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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    And here is the 2000 report card:

    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa391.pdf

    Gary E. Johnson, Republican

    Legislature: Democratic

    Took Office: 1/95

    Grade: B

    Gary E. Johnson has gained a welldeserved reputation as a maverick governor. More so than just about any prominent politician in America today, Johnson has a libertarian attitude when it comes to government. In this liberal-leaning state, Johnson supports school vouchers, term limits, privately run prisons, drug legalization, and deep tax cuts. He’s a genuine citizen-lawmaker who never held public office before winning the statehouse in 1994. He competes in iron-man sporting competitions around the country; he started his own construction company while in college, and now he spends his time warring with the Democrats in the New Mexico state legislature. Governing magazine says, “No governor has been more open in his contempt for the opposition party or the legislative leaders than Johnson.” In his first term he vetoed 200 bills. After his reelection in 1998 he warned the legislators that he was not going to be “the kinder, gentler Gary Johnson.” Few governors have been more ferocious advocates of taxpayers than Johnson has in recent years. Battling the legislators at every turn, Johnson has succeeded in cutting the state income tax, the gasoline tax, the state capital gains tax, and the unemployment tax. In 1999 he vetoed a 12-cent-apack cigarette tax hike—not because he likes smoking, he says, but because he opposes all tax hikes. In 2000 he signed a residential property tax cap that will limit increases in valuations to 3 percent per year. He also wants to cut the income tax from 8.2 to 6.8 percent. He calls the plan a $177 a year “pay raise for New Mexicans.” So far the legislature has foiled that tax-cutting plan. Johnson has successfully sponsored other government reform initiatives including an electricity deregulation bill, a 10 percent reduction in state payrolls, and a Medicaid cost-cutting plan that has saved the state tens of millions of dollars. In sum, Johnson has had a sterling pro-taxpayer, pro-business record over the past six years. New Mexico has one of the highest percentages of its workforce working for federal or state government, but Johnson is slowly eroding the culture of dependence on government in New Mexico. It’s no wonder the state’s economy has been booming in recent years.

    • #31
  2. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    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

    Gary Johnson has gained a national reputation as a maverick governor. He is probably best known for endorsing drug legalization, because he says the war on drugs has done more harm than good. Johnson sports a libertarian attitude toward government. He favors school vouchers, term limits, privately run prisons, lean budgets, and deep tax cuts. He is a genuine citizen-lawmaker, having never held public office before winning the statehouse in 1994. Governingmagazine said that “no governor has been more open in his contempt for the opposition party or the legislative leaders than Johnson.” In his first term, he vetoed 200 bills—many of them spending bills, which he labeled as profligate. The state Democrats made defeating Johnson their top priority in 1998, but he won anyway. The feuding continued and his veto total is now up to 750. Only a handful have been overridden—unfortunately one of those overrides was of the 2003 budget. He said he would operate the state agencies at last year’s budget levels. Through determination and wearing down the opposition, he has had legislative successes. He has cut the state income tax, the gasoline tax, the state capital gains tax, and the unemployment tax. In 2001, he wanted a further 7 percent reduction in income tax rates. The legislature cut the tax less than he wanted, so he vetoed the bill. In 1999, he vetoed a 12 cent per pack cigarette tax hike because he opposes all tax hikes. (He recently did sign off on a tobacco tax with the condition that the revenues be used to offset other tax cuts.) In 2000, he signed a residential property tax cap that will limit increases in valuations to 3 percent per year. Johnson has successfully sponsored other government reform initiatives such as an electricity deregulation bill, a 10 percent reduction in state payrolls, and a Medicaid cost-cutting plan. What is most surprising about his fiscally conservative governance is that New Mexico is a state that has one of the highest percentages of employment in federal and state governments. But he has done much to create private-sector jobs and to erode the culture of dependence on government in New Mexico. The Speaker of the House in New Mexico, Ben Lujan, recently noted after an override of a Johnson veto: “There is no executive fiat in this state. The governor must have the consent of the legislature for fiscal action.” That explains why Gary Johnson’s grade is not even higher in this report card.

    • #32
  3. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    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.

    • #33
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.