« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Blame Obama for Reckless Spending, but not for the FY2009 Deficit

By: danmitchell (Diary)  |  November 23rd, 2009 at 05:39 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

From the diaries by Erick

In a recent post on Cato-at-Liberty, I suggested that advocates of limited government should not attack Obama for the record FY2009 deficit. My argument was based on two points. First, the real problem is government spending, so that is where we should focus on energies. Fixating on deficits can be helpful, to be sure, but it also can unwittingly aid the other side since it enables them to offer a “solution” in the form of higher taxes. My second point was that Obama is largely not responsible for the FY2009 budget, which began on October 1, 2008.

This second point has led to some spirited – and conflicting – responses, with Bruce Bartlett attacking me from the left and Mustango attacking me from the right.

Let’s deal with Mustango’s criticisms. He argues that budgets are passed by Congress, presumably implying that Nancy Pelosi, et al, should be blamed. The Speaker of the House is a complete statist, so I’m a big fan of anybody who points out her flaws, but since President Bush supported all of the wasteful spending adopted in the last year (as well as the first seven years) of his presidency, he also must bear responsibility for the results.

The second criticism is that I was letting Obama off the hook for his pork-filled stimulus. That’s definitely not the case. My blog post specifically noted that Obama bears part of the responsibility for the FY2009 deficit, but since less than $200 billion of so-called stimulus was allocated in FY2009, that is rather trivial compared to a budget deficit of more than $1.4 trillion. And even if the extra spending from the omnibus spending bill is added to Obama’s tab, his total is still less than $250 billion.

Bruce Bartlett’s disagreements are harder to address, largely because I have a hard time believing anybody could read my post and conclude that I was being – as he wrote – a shill for the GOP. Bruce seems to think I was blaming Obama for all post-2009 deficits, even though I never made such a claim. What I did say, and completely stand by, is that Obama “is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor.”

I don’t care if somebody has an “R” after their name of a “D” after their name. If they increase the burden of government spending, they should be criticized.

Tags: , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • billyd

    I do agree that Bush overspent his way into democrat control of both houses and the presidency. Not a single person that calls themselves a conservative can say that Bush’s spending policies were warranted or responsible. However, The budget for FY2009 wasn’t brough up for a vote in 08 for one simple reason. Bush threatened to veto it. Pelosi and co knew that they couldn’t get this massive spending bill passed while he was still in office. So they waited until Obama was elected, and then presented it to him with full knowledge that he wouldn’t question a single spending measure in it. If you want to get into the TARP spending, yes, Bush is responsible for 1/2 of that spending, as is Obama. Not to mention, as of now, the 1/2 that Obama decided to give to the car companies, has a very, very good chance of never being paid back.
    I will continue to blame Obama for the FY2009 budget that he signed, not George Bush.

    • lurker9876

      I remember the Omnibus (Obamamnibus?) that was approved by Congress; signed by Obama. Bush deferred most of 2009 budget to this year because of his veto.

      And I remember Obama trying to cut back some of the defense programs, such as f22. I’m sure he increased the spending in other programs. AND didn’t he extend the unemployment?

      What about the new SCHIP?

      • Flagstaff

        Which of the two was bigger?

        Obama in effect voted for both halves, didn’t he? Bush only ‘voted’ for one.

        What I did say, and completely stand by, is that Obama

    • http://spendenforcer.com/ vortigernpendragon

      Big spending has become symptomatic in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Moreso by the Democrats than the Republicans, but the Republicans are not without blame. Unfortunately, the way to conduct business by politicians is to increase spending and never decrease it. I’m sure everyone in government knows they are destroying the country, but no one has the will to do anything about it. That’s why we need to get their attention with a very bold move. Going to the website in my signature and clicking on the meter, then spreading the word to others is something like what I have in mind.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21n4ZOP8KE

    • rbdwiggins

      “I will continue to blame Obama for the FY2009 budget that he signed, not George Bush.”

      Well said.

      Also, I’m willing to cut President Bush a little slack on domestic spending, but only a little. That was the price he had to pay to ensure the Democratic controlled congress would not de-fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      • mbecker908

        Profligate domestic spending most certainly was NOT the purchase price to Democrats.

        No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Drugs… those two budget busters were Bush signature programs and were passed at a time when the Republicans had control of the House.

        • aesthete

          like Elisabeth Dole’s idiotic bill banning online gambling.

  • Vegas_Rick

    that’s 14.3% of the deficit. Which is hardly “trivial.”

    • Vegas_Rick

      and to equate Bush and Obama spending is hardly fair or accurate. Obama’s debt is HOW many times the 2008 deficit? Hmm?

      • benjjneb

        When you look at the deficit numbers, you have to understand for what the reported “deficit” is. This number includes only “budgeted” overspending, not all governmental spending. Essentially, consider your spending, but with all spur of the moment purchases hidden (from everyone but your bank).

        Throughout the Bush years the administration spent massive amounts of money off-budget (a practice which Obama has largely eschewed thus far, hence the much larger reported deficits). Initially this was due to truly unforseeable needs resulting from 9/11 and the aftermath, but the practice lasted far longer than it should have.

        As a truer measure of the real deficit, consider the debt accrued, which includes “off-budget” spending. By this measure the true deficit was already 1 trillion dollars in 2008, and was over half a trillion for almost every year of the Bush presidency.

        As a fiscal conservative, I have to tell you that the Bush years made it very hard for me to justify voting Republican. What is the point when they break the budget as badly as Democrats do?

        • Vegas_Rick

          When you can show me wasteful Bush spending anywhere close to the porkulus and omnibus, then you may have a point. Most of the Bush off budget spending was war related, and contrary to your claims, the practice continues today.

          Deficits are smoke and mirrors. Wasteful spending is not. Obama and his minions are the King’s court of wasteful spenders.

          I will not defend Bushes spending policies either. But to equate them with Obama’s is simply ludicrous.

          • benjjneb
          • notreallyrepublican

            makes me want to cry. Why can’t we elect anyone that doesn’t end up hugely expanding government?

          • Aaron Gardner
          • notreallyrepublican

            This is like watching your house slowly burn down in front of you… It’s agonizing

          • dsmurf

            what a stretch!
            You will never see headlines on Drudge about having record revenues under Obama like Bush did thanks to the green energy push and this health care debate that hasn’t died yet.
            Bush paid down his debt, down to 162B, until the right to having a house under the Community Reinvestment Act was beefed up under Clinton, enabled with low interest rates, and allowances made for over 100% loan to value loans came back to haunt the country. With Paulson, Keynesian economics came back with a vengeance, and Laffers curve is ancient history with this Democratic triumvirate of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
            Without capital gains income, which made Clinton under a Republican Congress, look like Reagan,( how do you like that stretch?), and supply side economics, no one has a prayer of increasing government revenues to pay off any of these deficits.
            Not a single Democrat has proposed tax cuts and the President scoffed at lowering the measly 18 cent federal fuel tax when gas was at $4.

    • passerby825

      Thank you for the reasonable post. I am glad to see that you are not blaming this years spending on Obama. Considering that the deficiet estimate is only about 300 billion more then what it was estimated in January, before Obama became President, and most of that is because of lower income. And yes, you are correct that we should curb government spending, but should we really do that during a recession? I completely agree that spending is out of control, but a recession is no time for cutting back, if you ask me.

      • Vegas_Rick

        The almost $900 billion dollar porkulus bill and the $600 or so in the ommibus spending bill, who owns that?

        Pray tell, exactly why is it a good thing to spend money that you do not have? Recession or not? Do you do that in your house hold?

        And exactly who do you blame THIS YEAR’s spending on if not Obama? Who signed the freaking spending bills?

        But, hey, it’s a reasonable post. In your view.

        • notreallyrepublican

          You’re exactly right- Bush was as antithetical to the conservative ideal as Obama is. The problem isn’t Obama in particular but a complete abandonment of conservative values by the governing apparatus. I’m done being jerked around by both republicans and democrats: I want conservatives. F*ck these RINO’s. At least democrats are honest about a liberal agenda. I’ve watched way too many republicans do nothing but pay lip service to us conservatives. I don’t trust a damn thing coming from the national party anymore.

          • Vegas_Rick

            “Bush was as antithetical to the conservative ideal as Obama is.” I disagreed with most of Mr. Bush’s economic policies, but that is the only area IMHO where he deviated from conservatism. Obama doesn’t have a conservative cell in his socialist anti-American being.

          • notreallyrepublican

            I live in California. Not a bastion of conservatism as I’m woefully aware, but theres a movement afoot that I agree with here: The state’s legalized medicinal marijuana, and is moving to fully legalize and tax it. Make the damn hippies living off welfare and SSI pay into government coffers so you’re not dipping into my paycheck for income tax. It’s a sales tax, you only get taxed if you choose to buy the product, not government deciding it’s entitled to my pay check. It also nicely dovetails into personal freedom and getting the government out of people’s lives, things I’m in favor of. And yet instead of seeing this as a state issue which the constitution delegates to the states, Bush went gung-ho with the FBI and DEA raiding clinics. Something Obama has continued as well. Bush had a lot more in common with these libtards then you seem to think.

            Both of them kill innovation which may one day keep the government away from my pocketbook.

          • Vegas_Rick

            Come on, Ron Paul supporter. Huh?

          • notreallyrepublican

            much like some weird magical imp for me, or at least thats what I got out of him :)

            I paint myself more as a Barry Goldwater-type, and I assure you im not trolling.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • notreallyrepublican

            We have a constitution. Obama doesn’t seem to care about it, I’d like conservatives, or at least those who say they’re conservative, to set the better example.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Look, I am sympathetic to the medical marijuana argument, heck I am even sympathetic to the the argument for decriminalization and legal sale. But none of that matters because the laws are what they are, and it is the Constitutional duty of teh POTUS to enforce the law.

            So again, Bush was following his Constitutional duties to enforce the law, thus embracing the rule of law which is not antithetical to conservatism. You can say that President Bush was more liberal on domestic issues and sympathetic to Keynesian economic policies in his second term., but to say he is just as antithetical to conservatism as Obama is plane ridiculous.

          • notreallyrepublican

            Allows it. Unless its one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, that should be the end of the argument right there.

            And I’ll agree with you, antithetical may have been hyperbolic, but I’m even more disillusioned after 8 years of bush then i was before. It’s frustrating.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Medical marijuana dispensaries end up selling to people without proper prescriptions, they grow more than they report, they bend the law with intent to break it without getting caught. This does no good for the proponents of medical marijuana and it strengthens the argument for Federal supremacy in enforcing the law.

            Unless your contention is that the evil Bush admin was raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in the dead of night terrorizing the growers for no reason and with no apparent evidence, and with no warrant to do so, which would be wrong.

          • notreallyrepublican

            And I would contend that if they were doing such things they deserved it. But the evidence in the local papers didn’t point towards that, but simply a zero-tolerance policy by the feds. California has, as a state matter, shut down something like 13 dispensaries for violating the medical marijuana law requirements, suggesting to me that the state is more then able to handle the issue without the extraconstitutional power grab by washington.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Which brings us back to the original point. You can’t blame Bush for enforcing the law as it exists. He didn’t violate state’s rights because under the current federal law the states don’t have an inherent right to grow or distribute marijuana. Honestly, I wish he would have acted that way sooner with the immigration laws that are on the books.

            Your problem seems to be more with the DEA for classifying marijuana as a schedule 1 drug.

          • Finrod

            In my mind, it doesn’t matter that the Tenth Amendment has been trampled on since the 1930s, the President still takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, all of it. Upholding the Constitution is more important than enforcing laws passed under it.

            I’ll agree with you, though, regarding comparing Bush and Obama.

          • Aaron Gardner

            but at the same time isn’t that debate more suited for the Judiciary rather than the Executive? Until a law is deemed unconstitutional, doesn’t the executive branch have a duty to enforce the law? If not, why have the separations of powers? And I understand how this can bite us in the backside, but as a matter of consistency I think we should enforce the laws that are on the books, unless it truly is an unjust law, i.e slavery.

          • Darin_H

            There are so many laws that we cannot enforce them all, so the executive does get to pick and choose.

            And of course there’s the Old Hickory way of doing things….

          • Aaron Gardner

            And I wouldn’t try the Old Hickory method too often, nor would I think invoking it to save marijuana would be a proper use.

          • Darin_H

            puff, come on, bro… legalize it :)

          • solvoreor

            I thought about this a lot. The Democrats are responsible for the fiscal crises and the deficit spending.
            1. The democrats held the House and Senate since the message of 2006. It is the legislature that enacts laws and authorizes spending. OK Pres. Bush could have vetoed legislation and funding but a) he needed cooperation for the troops who he never abandoned, b) we voted the morons in who is he to judge? After all didn’t a big chunk of conservative voters stay home to “send a message to Washington”. Well what message did you think Pres. Bush would hear when you handed him a spendthrift democratic House and Senate. That we wanted less spending? c) it isn’t only spending that has lead to the problems – it is also the failure of the Democrat controlled committees who had responsibility to protect the interests of the American people that lead to the panic in the financial sector. A case can be made that the crisis of leadership was intentional and that the democrats who pushed the system to the brink “Salinskyesquely” knew full well the risks they were taking.

            2. President Obama has a veto proof majority. He could have lead the legislature to enact drastic cuts in spending. He did the exact opposite.

            So, yes I blame the democrats for the explosion in the deficit.

            And this is why it is so important to understand what lead to this explosion in the deficit. The deficit isn’t about who is in the White House, but rather about who is in control of the legislature. A strong, domestically focused president could stop a lot of the foolishness, and I do think President Bush should have been a lot stronger in that regard. Give him credit, he did help Pelosi and Reed’s 110th Congress earn the title “the do nothing” Congress.

            Obama on the other hand has shown no control, no common sense, and has made no effort to reduce spending or bring sanity to the excesses of the radical leftest leadership that has floated to the top of the septic overflow that has flooded Congress.

            So, I don’t blame President Bush. I can’t blame Pres. Obama for acting like the 60′s radical organizer turned politician that he is. But I can point to Congress and say they did this. Congress controls the spending and oversight. And that has been controlled since 2006 by Democrats.

            And for that we can only blame ourselves.

            Remind all your friends who didn’t like our candidates, or the money the republicans spent when they control things that sitting home to send a message was stupid.

            It is like leaving your money in a barrel on the street where anyone could steal it because you think the bank isn’t paying a high enough interest rate.

            Want to blame someone for these deficits? We have only ourselves to blame.

            WmCraig
            Solvo Reor

            Republicans spent too much money – BAD
            the opposite of Bad is not WORSE

          • Scope

            your language is offensive, even if you change the characters in the spelling.

          • Scope

            are we that desperate for diaries? This is very disapointing. It’s like bringing on the Republican circular firing squad.

          • Scope

            Is this a new big tent strategy?

          • Finrod

            Obama signed the FY2009 omnibus spending bill, 5 months late. That should end the argument right there as to who gets the blame for the deficit in that budget.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            They could have used their Majorities to over-turn any Spending at any point/time – all they have done is exponentially increase it everywhere!

            anytime we try to just “concede” some point for the sake of an argument to move onto what others feel are “better points” always bites us as the MSM will play up the supposed “conceded” points.

            Bush is to blame for the TARP creation but Obama is equally (more-so) responsible for putting it on steroids and blowing it out of proportion – as Liberals always do. The Budget is solely Democrats fault and even large degree during the Bush last two years – since folks know so litle as to recall that Spending originates in the House (but, yes, a President can, could, should, do more to VETO/challenge Spending). Etc…..

            Obama and LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS Spending must be challenged at every turn on all fronts – nothing conceded.

          • Darin_H

            It’s not like he was standing athwart yelling “Stop”

          • Darin_H

            That none of my more liberal friends and family members are complaining about spending anymore after doing so for 8 years.

            IOBWARDI

            *It’s Only Bad When a Republican Does It

          • bsquared

            seriously–what is to come of this blame game anyway? Is this really productive? Disappointing, for sure. I’ve heard so much “inherited” trash out of BHO, I’m about full…

          • notreallyrepublican

            I wasn’t aware. Won’t happen again.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I would say that the liberals are the most deceitful pieces of garbage that ever walked the planet. I don’t believe they have an honest bone in their bodies.

            And I will reiterate what Scope said about the language. Almost every comment of yours include a thinly censored curse word. We run a family friendly site here, if you can’t manage to make a point without using vulgarity, you should really refrain from posting.

          • notreallyrepublican

            I really am sorry about that. This is really my first step into a collaborative web environment, im used to just reading and then talking with people around me. It’s a little bit exciting and empowering to have a community of people like me to interact with, I guess I get all… anxious, about it. Way too excited for my own good :) Forgive the language, I’ll keep it in check.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            most were elected last few cycles co-opting Conservative tones (CINO and more CINO, even PLINO) and they keep trying to couch the ObaMAOcare BS as (falsely invoking Conservative terms) “competition,” “Deficit nuetral” one of my favorite laughables, etc…. (McCackle (D-MO))

        • Scope

          don’t feed the trools. We have had a few here lately that have had a platform to spew their garbage, only because people respond to them. You cannot argue, debate or try to change the minds of the Liberals. As the one the other day, he/she thanked the righties for providing him/her with entertainment while he was doing his laundry. Free speech is great however, giving these leftists a forum to spew their liberal agendas does not further the site’s goal of being a republican/conservative site.

        • Scope

          don’t feed the trools. We have had a few here lately that have had a platform to spew their garbage, only because people respond to them. You cannot argue, debate or try to change the minds of the Liberals. As the one the other day, he/she thanked the righties for providing him/her with entertainment while he was doing his laundry. Free speech is great however, giving these leftists a forum to spew their liberal agendas does not further the site’s goal of being a republican/conservative site.

          • Vegas_Rick

            “Sorry,” he mumbles.

        • The_Gadfly

          an unnecessarily hairy mess.

          The President is not authorized by the Constitution to propose spending. All spending must originate in the House. Therefore, beginning with the FY2007 budget, all of the deficits belong to the Dems because they proposed the spending.

          That doesn’t get Bush off the hook. The appropriate quote here comes from Kipling, possibly referencing some other text:

          For the sin that ye do by two and two ye must pay for one by one!

          http://www.sff.net/people/DoyleMacdonald/l_tomlin.htm

          • Finrod

            .

        • passerby825

          I will admit that Obama hasen’t adressed any budget concerns so far, and I don’t see any long-term cuts that he has made (aside from a few defense programs), which raises the concern over whether or not he is willing to make the cuts that our nation will need in the future. And you can argue that the Stimulus and Omnibus bill (which, I don’t fully understand the purpose of the Omnibus, it wasn’t part of the stimulus, but I digest) were wasteful (as I am sure that you will), but THIS YEAR’s (FY2009) spending can hardly be blamed on Obama.
          Pardon me for quoting a liberal article, but you can check out the links he provides for yourself to see whether they are factual:
          http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts

          “According to the Congressional Budget Office’s January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.
          …
          Now let’s fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.

          To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.”

          To clarify: I am not justifying wasteful spending, but I think additional stimulus spending is appropriate (especially if it helps in the short-run, which I feel the stimulus was unsuccessful at doing). But, the deficit we see this year is not even close to being Obama’s fault. Of course, the next few years are a different story altogether.

  • Scope

    n/t

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      so I sure wouldn’t bet against your thought lol

      Some folks can’t maintain CALM and reasonable discussion, unfortunately. But did you think criticizing Erick for having it on the FP was helpful?!?! ;-) lol

      I will make the plea: be respectful — which will, of course, go unseen by most and ignored by yet others.
      words-unseen
      tempers
      threadjack
      “The Cliff”
      Verbal Fisticuffs particpating or trying to calm them

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        can’t just let the two originals go at it and hope to calm them down, but gotta have all involved until people get tossed ;-) lol

        Don’t let the Trolls or someone elses temper degrade us to this…. THESE things are for the RINK where they belong ;-) lol.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    The old guard congressional Republicans were spendthrifts. If they had not been we might not be looking at total Democrat control. But the truth is that for a year now the Dems have been in control (and really three years in congress) So they are the ones who are now held responsible for the recent past.

    If they were acting responsibly then you could point the finger at big bad Bush, But they have been acting like spoiled children taking the family car out for a spin. They are about to wreck it, so No need to cover old ground. Focus on the opposition.

  • Tbone

    It was the Congressional Democrats.

    “…the real problem is government spending. ”

    No, the real problem is the people who vote the expenditures. (see above)