Posted on 05/23/2014 5:25:27 PM PDT by Kaslin
Two years ago, there was a flurry of excitement because some guy named Rex Nutting crunched annual budget numbers and concluded that Barack Obama was the most fiscally conservative President since at least 1980.
I looked at the data and found a few mistakes, such as a failure to adjust the numbers for inflation, but Nutting’s overall premise was reasonably accurate.
As you can see from the tables I prepared back in 2012, 
Obama was the third most frugal President based on the growth of total inflation-adjusted spending.
And he was in first place 
if you looked at primary spending, which is total spending after removing net interest payments (a reasonable step since Presidents can’t really be blamed for interest payments on the debt accrued by their predecessors).
So does this mean Obama is a closet conservative, asmy old – but misguided – buddy Bruce Bartlett asserted?
Not exactly. A few days after that post, I did some more calculations and explained that Obama was the undeserved beneficiary of the quirky way that bailouts and related items are measured in the budget.
It turns out that Obama supposed frugality is largely the result of how TARP is measured in the federal budget. To put it simply, TARP pushed spending up in Bush’s final fiscal year (FY2009, which began October 1, 2008) and then repayments from the banks (which count as “negative spending”) artificially reduced spending in subsequent years.
So I removed TARP, deposit insurance, and other bailout-related items, on the assumption that such one-time costs distort the real record of various Administrations.
And that left me with a new set of numbers, based on primary spending minus bailouts. And on this basis, Obama’s record is not exactly praiseworthy.
Instead of being the most frugal President, he suddenly dropped way down in the rankings, beating only Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Which explains why I accused him in 2012 of being a big spender – just like his predecessor.
But the analysis I did two years ago was based on Obama’s record for his first three fiscal years.
So I updated the numbers last yearand looked at Obama’s record over his first four years. And it turns out that Obama did much better if you look at the average annual growth of primary spending minus bailouts. Instead of being near the bottom, he was in the middle of the pack.
Did this mean Obama moved to the right?
That’s a judgement call. For what it’s worth, I suspect that Obama’s ideology didn’t change and the better numbers were the result of the Tea Party and sequestration.
But I don’t care who gets credit. I’m just happy that spending didn’t grow as fast.
I’m giving all this background because I’ve finally cranked the most-recent numbers. And if we look at overall average spending growth for Obama’s first five years and compare that number to average spending growth for other Presidents, he is the most frugal. Adjusted for inflation, the budget hasn’t grown at all. That’s a very admirable outcome.
But what about primary spending? By that measure, we have even better results. 
There’s actually been a slight downward trend in the fiscal burden of government during the Obama years.
This doesn’t necessarily mean, to be sure, that Obama deserves credit. Maybe the recent spending restraint in Washington is because of what’s happened in Congress.
I’ve repeatedly argued, for instance, that sequestration was a great victory over the special interests. And Obama vociferously opposed those automatic budget cuts, even to the point of making himself a laughingstock.
But don’t forget that TARP-type expenses can mask important underlying trends. So now let’s look at the numbers that I think are most illuminating.
Here’s the data for average inflation-adjusted growth of primary spending minus bailouts.
As you can see, Obama no longer is in first place. But he’s jumped to third place, which puts him ahead of every Republican other than Reagan. Given that all those other GOPers were statists, that’s not saying much, but it does highlight that party labels don’t necessarily mean much.
My Republican friends are probably getting irritated, so I’ll share one last set of numbers that may make them happy.
I cranked the numbers for average spending growth, but subtracted interest payments, bailouts, and defense outlays. What’s left is domestic spending, and here are the rankings based on those numbers.
Reagan easily did the best job of restraining overall domestic discretionary and entitlement outlays. Bill Clinton came in second place, showing that Democrats can preside overreasonably good results. And Richard Nixon came in last place, showing that Republicans can preside over horrible numbers.
Obama, meanwhile, winds up in the middle of the pack. Which is probably very disappointing for the President since he wanted to be a transformational figure who pushed the nation to the left, in the same way that Reagan was a transformational figure who pushed the nation to the right.
Instead, Obama’s only two legacies are a failed healthcare plan and a tongue-in-cheek award for being a great recruiter for the cause of libertarianism.
P.S. Historical numbers sometimes change slightly because the government’s data folks massage and re-measure both inflation and spending. Though I confess I’m not sure why the 2013 calculation for Nixon’s primary spending minus bailouts is somewhat different from the 2012 and 2014 numbers. Perhaps I screwed up when copying some of the numbers, which has been known to happen. But since Nixon’s performance isn’t the focus of this post, I’m not going to lose any sleep about the discrepancy.
“Primary Spending Minus Defense and Bailouts”
That’s a lot like measuring inflation minus Energy and Food. If you don’t like a constituent component, just throw it out until you get to an answer you like.
I’ve seen lot’s of people with great figures who ended up lying.
Just redefine the meaning of spending and the answer is simple.
” The fact that you can make a case for him being a fiscal conservative speaks ill of statisticians.”
i was taught in stasticts that it was a course in how to make figures lie.
If you really want to tell a big lie, use a graph!!
BS x 17 trillion
The only thing The Won is frugal with is the truth.
Trashing the value of the dollar helps him greatly in this statistical fantasy.
This kind of article drives me MAD. Here we have a fully competent conservative commentator playing cute with the numbers just to help Obama. Here is the ugly reality that Mitchell for whatever reason refuses to put on the table:
1. Yes, TARP is the only reason that obama begins with any hope of being a limited spender. But Mitchell leaves out a bunch of important factors that go along with this spending:
a. TARP was a TEMPORARY spending measure. It was a banking emergency. The Senate [held by Democrats Mr. Mitchell] refused to pass a budget bill for over 3 YEARS! That institutionalized the temporary spending as a permanent budget addition.
b. Bush required that TARP be paid back with interest to the Treasury. That actually did happen within about one year of December 2008. But Obama took that money and added it to his budgets as if that somehow was his doing. That is completely ridiculous! For Mitchell to not note this is a complete scam.
2. Spending in all of these administrations is highly correlated with party control of Congress. Guess what Mr. Mitchell? When Republicans control the Congress spending is reduced. Many FReepers will try to challenge this but you are just wrong. The biggest reductions in spending happened in the late 1990s after the Gingrich revolution [house flipped Republican] and the Senate followed in the late 1990s into Republican hands. That actually lead to big surpluses for the first time in decades. If you study Republican senate control of spending you find that this is a powerful correlation for the last three decades:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/what_republican_senate_control_means_for_america.html
Here again, for Mitchell to play coy on this as if the President controls the budget process is flagrant deceit.
3. All of this kind of deceit to make Demcoratic presidents like Obama look like Budget geniuses destroys public understanding of constitutional politics that lodges spending as a Congressional responsibility. It also feeds a lunacy on the right that falsely believes Republicans are no different than Democrats— an utterly false belief. Using the Presidents as misrepresenting icons of the parties, commentators deceive the public and make the deficit appear to be impossible to contain. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the US economy grew at 4%— which is completely reasonable in a world that stops hating free markets— the deficits would be history.
Mitchell needs to stop with his blind deceit. He buries the lead about the Tea Party that train wrecked Obama into the sequester. Why not pull out the proposed budgets of Obama that got no votes Mr. Mitchell? Do those budgets that he designed show your results? No!
I am still angry.
And he did that in just a few years
Liars figure and figures lie
Obama ranks best in “Total Spending” and “Primary Spending.”
But, somehow, even though the Great Recession ended four months after he took office, even though we have historically low interest rates, the economy has had only modest growth, and Obama has racked up record deficits for four out of five years.
I don't understand how that happened.
The Great Recession ended in June, 2009.
Obama, according to the author, has held spending to 0% or below.
But, Obama racked up record deficits four years in a row.
I don't get it, either.
Exactly the right question — how long was it the Government was operating without a budget?
0% yeah right, the baseline budget was increased 31% within 2 months of inauguration and has been run by continuing resolution ever since. People wonder where the administration gets the money to spend, the 31% turned into a slush fund. Largest increase ever, largest deficits in history, highest ratio of taxation to GDP.
And it was increased by the demonrats, as they were in charge in both houses
Don't worry. If a Republican wins the White House and the GOP controls the House and Senate then you'll see spending go through the roof.
Frugal with his own damn money.
Sooooooo- What category contains the “Vacations” that MOOOOOCHELLE & Barry have gone on?
WHAT BUDGETS?
A ‘continuing resolution’ is NOT a budget!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.