America’s Paper of Record.

Toilet Paper:  A Brief and Sometimes Painful History.

But enough about the New York Times.

No, but seriously, folks:  Here is economist Art Laffer on the success – well, the lack of success – of government stimulus programs.  Excerpt:

Policy makers in Washington and other capitals around the world are debating whether to implement another round of stimulus spending to combat high unemployment and sputtering growth rates. But before they leap, they should take a good hard look at how that worked the first time around.

It worked miserably, as indicated by the table nearby, which shows increases in government spending from 2007 to 2009 and subsequent changes in GDP growth rates. Of the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, those with the largest spending spurts from 2007 to 2009 saw the least growth in GDP rates before and after the stimulus.

The four nations—Estonia, Ireland, the Slovak Republic and Finland—with the biggest stimulus programs had the steepest declines in growth. The United States was no different, with greater spending (up 7.3%) followed by far lower growth rates (down 8.4%).

The old saw about the definition of insanity applies.  Here’s a recap of government surplus/deficits since 2000:

2000 – $1.79 B spending – $236 B surplus
2001 – $1.86 B spending – $128 B surplus
2002 – $2.0 B spending – $157 B deficit
2003 – $2.16 B spending – $377 B deficit
2004 – $2.3 B spending – $412 B deficit
2005 – $2.5 B spending – $318 Billion deficit
2006 – $2.7 B spending – $248 Billion deficit
2007 – $2.7 B spending – $161 Billion deficit
2008 – $3.0 B spending – $459 Billion deficit
2009 – $3.5 T spending – $1.4 TRILLION deficit
2010 – $3.5 T spending – $1.3 TRILLION deficit
2011 – $3.8 T spending – $1.6 TRILLION deficit

Does anyone think continuing on this course is a good idea?