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 |
| 2001 | 22,655.93 | 33,396.95 | N/A |
| 2002 | 23,289.78 | 33,617.37 | 0.70% |
| 2003 | 23,011.62 | 32,046.56 | -4.70% |
| 2004 | 23,331.77 | 31,350.89 | -2.20% |
| 2005 | 24,846.98 | 31,610.59 | 0.80% |
| 2006 | 26,592.20 | 31,811.76 | 0.60% |
| 2007 | 29,913.92 | 34,194.83 | 7.50% |
| 2008 | 31,694.42 | 34,213.72 | 0.10% |
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.
| 1992 | 1,857.9 | 1997 | 1,916.1 |
| 1993 | 1,845.5 | 1998 | 1,958.8 |
| 1994 | 1,878.9 | 1999 | 1,989.5 |
| 1995 | 1,896.6 | 2000 | 2,040.5 |
| 1996 | 1,906.7 | 2001 | 2,072.6 |
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.
- Comment (65)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
Um, no. Here are the numbers.Table 1.
Or Figure 1 right here.
There's some nice consolation prizes at the door.
Jul '10
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
For an illustrative support of Gingrich's accomplishments in Congress and as Speaker, from yet again another Reagan staffer, please do read this piece.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
Michael Tee: Um, no. Here are the numbers.Table 1.
Or Figure 1 right here.
There's some nice consolation prizes at the door. · Jan 1 at 2:57pm
Did you look at your numbers before posting? These are the numbers at your link, table one, Mitt's years bolded:
2002 $19,115
2003 $18,666
2004 $18,748
2005 $20,670
2006 $21,795
They are lower, because they are of state spending net of the federal spending spent through the state, but they suggest bigger cuts. For example, there's a 2.35% cut in nominal terms in the first year, as opposed to a 1.12% nominal cut on the numbers I posted. I'm assuming from your hostility you didn't mean to say that my numbers were insufficiently kind to Mitt. What did you mean to say?
Edited on January 2, 2012 at 12:47amApr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
I agree that the budget was balanced, that non-defense discretionary spending was cut, in nominal terms, for a single year (FY95). You'll note in the OMB numbers that the year was his best. In other years, as the article sorta notes/ sorta hides, he cut defense heavily. The final impact of this was that the spending went up every year. The budget balanced because they took more money in. One of the things that your link to Onema notes is that Mitt's big cuts were coming during a downturn in the economy, while Newt's increases were fueled by a bubble, a time when even Keynes would have been calling for cuts (and when fewer demands are made on the public fisc, as unemployment is lower).
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
Incidentally, the reason the piece can make Newt look like a cutter, rather than someone under whom spending went up faster than it did under the period of Clinton's term before Newt became speaker, is because it's not looking at the bald numbers, but instead chooses to cherry pick (the selection of a single fiscal year is particularly highly focused). This is why the totals, the actual results, are important.
Newt was terrific at telling people how much he cut, at being viewed by both sides, at a distance, as a radical right winger, as he constantly promised and proclaimed his intent to make savage, "heartless" attacks. He is not remembered as a deep cutter by the actual conservatives he betrayed, hence the hostility. It's worth going back and reminding people of the reality that Mark Steyn and others have been talking about colorfully, and examining it in a duller, more objective, way.
May '10
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
More on Romney's record from Powerline:
http://tinyurl.com/7xd9w3o
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
ParisParamus: More on Romney's record from Powerline:
http://tinyurl.com/7xd9w3o · Jan 1 at 4:52pm
My favorite bit from the quoted Club For Growth report is about his deregulating the auto insurance mandates. The CATO institute gets upset with him because his lowering of some taxes, while increasing fees for business services to market rates and others to allow for inflation (guns being the exception; the legislature pushed up the fees more over Mitt's objection, so Mitt upgraded the term of the license, such that it would not have to be renewed for 6 years).
May '10
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
The perfect is the enemy of the good--especially when the perfect only exists in RPGs and/or in the blogosphere.
Edited on January 2, 2012 at 2:17amApr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
ParisParamus: The perfect is the enemy of the good--especially when the perfect only exists in RPGs and/or in the blogosphere. · Jan 1 at 5:16pm
Edited on Jan 01 at 05:17 pm
It's difficult to know what perfect is in this context. It's not just Perry who looks bad in spending comparisons you linked to. Daniels, Jeb, Barbor, Hoeven... all the governors people are talking about as white knights got ranked lower in the CATO survey.
Jun '10
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
James, do you think that the jobs were similarly difficult? Mitt vs. Newt? State budget vs. federal budget? Were you confused about what proponents were saying about Newt?
Could Mitt have done better than Newt in the same time period?
James Of England
...
... He is not remembered aw4s a deep cutter by the actual conservatives he betrayed, hence the hostility. It's worrth going back and reminding people of the reality that Mark Steyn and others have been talking about colorfully, and examining it in a duller, more objective, way.
This is the first I've heard that conservatives were betrayed. Like getting the House and the Senate in Republicans' hands? Big betrayal.
Nope, that's not it, Larry. They were betrayed by Newt because he didn't have bigger surpluses. He didn't cut enough and it was all defense spending cuts. Odd history you come up with. Betrayal it is now? Anyone could have done it better. Especially Mitt? Oh, if only he had had the chance.
May '10
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
HWGA!
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
Larry Koler: James, do you think that the jobs were similarly difficult? Mitt vs. Newt? State budget vs. federal budget? Were you confused about what proponents were saying about Newt?
Could Mitt have done better than Newt in the same time period?
This was why I included the federal budget from before Newt as a comparison; you can tell that it was possible to be more conservative on spending, because the Democrats before him were more conservative (not on rhetoric; no one would be more sweeping in rhetoric until Obama came along: "I have an enormous personal ambition, I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it.... The ambitions that this city focuses on are trivial if you're a historian. Who cares?" Remind you of anyone?)
Do you think that the OMB figures are inaccurate, or that I have portrayed them inaccurately? Do you think that the economy was doing better from 90-94 than when Newt was there? Was Clinton more conservative prior to the Contract than after? What excuse do you have for Newt?
Whether Mitt would have done better is more complicated, but in their fields Mitt cut heroically, Newt more averagely.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
Larry Koler:
James Of England
...
... He is not remembered as a deep cutter by the actual conservatives he betrayed, hence the hostility. It's worrth going back and reminding people of the reality that Mark Steyn and others have been talking about colorfully, and examining it in a duller, more objective, way.
This is the first I've heard that conservatives were betrayed. Like getting the House and the Senate in Republicans' hands? Big betrayal.
Nope, that's not it, Larry. They were betrayed by Newt because he didn't have bigger surpluses. He didn't cut enough and it was all defense spending cuts. Odd history you come up with. Betrayal it is now? Anyone could have done it better. Especially Mitt? Oh, if only he had had the chance. ·
You must have picked up on the anger of those who served with Newt, who achieved little of their aims (other than "balance a budget by riding a bubble" and welfare reform), no?
He did take part in one stunning victory (as did Paul and Santorum, and many, many others), but then consistently chose drama and personal glory over actual conservative progress, losing his other two elections before collapse.
Nov '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
So you think a 1990s-variety, left-leaning Mitt Romney would have cut more as Speaker of the House than hard-driving, Contract for America-era Newt Gingrich?
I don't think that's very believable. Gingrich is hated today for taking on tax-raising and spending Republican leaders like George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Bob Michel, and Alan Simpson who were not nearly as liberal as Romney was in the 1990s when he refused to offer any past support for Ronald Reagan -- the presidential candidate who twice carried the state of Massachusetts.
This sounds more like lies, damned lies, and statistics...
(Governor Romney seems like a very fine person, but let's not go crazy in trying to rewrite history. It doesn't help his case.)
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
The Cloaked Gaijin: So you think a 1990s-variety, left-leaning Mitt Romney would have cut more as Speaker of the House than hard-driving, Contract for America-era Newt Gingrich?
I don't think that's very believable. Gingrich is hated today for taking on tax-raising and spending Republican leaders like George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Bob Michel, and Alan Simpson who were not nearly as liberal as Romney was in the 1990s when he refused to offer any past support for Ronald Reagan -- the presidential candidate who twice carried the state of Massachusetts.
This sounds more like lies, damned lies, and statistics...
Gingrich is hated by the left for those reasons, and maybe by Dole. The reason he's hated by the congressmen on the right is because it turned out to be hot air. The agencies weren't abolished, but grew. The only time Gingrich impacted the size of the Cabinet was when he supported the department of Veteran's Affair's.
The Peter Robinson Reagan disavowal argument is an important one, but only goes so far; it's particularly problematic regarding spending, as Reagan was even less successful than Gingrich at this.
Continued, below:
Edited on January 2, 2012 at 7:32amMay '10
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
The Cloaked Gaijin: So you think a 1990s-variety, left-leaning Mitt Romney would have cut more as Speaker of the House than hard-driving, Contract for America-era Newt Gingrich?
I don't think that's very believable. Gingrich is hated today for taking on tax-raising and spending Republican leaders like George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Bob Michel, and Alan Simpson who were not nearly as liberal as Romney was in the 1990s when he refused to offer any past support for Ronald Reagan -- the presidential candidate who twice carried the state of Massachusetts.
..................
Uh, Gaijin, the point is that Newt didn't particularly need to cut, so he didn't. The numbers are not lying with statistics, they are straightforward.
And who cares what Romney said in the 1990's? I care what he did in the 2000's. Which was a lot more than Newt did.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
The debate was a big deal, but if you look at the classic hit piece, you see him being, for various reasons, kind of a squish on social stuff.
Watch other clips from that debate and you'll see him making the same federalist argument against federal healthcare he makes today, along with a free market argument.
Same debate, again, watch him making the argument against bringing money home to Massachusetts, because Massachusetts should be relying on its private sector and not sending the money to the feds.
Same debate, welfare reform.
Same debate, immigration, calling for more efforts to cut off benefits to immigrants and to step up deportations.
At more length (20 minute speech, in two parts) during the 1994 campaign, you'll see him advocate welfare reform, tougher sentencing, and more free market, small government stuff. Also, praising Herman Cain.
He didn't run as the social conservative he's become (although it's easy to overstate that transition), but he was four square behind cutting government in 1994, along with every other stage in his career, and every other race.
When he talks about taking a strong moral stance, even today, it's generally on spending.
Edited on January 2, 2012 at 7:34amApr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
The Cloaked Gaijin: So you think a 1990s-variety, left-leaning Mitt Romney would have cut more as Speaker of the House than hard-driving, Contract for America-era Newt Gingrich?
I don't think that's very believable. Gingrich is hated today for taking on tax-raising and spending Republican leaders like George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Bob Michel, and Alan Simpson
Again, Newt wasn't just hated by moderates, but also by conservatives. Even if he was hated by moderates, though, this would be more of an explanation for why the Contract failed so spectacularly, for why the agencies to be destroyed all grew so fast, than an argument that the straightforward numbers lie.
Likewise, to put things the other way, I think that if Newt had been governor of Massachusetts, spending would have gone up dramatically; he couldn't have won on spending against a vetoproof legislature and would instead have found projects he liked, whether laptops for kids and poor people or brain science. Global warming would have been fought hard.
But these are counter-factuals, unknowable. What we do know is that each in their own ways tried to cut spending, and one succeeded.
Dec '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
James, I have a somewhat 'subjective' question, but am curious to know if you share my opinion. What Would The Market Do if Romney won the White House?
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Actually Cut Spending, In Real Terms. Newt Did Not.
I think that Mitt is very heavily focused on avoiding a Greek/ European outcome. It's why he's combining large and specific spending cuts with little in the way of tax cuts, with those tax cuts that do exist aiming towards middle class saving and investment. Tax cuts are great for shaking things up; America, in the long term, needs things shaken up, fiscally. Right now, with the prospect of a serious global crash hanging over us, America needs spending cuts, stability, predictability, and strength. Even measures that increase short term deficits represent a terrible threat.
Ever since I made most of my (London) City contacts in the Fall of 2008, they've been worrying, but the worrying has increased again over the last year. It's my sense that America was going to be responsible again would pull in a lot of money seeking safe harbors. That said, we really don't know what the global economy will be like in November, or 2013.