This week’s chart displays the annual amount of real (2014 $) federal supplemental funding since 1980. As the chart shows, supplemental spending exploded in 2000s during the administration of George W. Bush and a largely Republican-controlled Congress.
This country needs to start making real and credible commitments to cutting government spending. With the president looking to put spending back on an upward trajectory, the new Republican-controlled Congress will need to champion the cause of controlling spending.
This week’s charts use data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Center for Responsive Politics to display global and US sugar prices, annual lobbying spending by the sugar industry, and government-planned market segmentation of the domestic sugar industry through the USDA’s Domestic Sugar Program. The charts show that Big Sugar is a formidable Halloween haunt: their lobbying efforts pay handsomely in the form of government-driven market segmentation and artificially high sugar prices.
This week’s charts use data from CBO and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) historical tables to display cumulative federal spending and revenues projected over the next decade along with a time series plotting of the Steuerle-Roeper Index of Fiscal Democracy, developed by Eugene Steuerle and Tim Roeper, which measures the percentage of federal revenues remaining for discretionary spending after mandatory outlays and interest payments have been covered.
Simply counting executive orders, pages, or words can produce misleading statistics. In legal language, at least, the frequency with which restrictions occur can serve as a proxy for measuring the overall restrictiveness of text. Content matters.
This week’s charts use data from the Subsidy Tracker 2.0 dataset compiled by Good Jobs First, a government accountability and smart-growth advocacy group, to display the states (plus the District of Columbia) that disperse the highest amounts and numbers of subsidies, along with the top parent corporations that cumulatively benefit from these subsidies.
Currently, 35 states and the District of Columbia prohibit entry or expansion of healthcare facilities through “certificate-of-need” (CON) programs. These laws, which require government permission before a facility can expand, offer a new service, or purchase certain pieces of equipment, were enacted in the belief that restricting entry would lower health care costs and increase availability of these services to the poor.
Over the last decade, federal regulatory agencies finalized more than 37,000 regulations, yet 92 percent of rules escaped review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), a small office tasked with reviewing significant regulatory actions promulgated by such agencies.
This week’s charts use data from the Export-Import Bank and the Census Bureau to display assistance dispersion among minority- and women-owned exporting firms as a proportion of those in the general economy, along with the top 10 firms that receive assistance and the proportion of their benefits to the whole.
This week’s chart uses data from a new Cato Institute study quantifying some of the industrial “winners” and “victims” of Ex-Im subsidy policies. The chart shows that Ex-Im policies benefit far fewer industries than they penalize.
The F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center invites you to a panel discussion featuring Todd Zywicki and his new co-authored book Consumer Credit and the American Economy.