to jump-start the economy with stimulus spending. Stimulus spending is often accompanied by

the phrase “the government must create jobs.” The theory is that every dollar the government

spends is income for someone who, when he spends that income, provides income for another

person. This is the Keynesian multiplier effect.

Critics argue that the multiplier effect overlooks the fact that the money the government spends

doesn't fall from the sky. Every dollar the government spends it must obtain, either through

taxing, or borrowing, or printing money. And where the government does these things, jobs

are destroyed. In the end, the government doesn't create jobs at all, but, rather, moves

jobs as it spends in one place and taxes somewhere else. People who claim that government spending

creates jobs are only seeing half of the picture. Can this be true?

Let's look at the history of stimulus spending in the United States over the past half century.

We’ll measure growth in federal spending along the horizontal axis and economic growth

on the vertical axis. The blue dot is our economy at a point in time. The further to

the right we go, the more stimulus spending we’re experiencing. The further to the left

we go, the less growth in federal spending is occurring. Along the vertical axis we measure

economic growth. The further up the graph we go, the more economic growth we’re experiencing.

The further down the graph we go, the less economic growth we’re experiencing. We’ll

place one dot for each quarter since the 1950s. If stimulus spending worked, we would expect

to see a pattern of dots that moved up and to the right. When the government spends more

money, we should see more economic growth. When the government spends less money, the

economy should slow down. Now let's look at the actual data for the U.S. economy.

From 1955 to the present, government spending has risen in some quarters, fallen in others,

and remained unchanged in others still. But what is clear is that there is no apparent

positive relationship between government spending and economic growth. For example, in 1968

federal spending rose an average of more than 11 percent per quarter. One year later, economic

growth averaged less than 1 percent per quarter. But in 1993, federal spending contracted an

average of more than 2 percent a quarter. Yet one year later the economy grew at the

same 1 percent per quarter. Of course there might have been something else going on in

1967 and 1993 other than federal spending that influenced economic growth, and that

is why we look at all the quarters from 1955 to the present. Unless there was something

atypical going on in every single quarter, we must conclude that there is no evidence

here that increased federal spending results in economic growth.

What does this mean?

It means that the only thing stimulus spending does is to make the budget deficit worse.

But it isn’t necessary to look at all this data; we need only look back over the past

three years. Between the Federal- Reserve and the federal government we have injected

the equivalent of two Canadian economies into the U.S. economy, and yet our unemployment

remains stubbornly fixed at 9 percent. One thing that has changed is that our government

is now $4.6 trillion further in debt than it was before the stimulus efforts.