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'm not defending the Stimulus in ANY way, but I do understand what the author is saying. Though $787B is the total, much of the Stimulus money is to be spent in coming years. Same for the children's health insurance program. So, if repealed, much of the Stimulus spending would never hit the books, & the predictions for deficit spending would be lower on the author's chart.
As for those future year predictions, they assume no NEW or unexpected spending, & they assume revenues are predictable. Like Congress is gonna stop spending, & revenues are gonna go up in THIS economy. And all the predicted Obama deficits are larger than any of the Bush deficits, if you ignore the twin spending disasters of 2009-10.
Bush basically ignored Congressional spending while concentrating on national security & foreign policy. Obama is actively encouraging spending while trying hard to ignore national security & foreign policy. Bush was only half wrong, but Obama is ALL wrong.
If we could combine Bush with a deficit hawk, what a great President he/she would be!
$140B was the amount spent this fiscal year.
That's correct -- it's all we can do at this point. It's not dishonest, however, to remind ourselves that Bush was a horrible tax-and-spender. He made the same deal with the devil (otherwise known as the Democrats) as Reagan did to let Congress spend whatever it wanted as long as he got his tax cuts and money for the WOT.
The enemy within is layered throughout our government. This goes much further than the Executive branch of the Federal government.
Capitalism works but there are those who realize Capitalism gives freedom (a type of power) to the people. Yes, I know some corporations have had to be regulated and that is understandable.
Most of all, the Marxist’s goal is to turn people into government dependents and give the power to the people who promote Marxist views. The Marxist know Capitalism will never allow them to obtain the power they desire. Therefore, their agenda is to make all people dependent on the government. This give them the power to control.
Then again, there are those nuts out there who believe big daddy government is good due to the fact they are lazy and lack ambition.
First of all, I loved Prsident Reagan, he was the first president I voted for....he still is my hero, but the debt went through the roof during his time as president.
President Reagan wanted guns and Tip O’Neal wanted butter and they both pushed for what they wanted. Both sides compromised and the debt went through the roof.
Bush was fighting a war, also, or did you forget that little tid bit? Don’t answer that because if you did not take that into consideration then do the math. As for welfare, PUT PEOPLE TO WORK, like President Reagan did when he was governor of California — WorkFare.
Your absolutely right. GWB signed into law every one of those spending bills passed by the Democratically controlled Congress, including the 2009 budget passed in Oct. 2008. Nary a veto in sight.
And lets not forget “No Child Left Behind” & the prescription drug benefit added to Medicare. The schools got crappier & Medicare got closer to insolvency.
Who’s responsible? Somebody made a plausible suggestion on another thread this morning...
1. 17th Amendment
2. The removal of any voting requirements via the Civil Rights Act of 1965. When 50% of the electorate pays no taxes, they will keep voting themselves goodies at everybody else’s expense.
uummm, how does an $787 billion stimulus plus other programs only produce a $140 billion price tag?
.........
+-20% of the $787 billion stimulus was actually spent in 2009.
Nice post. While we shouldnt let Democrats off the hook for the spending I have no tolerance for Republican-shills claiming things would have been better if Bush or McCain was president. They would have spent us into the toilet too.
We know it is both parties.
The overwhelming majority of the blame for our enormous national debt belongs to the democratic congresses that created the lion's share of it over the years.
While it's true that various republican presidents can't be absolved completely, the president cannot spend a dime without approval from both houses of congress first, nor is the president ever truly the author of the final federal budget that he eventually must sign.
+1
Although there is a point that President Bush didn't veto spending, one has to remember that all spending bills originate in Congress. Zero is just to blame- this inherited shtick is BS. He was in congress writing and voting for said spending.
+1
Obama and his Erosionist Lieberal “INHERITED” what they Actively Vote For as a Majority in CONgress for TWO YEARS prior to his becoming “president” in a Fraud riddled (s)election. For TWO (2) yrs Obama and his Lieberal Erosionist Compadres had a MAJORITY. Bushie was terrible BUT can't blame this one on Bush. CONgress controls the purse strings and Lieberals had a Majority in CONgress who Voted for the “inheritance” including Obutts YES VOTES, therefore he “inherited” what he VOTED FOR. You can see from your graph that when Lieberals took a majority everything went out of WACK, deficits, gas hikes, financial crisis, unemployment, etc., as if by design to be later used to sabotage and win an election.
How about that Reality Check MONKEY WRENCH on “inheritance”?
The Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006.
The end of federalism is to blame.
Everyone loves their congresscritter when they “bring home the bacon”, little realizing they’re paying for every other state’s pork, too. (Usually on stuff that wouldn’t be approved if it wasn’t being perceived as “free”)
If states had to spend their own money, I guarantee there would be fewer project outlays.
s/b “end of anti-federalism”
Type in haste, repent at leisure.
You make a very good point.
What’s going on in Washington is like throwing money in the air...everyone wants to grab as much of it as possible.
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.
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.