Some critics are lambasting President Obama for record deficits. This is not a productive line of attack, largely because it puts the focus on the wrong variable. America’s fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. Moreover, if deficits are perceived as the problem, that means both spending restraint and higher taxes are solutions. The political class, needless to say, will choose the latter approach 99 percent of the time. A higher tax burden, however, simply means that debt-financed spending is replaced by tax-financed spending, which is akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, or vice-versa.
In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted 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 make sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).
It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.
Your argument here fails to state one very important thing: The Democratic controlled congress only allowed Bush to pass a half year budget for 2009, with Obama being responsible for setting the other half. You also fail to mention that the TARP funding approved under Bush was paid back under Obama. You say that Obama deserves a “small share” of the blame for the stimulus package while not mentioning the fact that the Stimulus was nearly $1 trillion in additional spending. The stimulus alone makes up most of the difference.
I call BS. The huge “stimulus” package was signed by Obama in February of 2009 that had been passed by the newly elected Democrat Congress, and that added over $800B to the 2009 budget. Not only that. Since the Dems refused to pass any budgets after 2009, the “stimulus” funding became the base for CRAs for the following years.
[…] I’ve already explained that George W. Bush deserves the overwhelming share of the blame for the budget numbers in Fiscal […]
[…] to an error of judgment) in the GOP press release. And it’s one I should have noticed since I made the same point back in 2009, which is that the FY2009 budget began on October 1, 2008 and should be blamed on President Bush. […]
[…] the numbers started turning in the wrong direction under Bush, and Obama is right when he says he inherited a bad situation. On the other hand, Obama has continued the big-government and interventionist policies of his […]
[…] a statist rather than a conservative, and you can find additional commentary from me here, here, here, and […]
[…] forget that FY2009 began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office, and the bad numbers for that fiscal year generally should be attributed to Bush. Yes, Obama added to FY2009 spending with an omnibus appropriations bill and the faux stimulus, but […]
[…] forget that FY2009 began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office, and the bad numbers for that fiscal year generally should be attributed to Bush. Yes, Obama added to FY2009 spending with an omnibus appropriations bill and the faux stimulus, but […]
[…] forget that FY2009 began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office, and the bad numbers for that fiscal year generally should be attributed to Bush. Yes, Obama added to FY2009 spending with an omnibus appropriations bill and the faux stimulus, but […]
When did the budget first include spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those expenditures were not included before 2009. Right? But they were added to the national debt just the same, but never showed up in the deficit until 2009.
Mr. Mitchell is incorrect. Spending for the entire FY 2009 was not largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. The Democratic Congress and the Republican President reached a spending compromise on September 30, 2008 with HR 2638. That continued spending at FY 2008 levels until March 6, 2009. The remaining 7 months for FY 2009 was spent according to HR 1105, signed by President Obama.
It’s neither Bush’s budget nor Obama’s budget – it’s Congress’s budget. No President can spend a dime unless it is first approved by Congress. The record-breaking deficits of FY 2008 and 2009 were Pelosi-Reid budgets.
[…] uncomfortable when attacked from the right and the left. But that’s what happened with my commentary (which I also cross-posted at Cato-at-Liberty) about Bush, Obama, and the FY2009 budget deficit. […]