Debt Free

Lord knows many have tried. These days President Bush's popularity is at, to put it mildly, pretty low levels. There are many reasons for this, and I'm not going to analyze any of them. He has spent historic amounts of money (Yours!) and expanded many social programs to unprecedented levels. In any case, this hasn't done much to buoy his flagging support, either within the Republican party, or without. Just how much has he spent and what kind of popularity ROI has it garnered him? What about past U.S. Presidents popularity? Have they been able to spend enough, in the right areas, to ensure support of the people? Let's find out.

In FY 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, the total outlays for the US government amounted to $1,789,216(million). By 2006, this figure had ballooned to $2,655,435(million). Any way you slice it, that's a bunch of money. Where did we manage to spend this cash? Some of it has been on the war on terror, Iraq, and national defense. The national defense portion accounted for about $123B of the increase. National defense spending rose from $294B to $417B in the 6 fiscal years from FY2000 to FY 2006. Where did the other $672B dollars go? Some of the increased government spending went to internal security. The Department of Homeland Security, and the agencies that now comprise it, spent .7% of the federal budget in FY2000. By FY2006, that had increased to 2.6%, a healthy jump, to be sure.

A large portion of the money has gone towards education. In the last year of the Clinton administration, FY2000, federal spending on education amounted to roughly 1.9% of the federal budget. In FY2006, this rose to 3.5%. That's right, as a percentage of the federal budget, federal education spending went up over 80%! In real terms it actually rose even further, because the total budget rose as well.

Another government agency that doles out money to individuals, the Department of Health and Human Services, experienced a similar budget increase. The DSHS (not to be confused with the DHS!) had their budget increase from 21.4% of the federal budget in FY2000, to 23.1% in FY2006. Again, the actual rise was even greater due to an increase in the total budget.

Although Bush increased funding for the Department for the Department of Labor almost 100% in his first term, he's subsequently reduced that back to levels about where they were under the Clinton administration. Under President Bush, spending on health care (except Medicare) has risen from $136B to $173B. Medicare spending jumped from $209B to $283B between FY2001 and FY2006.

Has Bush's spending on social programs amounted to squat in the mind of the public? Apparently not, if his approval ratings are any indication. As he's spent even more on social programs, his approval ratings have declined. It would be interesting to see how they'd be without our little Middle Eastern diversion. Would he be reaping any popularity dividends then? Have past presidents fared any better?

President Clinton had the highest job approval ratings in recent history. When he left office, his rating was 65%. Ronald Regan was just a tick behind, at 64%. Good ole' Ike sits in 3^rd position at 59%. Keep in mind these are their popularity ratings when they left office, not mid-term. How much did they spend on social programs as a percentage of the federal budget, and did that correlate to their popularity rating? LBJ, a known spender, had an approval rating of only 49% when he left office, but like President Bush, was facing an increasingly unpopular war overseas. How much did LBJ spend, really? As a percentage of the budget, his administration only allocated a maximum of 8.4% to the DHHS. Although this seems low in our “We’ve a program for everyone. Come and get it.” times, it is actually 2-1/2 times what it was only few years earlier, under the Kennedy administration. Where did Johnson spend the federal budget? On the military, of course, at a rate of just about twice what the Bush administration is spending now as a percentage of the federal budget.

Looking at the previously stated figures, it's apparent that President Clinton actually spent less on social programs, as percentage of the federal budget, than does President Bush. It sure didn't seem to hurt his job approval ratings. Regan, almost as popular as Clinton when he left office, actually spent far less on social programs than either Clinton or Bush 43, if the funding level of the DHHS is any indication. Under Regan, the DHHS was allocated between 12 and 13.5% of the federal budget, while under Clinton (17% - 21%) and Bush 43 (23% - 23.5%) it was far higher.

Jimmy Carter, the poster child for poor presidents, had an atrocious job approval rating (34%), and with good reason, if the economic indicators of the time and his foreign policy achievements(?) are any guide. Did he spend money on social programs? Not by today's standards he didn't. The Georgian spent an average amount for the times. In reality he only spent about what his predecessors, Nixon and Ford, spent on social programs. His rating was in the dumper because Joe and Joesphene average resented getting 18% mortgages and suffering through double digit inflation. He would have had to buy higher job approval ratings, but economically, he couldn’t deliver, so he delivered the office of the President to Ronald Regan.

It looks like social spending by an administration has little bearing on the President’s job approval rating. Some have spent comparatively large amounts, but the people still felt like they couldn’t get no satisfaction. On the other hand, some spent  a fairly small amount and the folks loved them. Make of it what you will. All figures provided by the OMB.