Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Governors & Spending: The Numbers
Uniquely for presidential candidates, governors have a fairly directly comparable fiscal record. Going through the data, I was surprised by a few things and wondered if the Ricochetti could explain some matters. I include the top line table here, but you can find the year by year data at usgovernmentspending.com. The numbers are in nominal dollars and cap out at 2015, the last completed year. If anyone wants to explore the (sadly, very ugly) sheet I made this from, I’d really appreciate any error corrections; PM me and I’ll email it to you.
Budgets | Party | First Ran (from 2004) | Governor | State | Spending Growth | |
1 | 1990-1993 | D->R | 2012 | Roemer | Lousiana | 9.33% |
2 | 2004-2007 | R | 2008 | Romney | Mass. | 8.22% |
3 | 2006-2010 | R | 2012 | Huntsman | Utah | 8.17% |
4 | 2000-2007 | R | 2016 | Bush | Florida | 7.97% |
5 | 1995-2003 | R | 2012 | Johnson | New Mexico | 7.29% |
6 | 1998-2002 | R | 2008 | Gilmore | Virginia | 7.26% |
7 | 2003-2011 | D | 2008 | Richardson | New Mexico | 7.26% |
8 | 1987-2001 | R | 2008 | Thompson | Wisconsin | 7.21% |
9 | 1992-2003 | D | 2004 | Dean | Vermont | 6.54% |
10 | 1997-2007 | R | 2008 | Huckabee | Arkansas | 6.41% |
11 | 1999-2007 | D | 2008 | Vilsack | Iowa | 5.66% |
12 | 2001-2016 | R | 2012 | Perry | Texas | 5.65% |
13 | 1995-2006 | R | 2016 | Pataki | New York | 5.11% |
14 | 1995-2001 | R | 2004 | Bush | Texas | 4.79% |
15 | 2003-2011 | R | 2012 | Pawlenty | Minnesota | 4.49% |
16 | 2007-2015 | D | 2016 | O’Malley | Maryland | 2.08% |
17 | 2011-? | R | 2016 | Kasich | Ohio | 0.18% |
18 | 2010-2018 | R | 2016 | Christie | New Jersey | 0.01% |
19 | 2011-? | R | 2016 | Walker | Wisconsin | -0.49% |
20 | 2008-2016 | R | 2016 | Jindal | Louisiana | -0.64% |
21 | 2011-2015 | I->D | 2016 | Chafee | Rhode Island | -1.38% |
Firstly, I was wrong about Rick Perry. When he ran last year, I criticized him for running on a two-note platform of being a wall-builder and a budget-cutter. Don’t get me wrong: I like both walls and budget cuts, but Perry made no apologies for being the most important wall opponent (Gary Johnson made a big deal about the border governors knowing about this sort of thing, awkwardly, since no other border state governor, including his own state, shared his views) and his spending before the 2012 primary was terrible.
Well, apparently Perry turned a new leaf, going from 7.3 percent annual growth in his first 10 years to 1.3 percent in his next three, cutting budgets in real terms; I apologize to any Texans I mistakenly offended. I was also wrong about Kasich; I was distracted by his making bad headline claims (Medicaid, primarily, but also supporting funding for other stuff) and failed to appreciate the efforts he’s made at cutting spending. The same is true for Christie; I’d known they were decent on that stuff, but had not appreciated how good. That doesn’t make me like either of them; they both appear to be poor team players with severe personality shortcomings that make them undesirable as leadership figures. Kasich adds to that by appearing to be far less smart than his peers. Still, as with Chafee, I feel I should recognize the strengths in politicians I don’t generally rate highly, and I hadn’t.
Secondly, these tables and related charts are terribly inaccurate for the two executives I know best; Bush 41 and Romney both suffered from their successors having a friendly legislature and packing a ton of spending into the end of the financial year the election falls under. These amendments to the budget fall under the same financial year, so I believe Jon Gabriel’s fantastic charts attributes much of the Stimulus to Bush, just as this chart attributes Patrick’s amendments to the FY2007 budget to Romney’s FY2007 budget. Romney also suffers because his emergency cuts at the start of his term are not only not attributed to him when you count by budget years, they count against him by reducing his baseline. He ought to be in the best quartile, ahead of everyone before this year; instead he appears awful and I don’t know of a way to fix this objectively. Does anyone know if this sort of thing occurred with any other candidates? I know that it didn’t with Johnson or Jeb Bush, but I’m not sure elsewhere.
Thirdly, does anyone know what happened in 2004 that sent Florida’s budget up by 25 percent in a single year? Bush was generally decent, but those twelve months seem to have seen him go full Sanders. Likewise, does anyone know why the spending increases seem to trend downwards over the past few cycles? All the best guys are from 2016, and the worse trend earlier. Inflation is responsible for a portion of the difference, but not much (Roemer is hit a little harder than most but, again, not enough to make that kind of a difference).
Published in General
And here is the 2000 report card:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa391.pdf
And here is the 2002 report card:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa454.pdf
I bolded the part at the end.
New Mexico
Gary Johnson, Republican
Legislature: Democratic
Took Office: 1/95
Grade: B
The override of his veto in 2003 would be an excellent excuse if the budgets he’d cheerfully signed had been better than 2003’s. In fact, 2003 saw a mere $405 million dollars of increase. Compare 2002, at $704 million; it wasn’t always this bad, but the biggest new spending program in 2003 was the “second Hollywood” program that he supported.
You’re absolutely right that his personal friends at CATO will never stop issuing glowing words about him, but you’re wrong to believe that this is a matter of principle rather than personal friendship. Those all endorse the great lists of things he’d like to happen, but they aren’t things that ended up actually happening, tax cuts aside; New Mexico still doesn’t have school vouchers (although Martinez got it further through the legislature than Johnson did and it’s somewhat likely to pass next year, depending on how the election goes). It’s true that he cut taxes in some places, but he made them worse in others, leading to one of the worst gaps between favored industries that he gave tax breaks to and disfavored, a problem that Martinez has made one of her highest priorities to fix.
When you cut taxes in ways that are not particularly targeted toward growth, though, and you hike up spending, you end up doing awful things to the debt, as happened with Johnson; for some reason the state debt doesn’t appear to feature in CATO’s analysis.
If you ask the closest buddies of pretty much any governor, you’ll find that they rate him highly. That doesn’t make a record of more than doubling the debt a cheerful one. The corruption of the state tax code to favor those who supplied Johnson with glamor doesn’t become any more legitimate because CATO overlook it. The spending hikes were higher than in the average state throughout his two terms, and higher than the Federal increases, and the fact that CATO prefers his larger hikes to their smaller hikes is not an indictment of the math.