Perhaps this graphic is a little less misleading/agenda-driven. It is from a shady little internet site called the Congressional Budget Office 
Federal Outlays, 1962 to 2001 (as percentage of GDP)
Federal Receipts, 1962-2003 (as percentage of GDP)
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table4
Virtually all the increase in social spending comes from demographic changes. This is what explains the seeming contradiction between the drastic decline of social programs since Reagan and the increase in "social spending". The answer is that existing programs, namely Social Security, and to a smaller extent medicare, are costing a lot more because of rising health care costs and retired seniors as a rising percentage of the population. This problem will only get worse after 2010 when the boomers start retiring. That is why Social Security needs some deep reform... and reform is going to happen eventually, no matter who gets elected, because it will have to happen if the government is to remain in any decent fiscal shape.
I believe both graphs are valid, but there are 3 differences in the data plotted:
1) Your data is based on spending as a percentage of GDP, whereas Hodges is based on spending as a percentage of National Income, a smaller figure.
2) Your plot goes from 1962 to 2001. Hodges goes from 1947 to 2002. So the increase Hodges shows is over a longer time span and shows of course a greater growth in spending.
3) The other plots, defense, interest etc are shown individually in Hodges plots whereas your plots are cumulative. That is it starts with Social spending, then shows defense added to that and so on.
I think there are other differences such as what is included in social programs. But your graph also shows the Social programs growing about 2 or 2 and 1/2 times from 1962 to 2001. That's about the same as Hodges. Your data is from a government source and is reliable, but Hodges data is extracted from another government agency, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and is also reliable.
