So as mentioned a few posts ago, I have been gathering data to determine whether Bush made any attempts to rein in Medicare spending when he and his Republican cronies controlled all three branches of government. As expected, he did not… or more specifically:
Despite the media gnashing about the president’s ’slashing’ of medical coverage (which will only help his party with their base), in reality the cuts are token relative to the signifcant growth achieved by this president (and his Republican congress) 5 years ago. Don’t take my word for it, I’ve included the data below!
For those who may wish to investigate other Federal budgetary matters, there is an archive of budgets and related documents at the US Government Publishing Office (or GPO). Unfortunately US budgets can only be browsed online as far back as 1996 (probably because 1996 is when then Vice President Gore invented the internet). Historical summary records can be viewed as far back as 1789 (probably because 1789 is when then President George Washington invented the Federal budget).
So what does it mean to ‘cut Medicare’? Looking at a news article or two and the actual budget data, I have deduced that this means that the expected spending over the next 5 years is declared to be less than the expected spending over the same 5-year period as stated in the previous budget. What it does NOT (necessarily) mean is that the spending for next year will be less than this year. So in the case of a growing expense like Medicare, the rate of growth is decreased (or perhaps the baseline). But by how much?
At the risk of emulating H. Ross Perot, I have included a chart. (This graph was made using OpenOffice:Calc and the GIMP proving that data and graphics analysis can be performed on completely free products… but I digress.) You may download my Federal Budget Spreadsheet if you wish.
Edit: Fixed link which I broke at some point.
First an overview. Each line series represents the actual spending and the estimated future spending which were reported in a particular budget document. The budget documents run about 2 years ahead, so the 2008 document (released last week) contains actuals for FY 2006 and predictions through 2012. As a result, each document contains 7 years of numbers (at least during the Bush administration, the Clinton administration provided considerably more data in their summaries).
There are several features of this graph that I wish to call your attention to. The first is that the FY2008 budget (blue squares) does in fact represent a decrease from the budget of FY2007 (maroon rhombus). With the exception of a few points, FY2008 represents a reduction from the budgets of FY2006 (yellow triangles) and FY2005 (light blue triangles). So far, the media is correct and the Republican base should be cheering. The president has controlled the evil entitlements.
But like an infomercial, there’s more! What I find MOST interesting is the huge leap in expenditures for the years 2004 - 2008 relative to the budgets presented in 2003 and 2004 (pink and purple triangles respectively). So what happened in 2004 that caused such a dramatic ‘knee’ in the spending curve? And why doesn’t anybody talk about the explosion in spending that occurred in a fully Republican government on a massive government entitlement called Medicare? Interestingly enough, it is in this EXACT period that the predictions of spending from earlier years (2005 & 2006 budgets) almost exactly match the ‘actuals’. So Medicare grew faster during those years and this was no accident. In fact, the growth in those two years completely eclipses any token reduction achieved in the last 3 years.
Conclusion: All the rhetoric in D.C. can not change the fact that any presidential attempt to ‘reduce’ Medicare spending now will not compensate for the growth that was allowed during this administration.
