"In Fact"

Don't you find it annoying when people write "in fact" as a way to assert something without providing actual evidence. One of the reasons people do this (here I can speak from experience) is because that asserted fact is not a fact at all, but merely an assertion we wish to be true.

Example.

In a recent blog entry, Krugman writes

Even people who are supposedly well informed believe that there was a vast expansion of government under Obama, when in fact there wasn’t. (emphasis added)

OK, here are the actual facts obtained from the Office of Management and Budget historical tables. In 2008, total government outlays were 2.98 trillion. The 2011 estimate is 3.83 trillion. As a percentage of GDP, federal government outlays rose from 20.7% to 25.1%.

So unless we want to redefine "expansion", "government" or "under Obama", we have to accept that there was in fact an
"expansion of government under Obama." But was it vast? To me, almost a trillion dollars (28.5% increase) over 5 years is on the big side of things, especially when considering that outlays had been at 21% or below as a share of GDP since 1994.

OK, that is the end of the "Republican" portion of this post. Now we have to point out that the increases in government outlays have come in large part from increases in military spending, pensions, and medicare (medical care for the elderly). Spending is not just foreign aid and "bridges to nowhere". In fact that sort thing is very small.

And while government has indeed expanded, it is equally evident that tax receipts have been shrinking as a share of GDP.