-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In June 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama declared that President Bush had run “the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history.” At the time Obama made that statement, the highest deficit run up by the Bush administration was $412.7 billion. Today, President Obama released his administration’s new 10-year budget outlook and it never shows an annual deficit lower than $739 billion.
To be clear, this isn’t meant as a defense of the Bush administration’s fiscal record, which I view as completely atrocious. The point is that as horrendous as the Bush administration’s record is, the Obama administration is far worse, even if you give Obama some leeway. Below, I made a number of calculations that cast an escalating amount of blame on Bush, and Obama still ends up as the worse spender.*
The years 2009 through 2011 are projected to be historically devastating from a budgetary standpoint because of the ongoing economic crisis. There’s a big partisan argument about who should be blamed for the deficits during this period, so in the first scenario, let’s just throw these out of the equation to get a better sense of spending during more typical years. If you do this, the average annual deficit during the Bush years (2001 through 2008) was 2 percent of GDP, or less than half the 4.04 percent average annual deficits anticipated by the Obama administration for 2012 through 2020. If you look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP (which I think is a better measure because it tells us the actual cost of the federal government to taxpayers), Obama also comes off worse – averaging 23.1 percent annually compared to 19.6 percent during the Bush years.
Let’s just say we think that Obama and Bush should share the blame, and so instead of eliminating the three roughest years, we factor 2009 into Bush’s performance, while saying Obama’s responsibility truly starts in 2010. By that measure, Bush’s average annual deficits jump to 2.9 percent of GDP, but Obama’s projected shortfalls soar to 5 percent per year. In spending terms, Bush’s average rises to 20.2 percent, but Obama’s is higher still at 23.5 percent.
Let’s say we decide to be even more charitable, and accept the Obama administration’s argument that they were dealt a very bad hand, and that all of the stimulus spending and bailouts were a direct result of Bush’s failed economic policies. This would mean defining the Bush years so broadly as to include 2001 through 2011 and transferring Obama’s three worst budget years to the Bush record.
Under this scenario, from a deficit perspective, Obama finally comes off looking slightly better. On average, I calculated deficits at 4.07 percent of GDP for 2001 through 2011, compared to a forecast of 4.04 percent from 2012 through 2020. However, from a spending perspective, Obama still comes off worse. During the “Bush years” broadly defined, the spending average is 21.1 percent of GDP, while spending during the rest of the years projected under Obama’s budget (2012 through 2020), averages 23.1 percent of GDP. So in other words, even if we pretend that the economic stimulus bill counts as money spent by Bush, Obama is still a bigger spender. While that 2 percent difference in spending as a percentage of GDP may not sound like a lot, keep in mind that in dollar terms, the GDP is projected to be a combined $181.3 trillion during the years 2012 through 2020, according to the OMB. So 2 percent represents $3.6 trillion.
* I used Congressional Budget Office data for the years 2001 through 2009, and projections from Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget fro 2010 through 2020.
View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/01/why-obama-is-an-even-bigger-sp
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
- Sweet Home, Alabama
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 2.1.10 @ 5:49PM
Cutting Back? No Way: More Outrageous Spending in Obama’s White House… Where Everybo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Roy| 2.1.10 @ 7:00PM
You mean..Democrats blow more money than Republicans? Wow! I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die from that surprise.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 9:55AM
As I was trying to tell you yesterday, though liberal states are no better than red states, the red states only have lower taxes in SOME areas.
Let's take Alaska for starters since Palin is-- or was-- from there. There is no sales tax in Alaska, but every citizen gets funds to keep enough residents in the state-- and not the private charity sort of funds as you know. A resident of Alaska has to pay property taxes, much of which (no, that is NOT to say all) of which goes to schools that aren't much better than the schools in the lower 48.
Red states are better for business, but the schools are no better, the lower taxes means lower services-- and right-wing politicians are corruptible; perhaps not as corruptible as leftists, but still corruptible.
And what does it matter if a liar-- I mean lawyer-- is red or blue? an attorney can still steal more with a briefcase than a robber can steal with a gun.
I agree that we need rightwingers and conservatives to counteract ("counterbalance" in PC lingo) the excesses of the left, but you people make it sound as if there is something wholesome about it all, when politics left and right are disingenuous to the max.
And if someone comes to AS and disagrees with you, you call them a libral, and then it's yuk yuk, hilarity to ensue. You all think you don't go to the bathroom, or something.
I NEVER said I don't like the South, I said it is no better than the North, so when you imply that red states are better places to live, you are merely whistling Dixie. Nothing wrong with Right to Work, pro-business states; but isn't it interesting American Spectator is located on the Eastern Seaboard, and not, say, in Oklahoma or mississippi? You think Emmett Tyrrell would move AS to Mississippi? Hell no. Perhaps he would retire to Florida, but that's the extemt of his conceivably wanting to live in the South.
No matter what I write it is always "Brooks is a secret progressive (even though I think progress is going sour), or a "liberal because your family was libral", or "you are insane, Brooks."
Old Texican tells me I'm going to Hell because I don't like his politically-schizophrenic Texas (the state that gave us LBJ and G.W. Mush) politics;
a fake tough guy here (how brave of him to threaten a thousand miles away) yesterday said he would like to punch me in the "bever".
What angers you all most is you sense you deserve Obama, and that hurts. The GOP runs substandard candidates and you think "one of these days we'll discover another Reagan."
But it's been 21 years since he left office and the game is long over-- you are the last to know.
I'm not gloating, I think it is sad you Republicans keep shooting yourselves in the feet, it is sad libertarians are so vicious they tear each other's egos at their Kangaroo Konventions, so they can hardly get elected to anything.
David Dennis | 2.2.10 @ 10:23AM
I'm going to ignore most of your argument because it involves personal disputes I know little about, but there is one thing you brought up that's quite interesting.
You can certainly make a case that you would like to spend more money and thus get better government services, but the evidence is that it just doesn't work that way.
Instead, unions and special interests get all that money paid to them, and services deteriorate.
Here's an article documenting that unpleasant phenomenon:
http://www.city-journal.org/20.....ornia.html
When I lived in California, a wonderful state if it didn't have such a horrendously high cost of living, my observations agreed precisely with the points made in that article.
D
PS Visit my web site if you have a minute - it's a nice automated news aggregator that finds and displays news relevant to the tea party movement.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 11:07AM
"You can certainly make a case that you would like to spend more money and thus get better government services, but the evidence is that it just doesn't work that way. "
No, PLEASE do understand, I am no social optimist of any sort. I never wrote at AS or anywhere else that spending more funds improves services.
The advantage of red states is that taxes are lower, but there's no scientific evidence the quality of life (aside from lower taxes) is better in red states. You can live in bad locations all around the world that have low taxes. In fact to go out on a limb I'll say (though it is a philosophical statement, not an economic one)there is no such 'thing' as quality of life, only quantity of economic life-- which is real nonetheless. I don't think economics is a science, but it is real, naturally.
As for the nasty stuff, most repliers here aren't as rational as you, so I attack them pre-emptively; but not to be vindictive, only to get the ad hominem nonsense out of the way.
If Old Texican, Margie, or whomever wants to throw out the epithet "libtard", then I'll mention it first by way of saying, "alright, by your standards I am a libtard [even though the optimism required to be a genuine progressive is entirely lacking in me] but tell me why Bush was a conservative..."
The Derb wrote: "I had thought Bush had a conservative bone in his entire body... eight years wasted."
BTW< I don't dislike Bush, but he was no Geo Washington. He was in over his head, as his father was.
Greta| 2.1.10 @ 9:40PM
since the mid 50s the democratic party has held power over the House except for 6 times when the Republicans were in charge. At no time did the Republicans hold more than 23-25 seat majority during those 6 times. The democrats held majorities that were far greater than the current congress having majorities in the 70's of about 170 seats.
During every part of the Reagan and Bush I 12 years the democrats had the House and routinely pronounce the budget they sent over as DOA. Then they loaded everything up with spending pork and tied it to bills and budget items knowing that the president had no line item veto. So almost all the spending problems we have can be traced to control of the House by one party. During the 6 times the Republicans had the House under Clinton, they managed to turn things around and have a surplus. Give the Republicans permanant large majorities in the House and you will have fiscal sanity.
ds80| 2.2.10 @ 12:02PM
Greta, you are absolutely correct. The numbers don't lie - numbers readily available from govt't sources, which Libs care to not look at as the facts don't fit their template.
jrs| 2.1.10 @ 11:09PM
Now, let me start off by saying I'm not trying to give Obama a pass and I definitely think the deficits and more importantly the overall level of debt in this country is not only scary but a really poor way to leave the country for future generations. That being said, when we critize Obama's deficits let's make sure we are viewing it from the correct framework (at least when comparing to Bush; I still think it's too big). At the end of the day deficits are what we care about, but let us look at both income as well as spending.
If the world as Bush was leaving office was following a flat path, where Bush leaves off should be a fair place to start the Obama analysis. Unfortunately, the economy has been in a downward trajectory (let's ignore blame for now, there's plenty of it to go around). Therefore, along with economic slowdown is less money coming in. Holding spending constant, Obama faces a bigger deficit than Bush on this fact alone. At the same time the slowdown results in more government aid programs (unemployment, food stamps, etc...) further increasing the gap. Now at some point (lets be realistic any policy changes don't signficantly alter economic growth overnight but instead have a lag, possibly of a number of years) policies enacted on Obama's watch will have an impact on Revenues, but most likely not in the first several years. I haven't ran any numbers (I'm fortunately still employed and am wasting enough time making blog posts as it is) but I'm willing to guess this closes the deficit gap a bit.
That being said, even with my modifications to the analysis, the deficit is way too big. A big part of the problem is the whole concept of automatic stabilizers discussed above. There is nothing really wrong with them in of themselves, as they're mostly a visualization of the accounting thats going on (of course with some policy basis). The problem is ceteris paribus budget deficits (surpluses) grow (shrink) when the economy gets worse. Unfortunately, when we don't make sacrifices (either higher taxes, less spending, or a combination) during the good times and run deficits as a result, these deficits get really big during bad times.
Finally, before I get criticized of being some evil socialist by making presenting some defense of Obama (remember, I'm only making a partial defense), what worries me maybe even more than the deficit (since supposedly some really smart economists feel this spending will take care of itself in the future, notice skepticism) is the assumptions outlined by cnbc today. They report that the budget analysis was done assuming 3.2 to 4.3% GDP growth over the next six years (averaging, 3.8%). While hopefully I'm totally wrong on this, these levels of growth are not only higher than anything we've seen over the past decade, they are significantly higher than many noted economists (I'd argue we should count anything over 3% in the next decade as great). Assuming we don't reach these lofty levels, what looks pretty bad is only going to look much worse. As we should be well aware from the credit crunch, even with the best models, if you feed the models garbage they'll only spit out garbage.
Yosemeti Sam| 2.2.10 @ 3:24AM
From January 2007 to January 2009 - 2 years -
Democrats had complete control of Congress;
that bicameral institution which controls
the Constitutional 'purse strings'. What legislation
they passed as the party in power, they then
'owned' - notwithstanding Bushs' pragmatism in
wheeling and dealing cooperatively with the
party in purse string power to achieve his own aims.
Why, 'twas a waltz of the sugarplum fairies.
Now, BHO can hem and haw - like a typical donkey - at the last '8 years' being the hereditary
fiscal millstone about his neck; yet, 2 of those
8 years can be laid at the back doorstep - escape route - of the Democrat party.
2 years! 730 days! 104 weeks! 17,520 hours!
During the above 17,520 hours time frame:
The ever sagacious Democrats: senator Dudd and congressman Frankfurter in their respective
positions of chairing banking committees -
accomplished ZERO in heading off at the pass those devilishly synergistic underlying financial factors which would hurtle America to an economic brink.
Comes responsibility time - i.e. owning up.
Benign neglect on the part of pivotal dynamic duo Democrats?
Hmmmmm. How about - Phooey!
Or, an elaborately cunning Bush in 2007-2008 made Democrats in Congress cringe and say - yes' em master, to having their arms, necks, hips
and thighs twisted to produce paperwork on big-bucks legislative spending to be routinely laid upon his desk for his autograph.?
Hmmmmm. How about - Baloney!
BTW where was BHO in 2007 and 2008? Mmmmm, mmmmm - mmmmm!
Andrew| 2.2.10 @ 9:26AM
Yosemeti has the right point:
The current fiscal problem has manifested itself over the past years (but certainly the past 3 years) by a congress that has no financial clue as to what policies can ruin a nation.
Back in school, I remember a civics rhyme, "the President proposes, congress disposes". However, Republicans may have learned to say "no" on health care, but probably nothing else. This does not separate them from the pack mentality, just establishes a media nuance of fiscal sanity
rom gold | 2.2.10 @ 5:17AM
last I checked a BRIBE was against the law also
Pingback| 2.2.10 @ 8:09AM
Instapundit » Blog Archive » WHY BARACK OBAMA is an even bigger spender than Bush…. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
edh| 2.2.10 @ 8:31AM
worse, don't these budget numbers include TARP 1 as "Bush" spending and its eventual repayment as "Obama" revenue?
Pingback| 2.2.10 @ 8:40AM
Cold Fury » Why yes, the Boy Who Would Be King really does think you’re that stupid links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lazy Jack | 2.2.10 @ 8:41AM
Fiscal Malpractice
Oh, to be a trial lawyer with the ability to sue the executive branch.
Doctors Emmanuel, Axelrod, and Obama - after identifying that the patient has late stage lung cancer - have just prescribed two more packs of cigarettes a day. A $3.8 trillion budget? If it is not fiscal malpractice, will someone please tell us what is?
Frankly, after acting like Democrats four at least four years this past decade, Republicans share some of this blame. But, liberal tinkering has been the norm since 1932, so if the President is going to continue to blame the past he should look back a little farther than Bush. Johnson, Kennedy, Ike, Truman, Carter, Nixon, and Roosevelt all share culpability. And what was the one condition they all shared during their presidencies: the cancer of near perpetual majorities in the legislature by the Democrats since 1932. One thing is clear from this budget; hope and change mean governing like it is 1937.
Lazy Jack
http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....n-edifice/
Derek Leaberry| 2.2.10 @ 8:53AM
Isn't this on the level of saying that Jeffrey Dahmer was a more prolific killer than Jack the Ripper?
david childress| 2.2.10 @ 9:04AM
I've never blogged before to give an opinion, and I'm a layman to politics. I didn't agree with a lot of what Bush did, but I never had the uneasy feeling like I do now that he was a threat to our own country. Decisions he made were unpopular to many, you can't please everybody, but his goal, in my view, was to try and keep us secure and our way of life intact. Obama and his administration, it seems, are deliberately doing things to weaken us as a nation, and to the rest of the world. Bush was a threat to terrorists, Obama is a threat to our way of life. America is not perfect, but it is the best country in the world, and I don't or won't apologize to anyone for us. Where freedom is concerned, it's always easier to keep what you've got, then to fight to get back what you've lost.
Deborah D | 2.2.10 @ 9:20AM
David -- Amen. Go look up the term "critical theory" (wikipedia has a good write-up) -- and you'll understand what the left has been doing to this country for years. It's a Marxist term -- criticize everything culturally and socially -- that pretty much leads to a tearing down of traditional American values. That's where we are -- fighting for our country and its values -- this is a war we're in, it just hasn't involved violence. I hesitate to say, "yet."
Lazy Jack | 2.2.10 @ 10:46AM
Once upon a time I penned the missive below. The proposition was this: All Obama must do to be considered a great Democrat is to duplicate what happened during the Bush years, then add a few zeros. Looks like he took it to heart, not realizing it was meant as a cautionary tale.
Obama is now the Uber Bush, without the likability.
Lazy Jack
http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....uber-bush/
Pingback| 2.2.10 @ 11:26AM
Any lenders that offer Bad credit unsecured loans ? | Loans Finance Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.2.10 @ 12:48PM
Morning Whip, Feb. 2, 2010 - Medary.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.2.10 @ 5:49PM
Why Obama Is an Even Bigger Spender Than Bush « DPGI – the aftermath links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 4:41AM
B.S. budget… « Time for Thorns links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 6:38AM
B.S. budget… | Latest News India | Education News | Technology News | Entertainment links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 10:01AM
Obama’s Recession Hits Liberal Media… Katie Couric Earns $300,000 a WEEK, CBS News E links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 8:10AM
BizzyBlog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 7:59PM
Tacky: CBS News Employees Jobless, Katie Couric Romps in Harper’s Bazaar Interview w links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.5.10 @ 3:07PM
Las Vegas’s Tourism Could Skyrocket Thanks to Obama’s Thoughtless Dissing… Something links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.11.10 @ 3:01PM
Miss him yet? | OpenMarket.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: