As Americans set course on a journey that would net them two presidential candidates who are the least liked in what appears to be all of history, one or two or thirty things come to mind, regarding the general irrelevance of which party wins the presidency. Let’s start at the top.
It does not matter who the next president is: Federal spending will continue to grow faster than the pace of inflation, or population growth, GDP growth (even with federal spending as one of its components), or the growth of my 401k. Just taking the last 25 years or so, what is reliably and consistently growing, so much so that if it were an investment option, people would be buying it like cakes that are really hot?
Spending. Spending is king.
“But wait!” gasps the Keynesian. “Federal spending is needed during recessions to jump-start the economy, and reduce unemployment”.
Sure – but those dollars spent come from somewhere, in the form of taxes and borrowing, and when that happens, those dollars aren’t available for capital spending, investment, savings, etc, all of which actually creates jobs in the private sector. It doesn’t have the net effect of taking dollars from the private sector to spend them via the public sector, which gains nothing, other than votes for office and an increase in the debt and deficit.
The reality is that the unemployment rate is more closely tied to the dwindling labor force participation rate than it is to federal spending – which runs counter to the standard Democrat response to any kind of recession, consisting of mostly “let’s spend even more money than usual under the guise of helping”.
In fact, if you go back to 2000, the labor force starts dropping dramatically when, exactly? Let me check – ah, that’s right, as soon as Barack Obama assumed the presidency. That drop in participation accounts for nearly all the unemployment reductions since the recession started.
But it does, of course, get worse. If you look at unfilled job vacancies, going back to 2001 – we still have (slightly) fewer unfilled vacancies as of 2015 as we did in 2001 or so. Yet federal spending doubled during that time. If you use vacancies – jobs available – as a barometer of growth, we’ve doubled federal spending for no net gain in available jobs.
All of which is just another reason why the person occupying the White House can speak to different policies, preferences, and budget priorities, but every year, spending goes up. The deficits, once deemed unpatriotic due to their size by Obama, yet doubled under his presidency, and the subsequent debt, are just choices being pushed onto future generations.
Or, better stated – a reduction of choices, for them. Because they will be footing the bill for what we spend now, and they didn’t even get a chance to vote on the lesser of two evils, whoever you might end up choosing to vote for on Election Day. The less they have to spend, the less free they are, to make their own choices. We are choosing for them.
In other words, Leviathan, in the form of the federal government, doesn’t care who wins. Leviathan will continue to feed off the labor of the citizens (those still working, anyway), and the borrowed future earnings of those not even born yet. The only way to kill this beast is to starve it, and no modern president, or presidential candidate, seems interested in taking that one sane step forward.