Thursday, November 09, 2006

Gridlock helps slow government growth

The most recent issue of The Economist, which arrived last weekend, correctly called the outcome of the U.S. elections and the reasons (corruption, incompetence, Iraq). In the special report on the U.S. mid-term elections appears this box of data taken from Stephen Slivinski's book Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government, which shows the benefit of having control of the executive and legislative branches of the government in the hands of different parties:

Divide and save
Annual growth in federal spending per head under recent administrations

Unified government* Growth, %
Lyndon Johnson 4.6
George Bush junior 3.1**
Jimmy Carter 2.9

Divided government Growth, %
Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford 1.9
Ronald Reagan 1.7
George Bush senior 0.6
Bill Clinton 0.3

* President's party controlled House and Senate during most of term.
** First five years.

I'm looking forward to some gridlock.

1 comment:


You might be surprised. Many of the dems elected to the House are very conservative dems that aren't necessarily going to be party clones. Also, Bush has the power of veto. It might not be as bad as some think.