that treated the almost insignificant sequester as if it were the end of the world, and now these sycophants from team Donkey are giving Obama the credit for the deficit reduction?
PS- This is not an advocacy for Republicans as much as for divided government. The Republicans when they had years of controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress under Bush II did zero to get our fiscal house in order and in fact with the Iraq war and Medicare part D, among other things, showed a profligacy that belies their current pious words.
PPS- Kevin Drum needs to have the balls not to play both sides of the street. He has made it clear in other articles that he thinks it is an economic disaster that the government is spending so little right now. When he shows a deficit reduction chart, if he were consistent, he should be saying that Republicans suck for forcing this kind of deficit reduction against Obama's better judgement and we need the deficit to go back up. Have the courage of your convictions. Instead, he plays team loyalty rather than intellectual consistency, crediting Obama for deficit reduction while at the same time hammering Republicans for austerity. Dude, its one or the other.
PPPS- For the first time during this Presidency, both the President and both house of Congress offered a budget:
[The] House passed a budget calling for spending $3.5 trillion in 2014, the Senate passed one calling for $3.7 trillion, and Obama submitted one calling for $3.77 trillion
So the actor that submitted the highest budget gets the credit for deficit reduction?
This morning I received yet another mandatory survey from the US Census Bureau. I have written about these before. We have to fill out the Census lodging survey (a long and tedious detailed financial report) as well as a myriad of other Department of Labor and Commerce surveys. Where I can legally, I throw them away. If I risk prison not filling it out, I do so reluctantly.**
So this morning I got the Survey of Business Owners and Self-Employed Persons (SBO). Apparently the SBO comes out every five years. It's got a big MANDATORY stamped on it so with a sigh I started it up online to get it over with.
The survey was mercifully short, but it was bizarre. After asking me my address, it asked how many owners there were, and then for each owned asked his or her race and gender. And that was it. Suddenly the survey was over, particularly quickly for me because I always refuse to answer race questions on surveys.
But that is the sum total of what the government wants to know about business owners - race and gender and nothing else matters I guess.
** I know I always engender outraged comments over this. I refuse to supply the government with data that they will use to pass new laws to make my life harder or take more of my money. As for economists and academics, they are welcome to pay me for the effort of filling this out but I should not be obligated to labor for their benefit.
Yesterday I challenged a graph by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones as being a disingenuous attempt to paint US government spending as some sort of crazed austerity program which is making the recovery worse. He uses this graph to "prove" that our fiscal response to this recession is weak vis a vis past recessions. The graph is a bit counter-intuitive -- note that it begins at the end of each recession. His point is that Keynesian spending needs to continue long after (five years ?!) after the recession is over to guarantee a good recovery, and that we have not done that.
For anyone not steeped in the special reality of the reality-based community, it is a bit counter intuitive for those of us who have actually lived through the last 5 years to call government spending austere.
The key is in the dates he selects. He leaves out the actual recession years. So by his chart, responses that are late and occur after the recession look better than responses that are fast and large but happen during the recession. This seems odd, but it is the conclusion one has to draw.
I took roughly the same data and started each line two years earlier, so that my first year is two years ahead of his graph and the zero year in my graph is the same as the zero point in Drum's chart. His data is better in the sense that he has quarterly data and I only have annual. Mine is better in that it looks at changes in spending as a percentage of GDP, which I would guess would be the more relevant Keynesian metric (it also helps us correct for the chicken and egg problem of increased government spending being due to, rather than causing, economic expansion).
Here are the results (I tried to use roughly the same colors for the same data series, but who in the world with the choice of the entire color pallet uses two almost identical blues?)
You can see that Drum makes spending look lower in the current recession by carefully dating the data series to the peak of the spending, rather than comparing it to pre-recession levels. The right hand scale is the difference in government spending as a percentage of GDP from the -2 year. So, for example, in the current recession government spending was 34.2% in 2007 and 41.4% in 2009 for a reading of 7.2% in year 0.
Even with the flat spending over the last three or four years in the current recession (flat nominal spending leads do a declining percent of GDP) the spending increase from pre-recession levels is still about twice as high as in other recent recessions.
Does this look like austerity to anyone?
Update: OK, I pulled together the data and did what Drum should have done, is take the graph back to pre-recession levels. Shouldn't it be even better if the increase in spending came during the recession rather than after? See update here.
Kevin Drum complains about US government austerity (I know, I know, only some cocooned progressive could describe recent history as austerity, but let's deal with his argument). He uses this chart to "prove" that we have been austere vs. other recessions, and thus austerity helps explain why recovery from this recession has been particularly slow. Here is his chart
This is absurdly disingenuous. Why? Simple -- it is impossible to evaluate post recession spending without looking at what spending did during the recession. All these numbers begin after the recession is over. But what if, in the current recession, we increased spending much more than in other recessions. We would still be at a higher level vs. pre-recession spending now, despite a lack of further increases after the recession.
In the time before this chart even starts, total state, local, Federal spending increased from 2007 to 2008 by 10.2%. It increased another 11.1 % from 2008 to 2009. So he starts the chart at the peak, only AFTER spending had increased in response to the recession by 22.5%. Had he started the chart at the correct date and not at a self-serving one, my guess is that it would have shown that in this recession we increased spending more than any other recent recession, not less. So went digging for some data.
I actually have a day job, so I don't have time to create a chart of total government spending since 1981, so I will look at just Federal spending, but it makes my point. I scavenged this chart from Factcheck.org. The purple bars are the year that each of Drum's data series begin plus the year prior (which is excluded from Drum's chart). Essentially the growth in spending between the two purple lines is the growth left out just ahead of when Drum started each data series in his chart. The chart did not go back to 1981 so I could not do that year.
Hopefully, you can see why I say that Drum is disingenuous for not going back to pre-recession numbers. In this case, you can see the current recession has an unprecedented pop in spending in the year before Drum starts his data series, so it is not surprising that post recession spending might be flatter (remember, the pairs of purple lines are essentially the change in spending the year before each of Drum's data series). In fact, it is very clear that relative to the pre-recession year of 2008 (really 2007, but I will give him a small break), even after 5 years of "austerity" our federal spending as a percent of GDP will be far higher than in any other recession he considers. In no previous recession in this era did post recession spending end up more than 2 points higher (as a percent of GDP) than pre-recession levels. In this recession, we are likely to end up 4-5 points higher.
By the way, isn't it possible that he has cause and effect reversed? He argues that post-recession recovery was faster in other recessions because government spending kept increasing over five years after the recession is over. But isn't it just possible that the truth is the reverse -- that government spending increased more rapidly after other recessions because recovery was faster, thus increasing tax revenues. Congress then promptly spent the new revenues on new toys.
Let's look at the same chart, highlighted in a different way. I will circle the 4-5 years included in each of Drum's data series:
You can see that despite the fact that government spending in these prior recessions was increasing in real terms, it was falling in two our of three of them as a percentage of GDP (the third increased due to war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq, spending which I, and I suspect Drum, would hesitate to call stimulative, particular since he and others at the time called it a jobless recovery).
How can it be that spending was increasing but falling as a percent of GDP? Because the GDP was growing really fast, faster than government spending. This does not prove my point, but is a good indicator that recovery is likely leading spending increases, rather than the other way around.