Posted on 01/03/2010 3:47:53 AM PST by rabscuttle385
The temporary increase in the national debt ceiling approved this month — combined with the prospect of a huge trillion-dollar-plus increase early next year — has once again prompted criticisms of President Obama for runaway spending and record deficits.
All this borrowing is only necessary, we are told, because Obama ran up $1.4 trillion of debt in his first year.
It's true that the White House is pushing big spending items, not least of which is his multitrillion-dollar scheme for government-run health care. But many critics, either out of ignorance or malice, are blaming Obama for deficits that are not his fault.
Some Republicans, for instance, complain that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama's policies have led to an explosion of debt.
But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year.
While this might make sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while President Bush was in the White House.
So if we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is mostly right in claiming that he inherited a mess.
Some readers, particularly Republicans, are probably thinking I'm letting Obama off the hook too easily.
What about the so-called stimulus, they will ask, with its $787 billion price tag? Or the omnibus fiscal-year 2009 appropriations bill? And how about Cash for Clunkers and Obama's expansion of the children's health insurance program? Didn't these all boost spending in 2009?
The answer is yes. But these boondoggles amounted to just a tiny percentage of FY2009 spending — about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget — as the pie chart nearby illustrates.
There are some subjective aspects to this estimate, to be sure — I didn't count $25 billion in extra defense spending, for example, because Bush would surely have asked for that as well; ditto bailout for car companies — but the net effect of all the judgment calls isn't to Bush's disadvantage.
On the revenue side, for better or worse, Obama hasn't tinkered much. Obama's so-called stimulus did include a handful of Keynesian-style tax cuts, but his CHIP bill contained some tax increases. The net effect is a slight reduction in tax revenue for FY2009, but not enough to make a noticeable difference.
So what's the final score? Let's use an analogy. Obama's FY2009 performance is like a relief pitcher who enters a game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans should be far angrier with the starting pitcher.
That having been said, Obama has been serving up softballs to the special interests in Washington, so his earned run average may actually wind up being worse than his predecessor's. He promised change, but it appears that Obama wants to be Bush on steroids.
This is where Obama's critics should be directing their attention. Big government won't work any better for Obama than it did for Bush. America's fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. If Obama wants to rejuvenate the economy, he should abandon the Bush policies of big government and interventionism and instead go with free market policies that actually work.
I fully expect that this thread will be swarming with RINO Party apologists after the Sun comes up.
uummm, how does an $787 billion stimulus plus other programs only produce a $140 billion price tag? I think they need to re-examine a few things. And Bush's TARP, unlike the stimulus, was suppose to get paid back to the Treasury, but Obama is busy trying to spend it. So yes Bush was a problem, but this report is bull crap.
“…apologists…”
Hardly, look to the Constitution and you will find your answers; Congress and Congress alone is responsible! Now, let’s talk about the fraud and political corruption as having become all too common and pervasive as a norm among pop-culture, socialist and progressive democrats using all means to justify their ends.
Technically true but an example of lying by omission.
YES, the budget was set by THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS while Bush was still in office. THEN after Obama took over the Obama regime added 1.4 trillion IN ADDITONAL spending by passing such supplemental spending as the Stimulius bill etc
So the author is sliding right by the edge of the truth to manufacture a lie rather then hold is political god Dear Reader accountable for spending he engineered
More like we were in the toilet, and the RATS hit the flusher...
There will be hell to pay, for sure, and I hope that they pay the price.
But the reality says that the people are, and will, so they could at least SHUT UP!
I guess it’s all Bush’s fault.
This "report" simply ignores all $1.4 trillion in additional spending added by the Democrat Congress and Obama in 2009 by pointing out the irrelevant factoid "that the 2009 budget was set under the Bush regime". It also leaves out the little fact that the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and thus have control the purse strings.
But then pro Obama activists like yourself have never allowed the truth to get in the way of a good Democrat Party directed propaganda attack line.
So you Obama apologists simply ignored any spending Dear Reader engineered to avoid having to actually hold him accountable for his actions so you can pathetically cling to your Bush Derangement Syndrome instead.
To be honest, I'm tired of hypocrites and finger pointing. Use that energy to get Conservatives elected with a mandate to repeal this stuff, cut government and begin shrinking the debt. Pour money into the private sector to create jobs in order for revenue to be created and stop breaking the backs of the working Americans citizen. Oh yeah, and the major reason for the debt, build a wall along the Mexican border, round up the illegals and kick them out for good.
Check the chart again with the overview that the Dems took back Congress in 2006.
Dems took hold of Congress.
The house of representatives = source of all spending bills. Yes?
So you agree with this author that his simply ignoring the $1.4 trillion in additional spending engineered by the O regime in 2009 is a legitimate rational argument and not an example of rabid Bush Derangement Syndrome? Perhaps now you understand why no one here takes you CINOs seriously.
Just like the Leftists, you people habitual manufacture data to create fraudulent propaganda lines rather then ever have the simply decency to actually argue the facts in an intellectually honest, rational fashion.
You are right. You will see an increase in spending after 9/11. This is probably War On Terror appropriations and stimulus money to save the airlines, but then you will see that they start to bring spending back in line until the DEMS are elected on ‘06.
CATO is a wholly owned subsidiary of the demonrat party.
Hard to believe they can get beyond their bias to make any cogent arguments.
So it is all Bush’s fault, huh?
Was it Clinton’s fault prior to the 2000 election the US economy was in decline. So which is it?
I think it won’t matter for two reasons;
1). Congress plays a huge part in deficit spending.
2). The economy won’t be recovering anytime soon, and like Carter, the US voter will ultimately put two and two together.
As the saying goes, “...you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
The Obama supporters are just kidding themselves.
Let them kid themselves. The cold slap of reality is coming to them soon.
Experience has taught me that he only thing worse for the nation’s fiscal health than “Tax and Spend Democrats” are “Spend but Don’t Tax Republicans”.
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.