In his classic book How to Solve it, G. Polya writes: "induction is the process of discovering general laws by the observation and combination of particular instances."
I would say that your question contains its own answer: deductive reasoning (hypothetico-deductive as a matter of fact) is the type of reasoning you are trying to do, since you are using logic rules to infer from a hypothesis. The fact that you are not 100% sure of your hypothesis does not alter that fact.
Inductive reasoning works in a very different way. You are taking a large number of individual facts and trying to guess some higher rule from them. In order to go "inductive", you would have to have all the relevant instances where government spending has gone up, not the conclusion that someone else made, which has by now become your hypothesis.
The only "logic" part there is in inductive reasoning, is that you should try to explain what the matter is with the individual facts that do not agree with your rule (measurement errors, something else?). So you dont' "prove" anything with inductive reasoning, there is nothing "true" or "false", you are just trying to find some rule that matches the (hopefully reliable) facts you have, in the best possible way.
Inductive reasoning is one of the most misunderstood forms of human thinking and rarely taught at school. And yet it is absolutely crucial to the evolution of any science. It is also crucial if you want to learn anything from daily life experience.
Indeed, most of what is taught at school as "inductive", is not. For example, we could use linear regression to find a line between points. In order to do that you have to assume first that what you are looking for is a line, and then the rest is a deduction. Linear regression is an algorithm that can be easily implemented with a computer. Stricly speaking it is not induction. It is a heuristic tool that you could use in a general process of induction, though.
To our knowledge, we don't know, in the general case, how to formalize inductive reasoning and we don't know how to program it. Whatever we program turns out to be deductive reasoning -- or a brute force attack -- or a mix of the two. How humans do that, is anyone's guess (litterally: induction requires imagination, to "think outside of the box", to walk outside the beaten path, plus healty dose of artillery skills, to reckon how far you are shooting from the target).
From there it opens an avenue for debate on whether artificial intelligence is different from human intelligence. And I would argue that machines (in the current state of our technology) can sometimes give the impression to work by induction, but in reality they aren't.