Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
I've developed a sense that while Mitt is recognized to be interested in cutting spending, he is seen as having been half-hearted in office. I have even seen this moderation contrasted with Newt's Contract With America. As we haven't seen a federal spending cut as radical as Mitt's cuts in Massachusetts since the Depression, this seems hard to fathom.
As such, I thought it was worth laying out the actual figures. Here's Mitt's record on spending in Massachusetts, according to SunshineReview.com. SunshineReview took its figures from the Massachusetts Budget And Policy Centre website, which I would encourage people to explore: it has a lot of detail on where those cuts took place. "Real" spending means spending in constant dollars as opposed to nominal spending which does not adjust for inflation. Mitt's budgets are bolded.
|Fiscal Year||Nominal Government Spending||Real Government Spending||Real Change from Prior Year|
Compare, for instance, Newt's Contract with America, according to the Office of Management and Budget, in 2005 dollars, again including surrounding years with Newt's years as Speaker bolded.
For Perry's budgets, see here. I don't include them because I don't think they are a fair comparison: Texas was growing its population fast and needed more spending. Also, I didn't find them in real terms, only nominal. Santorum, Bachmann and Paul cannot be blamed for their budgets, having little influence over even one chamber of one branch. I have not included Huntsman's terrible record on spending as it seems like needless cruelty. I do include the change over the two Congressional terms before Gingrich took over, as I believe it is responsive to the claim that federal spending cannot be restrained any better than Newt managed to restrain it.
If you want a bigger chart than I could upload to Ricochet (having some issues), there is one here.