I have a file drawer full of research projects at some point abandoned. Since I am unlikely to ever get back to them I thought it would be worth describing some here in the hope that someone else, earlier in his career, would be interested in reviving them.
The US government's spending doesn't appear to be driven by either "the need for government services" "the ability of the government to get money," but rather by demand for government money (which is a different thing from need). Need, as you discuss it, refers to services which it's widely assumed the government should provide. Demand means pressure by interested groups to spend government money, often in novel ways. Spending has long been untethered from revenue, as deficits keep growing.
I don't think it's correct to say that spending is untethered from revenue. Spending does exceeds revenue, but it still remains constrained by revenue, in that many proposals for increased spending fail to pass because they're too expensive.
"A government, like an individual, spends money for any or all of three reasons: because it needs to, because it wants to, or simply because it has it to spend. The last is much the shabbiest. It is arguable, if not manifest, that a substantial portion of the great spring flood of billions pouring into the Treasury will in effect get spent for the last shabby reason."
Rex Stout in the detective novel _And Be a Villain_
The 2008 crash should also provide some international evidence for this project, as many governments went from being easily able to get money through borrowing to very suddenly not being able to get it. Off the cuff only a few chose austerity and lowered spending, while others raised some taxes (but for how long?) Those behaviors and their outcomes might shed a great deal of light on the process, along with the third possible reason states spend money: to pay off supporters that keep the government in power over the state.
The US government's spending doesn't appear to be driven by either "the need for government services" "the ability of the government to get money," but rather by demand for government money (which is a different thing from need). Need, as you discuss it, refers to services which it's widely assumed the government should provide. Demand means pressure by interested groups to spend government money, often in novel ways. Spending has long been untethered from revenue, as deficits keep growing.
I don't think it's correct to say that spending is untethered from revenue. Spending does exceeds revenue, but it still remains constrained by revenue, in that many proposals for increased spending fail to pass because they're too expensive.
"A government, like an individual, spends money for any or all of three reasons: because it needs to, because it wants to, or simply because it has it to spend. The last is much the shabbiest. It is arguable, if not manifest, that a substantial portion of the great spring flood of billions pouring into the Treasury will in effect get spent for the last shabby reason."
Rex Stout in the detective novel _And Be a Villain_
Thanks. Good comment, good source. I've added it as a PS to the post.
The 2008 crash should also provide some international evidence for this project, as many governments went from being easily able to get money through borrowing to very suddenly not being able to get it. Off the cuff only a few chose austerity and lowered spending, while others raised some taxes (but for how long?) Those behaviors and their outcomes might shed a great deal of light on the process, along with the third possible reason states spend money: to pay off supporters that keep the government in power over the state.