Reply #1: This helps fortify my belief that Democrats are by far our best fiscal stewards. [View All]

[Lasher]

I think it was Clinton who said if you want to live like a Republican, vote like a Democrat.

Federal spending (aka "big government"): It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president's policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.

Leaning over backward even farther, let's start our measurement in 1981, the date when many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html

As you point out, however, "big government" is not inherently evil. Using the DMV as an example, we could sell all our highways to the private sector and everyone could pay tolls every time they drive anywhere. This would generate private revenues, part of which would pay for highway infrastructure improvements. A great deal of government spending could thereby be reduced, but most would agree that this would be a bad idea.

Perhaps a better example of the private sector's ineffenciencies is healthcare.

Jan. 14, 2004

A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizen to be published in Friday’s International Journal of Health Services finds that health care bureaucracy last year cost the United States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national health insurance (NHI) could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States.

The study was based on the most comprehensive analysis to date of health administration spending, including data on the administrative costs of health insurers, employers’ health benefit programs, hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies, physicians and other practitioners in the United States and Canada. The authors found that bureaucracy accounts for at least 31 percent of total U.S. health spending compared to 16.7 percent in Canada. They also found that administration has grown far faster in the United States than in Canada.

The potential administrative savings of $286 billion annually under national health insurance could:

Offset the cost of covering the uninsured (estimated at $80 billion)

Cover all out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs for seniors as well as those under 65 (estimated at $53 billion in 2003)

Fund retraining and job placement programs for insurance workers and others who would lose their jobs under NHI (estimated at $20 billion)

Make substantial improvements in coverage and quality of care for U.S. consumers who already have insurance

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623

It should be noted that the above analysis was conducted prior to enactment of Medicare Part D.

One more motiviation that comes to mind for promoting diversion of services to the private sector is that this creates more wealthy corporate executives, who usually can be expected to support Republicans.

Thank you for this thoughtful OP.