Defending Obama's Budget (most of the spending came on GOP watch. Obama just added a little bit)

American Thinker ^ | 02/03/2010 | James Simpson

[SeekAndFind]

Rick Sanchez defended Obama's budget on CNN Monday. He was attempting to methodically debunk Republican claims about Obama budgets, arguing that most of the trillions in spending came on Republicans' watch and Obama just added a little bit.

He started by claiming that Obama came into office facing a $1.2 trillion budget. Obama makes the same claim. Actually, the deficit for 2008, Bush's last year in office, was $459 billion. Bush does share responsibility for TARP though, so one could say that Obama was only partially responsible for 2009's deficit, even though his proposals added $787 billion in new spending through the failed "Stimulus," which was not supported by Republicans.

Of course it was all Bush's fault -- everything is Bush's fault after all -- so Obama can't be blamed even if he had to shell out $800 billion of our tax dollars to save his Wall Street and union friends. In fact, Bush and the Republicans do share some of the blame for the financial crisis, but it was a sin of omission, not commission. The truth is that the financial crisis was the direct result of a half-century of Democrat meddling with the housing market. Bush and the Republicans failed in that they did not push hard enough for needed reform.

But however he argues it for 2009, Obama owns the 2010 and 2011 budgets all alone. FY 2010 included the largest regular budgetary increase in recent history, a whopping 15 percent higher than Bush's 2009 proposal. According to Obama's 2011 budget, deficits for 2010 and 2011 are projected to be $1.6 trillion and $1.3 trillion respectively. And while Obama continues to call for health care reform, no spending for it is included in the 2011 budget.

The 2011 budget does, however, include an assumed $150 billion in deficit reduction from passage of healthcare reform. Who is he kidding? This is the same smoke and mirrors game the Senate played in claiming "savings" from overhauling healthcare. Don't believe it! The true cost will be in the trillions.

At last weekend's Republican retreat, Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling claimed that Obama and the Democrats' monthly deficits now equal what Republicans used to run every year. What he had in mind was the House Republicans' twelve year history of budgets while they controlled Congress, from 1994 to 2006. Measured that way, the average budget deficit was $106.9 billion per year after correcting for inflation. Examining Obama budgets for 2009, 2010 and the 2011 budget proposal, Obama's deficits are indeed $105 billion per month; virtually identical to average annual Republican deficits for twelve years.

Sanchez attempted to refute that statement by comparing the 2009 $1.2 trillion deficit (actually it is $1.4 trillion in current dollars) with Obama's monthly deficits, implying that Republicans ran $1.2 trillion deficits throughout the Bush years. It was a pretty incredible misuse of statistics, even for CNN.

It doesn't look much better if the offending "Bush deficit" of 2009 is removed from the equation either. 2010 and 2011 deficits are projected to average about $104 billion per month. If the years Democrats have controlled Congress are included (i.e. 2007-2010), the monthly average deficit is still $67 billion.

In March of last year, the Heritage Foundation put together a brief analysis comparing spending during the Bush years to Obama's spending based on spending proposals for his first year alone. Here is what they came up with:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion. President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course. President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund. President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it. President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent. President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend. President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016. CNN has never been credible, but Sanchez's ruse was blatant even for CNN. Obama's gross misstatements need no explanation.

[TexasCajun]

Hey Littel Rickie, who controlled congress and the senate the last 3 years?

[ncfool]

Obama's budget sucks. at a time when so many depend on the services of charitable social services groups, Food banks, Red Cross, Salvation Army among others Obummer wants to change the deductability of contributions.

Obummers budget:

Reduce the Itemized Deduction Write-off for Families with Incomes over $250,000. Currently, if a middle-class family donates a dollar to its favorite charity or spends a dollar on mortgage interest, it gets a 15-cent tax deduction, but a millionaire who does the same enjoys a deduction that is more than twice as generous. By reducing this disparity and returning the high income deduction to the same rates that were in place at the end of the Reagan Administration, we will raise $291 billion over the next decade."

Is he and the democrats crazy.

Roy Blunt gets it right

Rep. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, said he plans to oppose the president's proposal to limit the value of charitable deductions, a position he took last year as well. "Raising taxes on families during a recession is bad policy," said Mr. Blunt. "Raising taxes on those who want to help others is outrageous."

Rep. Blunt said that "we've seen in just the past few weeks in Haiti what the hard work and selfless giving of Americans can do in times of disaster. This tax hike will rob charities and churches of support for their good works in order to feed an ever-expanding government."

[dblshot]

It wouldn’t matter if all the deficit was Bush’s fault, it needs to be lowered and fast. Adding to it is not fixing it.

[originalbuckeye]

Face facts.....Zero wants to do away with charities so the Government is the only benefactor that the poor can rely on. This has been coming for years. To Dems the Government is the one and only parent and guardian. Particularly as long as they control Government and the purse strings.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Odd that, considering that the GOP’s “watch” ended January 2007.

[Wee-Weed Up]

The Budget deficit increased by historical levels from 2007 to present. Who was in charge of spending during that time? Congress. Who was in the majority of Congress? Bingo, Democrats!!!

[LearnsFromMistakes]

They can spin all they want, but in the end, only Obama will have 4 massive budgets that he voted for. The ‘R’s did not do a great job from 2000 thru 2006, but the ‘D’s own the last 4...and it won’t play well...

[Vaduz]

Rick Sanchez was never very good with facts guess that’s why he works at CNN.

[chris_bdba]

Does anyone know where to find what the budget was the last year Republicans controlled all 3 houses to compare it to the 2007-2010when the dems run everything? I’m sure it will be an eye opener!

[alancarp]

"The 2011 budget does, however, include an assumed $150 billion in deficit reduction from passage of healthcare reform. Who is he kidding? This is the same smoke and mirrors game the Senate played in claiming "savings" from overhauling healthcare."

Even more so. Obamacare wasn't supposed to be up and running until at least 2013, so even if you buy that poppycock, it couldn't possibly have had any impact on the 2011 budget!!

[loveliberty2]

Wherever Republicans, whether Presidents or Congressmen, have violated constitutional principle to "redistribute" the earnings of hard-working Americans--no matter how worthy the cause--they should acknowledge their errors, read Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Staement of Principles of Good Government, and heed Jefferson's plea:

"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." (Underlining added for emphasis)

[Niteranger68]

Check the calender....our economy started heading south when the Dems took over congress in early 2007.

[glock_fan]

It would be nice if the GOP would start publicizing this fact now and then. But I guess that’s asking a bit too much.

[mcswan]

The budget deficit in Bush's last year was a little over $400 billion. The TARP legislatiion, as it was written and passed, did NOT add additional deficit. The almost $800 billion was borrowed, intended to be used for buying up toxic assets, the money repaid by financial institutions, and then used to repay the borrowed money - revenue neutral. The way Obama wants to use it as a political slush fund WILL add it to current deficits and eventually national debt.

Obama is using the same partisan crab he always uses "I don't want to point fingers, but it's all Bush's fault!"

He's a disgraceful, angry, pampered child. The ultimate politically correct, affirmative action politician.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Seems to me that the house of congress that controls the purse strings has been in Dhimmicrat control since 2006.

[crescen7]

Ok, maybe somebody here knows the answer to this.

TARP was a Bush era budget expense, but . . .

On the Obama budget TARP was a RECEIVABLE not a PAYABLE. That is, what the Obama budget “inherited” from the TARP program was an ASSET not an OBLIGATION.

In fact, by the President’s own admission, “Most of the TARP funds have been repaid” (during his administration)

So . . . The “spending” which was in fact “lending” of the previous administration created a massive asset account which should have allowed the current administration to have a SMALLER deficit. Not obligate a LARGER deficit. In fact, TARP receipts could have paid for all of the current outlays from the STIMULUS program without adding a single dime to the deficit.

So, am I wrong on this - or have I just missed anyone else talking about it?

[piytar]

THE DONKS HAVE HAD CONGRESS SINCE 2008! This is THEIR mess!

Sheesh!!!