Hey, here is one way to get more voter support

[kandrathe]

The graph really shows that the largest correlation to increasing spending (since 1980) is having a Democratic house of representatives.

No. The best correlation to increased spending is clearly, obviously, having a Republican president. Are we forgetting that correlation is not causation?

I was going to suggest (for recent history) it was more a combination of a Democratic House (initiates spending bills) and a Republican executive (Commander in Chief) -- with the highest spending outcomes based on one side wanting increased social services, and the other higher levels of international militarism, where the compromise is that both sides get what they want for spending, however the smoke and mirrors on the revenue side never seem to work out correctly.

A Historical Perspective on Defense Budgets from the Center for American Progress (not the conservative camp).

Also, you really need to stop truncating your time periods in this way. Very convenient that 1980 is your starting point, the moment after Democrats had just consistently presided over 25 years of the largest real debt reduction in US history - until a rather famous Republican president, backed by the Senate for the first time in ages, declared "morning in America."

1980 is actually a pivotal year in the US socially and economically (both a political and business cycle endpoint). The 70's were a decade of transition, with oil price shocks and social upheavals from the late 60's rippling throughout various social systems. And... the period of Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon was monumentally different from that of Ronald Reagan or GHW Bush, or GW Bush. Historical context is well and good, but the economy of the early 1900's is mostly incomparable to today's world economy. Adding in the periods from 1930's to 1945, or 1945 to 1954 had unique issues due to the depression and WWII.

That leaves that period from 1954 to 1980, which other than the military spending spikes for Korea(1954 $421B ), and Vietnam (1968 $450B) -- the federal budget (and deficit) has reflected a mostly flat $300B military budget, with variations due to business cycles (impacting tax revenue). I think the other difference is that the Democrats and Republican parties have shifted vastly from what they were during the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon time period. After the 1968 Democratic convention, the party made significant changes to the way in which party delegates are allocated to states which significantly changed the center of power to the national party. This has heavily impacted their choice of a presidential nominee starting with Carter, and it also caused many southern Democrats to switch sides altering the Republican Party composition and direction. Couple those changes with the sluggish economy during Carter's term, and Reagan's personality, and we find an almost even divide in the party affiliation of the electorate (I'd call it almost a third Democrat, a third independent, and a third Republican).

Prior to Reagan, federal defense spending had been more tied to the military-industrial-congress complex, which had been then a more Democratic institution. The disturbing trend since Reagan is that now that portion of the electorate concerned with the power and expense of federal militarism is diminished. As a fiscal conservative (and minimalist government advocate), I find it ironic that one area of overlap I have with my most progressive radical friends is that we spend too much on our military. There is no party in the US that would embrace either my, nor their view.

The president can effectively lead to higher spending (as Reagan and GWB did), or lower spending (as Eisenhower did). They can also not lead, and go with the flow of Congress on spending, which is what I feel most of them do. So, ultimately I reject the direct linkage of presidents to spending, other than that the buck stopped with their veto, or lack of one. But, we've seen recently the politics of brinkmanship with budgets. It's not heading cats, it's like washing cats. Everyone gets hurt, angry, and the cat thought it was in charge of bathing itself.

There are points to be made about everything in the political spectrum, I just hope we can discuss it with reason, not with our party blinders on.

I guess one of my bigger pet peeves are when we toss around blame for something without qualification. Yes, I will hold GWB accountable for many of the things that occurred during his tenure as President, but he didn't act alone either. We need to look at how good, or bad ideas become policy before we can then judge them with our 20/20 hindsight. Similarly, we should be holding Mr. Obama up to the same standard of scrutiny.