That only really happens in very odd years where the change in GDP is large. We saw that in 2009 (or was it 2008, can’t remember). But at that time we had a BIG change in spending, due to the stimulus.
Yeah, there is certainly value in looking at Federal spending alone, but it’s equally important, if not more so, to look at all government spending, combined.
Spending and size aren’t really synonyms. Just because the government spends a ton more on Social Security and Medicare doesn’t mean it got “bigger”–if bigger means involved in more areas of civil society, or bigger means having more employees, or bigger means more powerful, etc.
Right. My OP was referring to more employees, but I guess more contract work should be added to that. I also said the last 20 years, but I see the data for our entire national history is probably more useful for comparison. Is total amount spent compared with GDP a reasonable measure of that?
I tried to exclude the question of whether or not the government is involved in more areas of civil society.
I should be been clearer throughout.
In the last twenty years, the number of federal employees has gotten smaller, not larger. (Cite.)
I don’t think that includes contractors, which have undoubtedly grown substantially, especially post-9/11. But I think it would be difficult to define who you should count. Is an employee of Lockheed working on a U.S. spy satellite contract a government contractor for these purposes?
It was?
Looks to me like you were talking about both.