Who's to Blame for the Deficit Numbers?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some did sure. But c'mon a large theme of the democratic campaign was over the size of the deficit. I've seen absolutely squat in attempts to reduce that and I don't see a mass of leftists getting outraged over the growing deficit. It's all a matter of who you support. Its the way it is, but you probably didn't watch or listen, but even Sean Hannity used to criticize Bush over the deficit on TV and the radio.

Our economy was in triage when Obama was sworn into office. Financial institutions - left and right were falling like dominos. As much as some on the Right still firmly disagree, we had to do something...which is why even Bush started doing something. I would hope that most Americans that were reading the papers and listening to the news (not just Fox News) understood that the Fed. Gov't had to step in to save us from going into a Depression. So, as much as lowering the Deficit was one of the talking points of the campaign, it had to be set aside until we get this economy into a recovery.

We could solve a big part of the Deficit problem by ending Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy. That's what I'm counting on happening. We need to bring the tax rates back to what they were before Bush futzed with them.

[dalegg 143]

Congress passes the budget. The President just gets to sign it.

Every Presidential budget except for one (Clinton FY1994) was dead on arrival. Republicans lost control of the House in the 2006 election. FY2008 and FY2009 are the Democrat's budget, not the Republicans, and not Bush's alone. Any spending passed since January 1, 2007, belongs firmly in the Democrat's lap

This is a fact that I think escapes many people. How many times have you read "Obama is fixing the mess the Republicans left him". The Republicans other than Bush left in the beginning of 2007, when things were actually pretty darn good. The deficit was fairly high, but actually heading in the right direction and certainly not at an unrecoverable level. I hate to say this, but if you look at just about every economic indicator, things only really started going downhill from the moment the Democrats took over congress and just went pop when the control was capped by the election of the President. I'm not saying the exchange of parties caused our economic mess, but heck, if Bush's policies were so horrible and destructive, why in the last 2 years did they not do something about it?

[dalegg 143]

We could solve a big part of the Deficit problem by ending Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy. That's what I'm counting on happening. We need to bring the tax rates back to what they were before Bush futzed with them.

I think the tax cuts on the wealthy would have been a positive thing had it not been for our little adventure we started in 2003. I have to admit I never quite understood tax cuts while we launched 2 wars.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Congress passes the budget. The President just gets to sign it.

Every Presidential budget except for one (Clinton FY1994) was dead on arrival. Republicans lost control of the House in the 2006 election. FY2008 and FY2009 are the Democrat's budget, not the Republicans, and not Bush's alone. Any spending passed since January 1, 2007, belongs firmly in the Democrat's lap

This is a fact that I think escapes many people. How many times have you read "Obama is fixing the mess the Republicans left him". The Republicans other than Bush left in the beginning of 2007, when things were actually pretty darn good. The deficit was fairly high, but actually heading in the right direction and certainly not at an unrecoverable level. I hate to say this, but if you look at just about every economic indicator, things only really started going downhill from the moment the Democrats took over congress and just went pop when the control was capped by the election of the President. I'm not saying the exchange of parties caused our economic mess, but heck, if Bush's policies were so horrible and destructive, why in the last 2 years did they not do something about it?

They call it the VETO power of the president.

We could solve a big part of the Deficit problem by ending Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy. That's what I'm counting on happening. We need to bring the tax rates back to what they were before Bush futzed with them.

I think the tax cuts on the wealthy would have been a positive thing had it not been for our little adventure we started in 2003. I have to admit I never quite understood tax cuts while we launched 2 wars.

There wouldn't have been two wars if Bush had told America that those have to be paid for.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Congress passes the budget. The President just gets to sign it.

Every Presidential budget except for one (Clinton FY1994) was dead on arrival. Republicans lost control of the House in the 2006 election. FY2008 and FY2009 are the Democrat's budget, not the Republicans, and not Bush's alone. Any spending passed since January 1, 2007, belongs firmly in the Democrat's lap

This is a fact that I think escapes many people. How many times have you read "Obama is fixing the mess the Republicans left him". The Republicans other than Bush left in the beginning of 2007, when things were actually pretty darn good. The deficit was fairly high, but actually heading in the right direction and certainly not at an unrecoverable level. I hate to say this, but if you look at just about every economic indicator, things only really started going downhill from the moment the Democrats took over congress and just went pop when the control was capped by the election of the President. I'm not saying the exchange of parties caused our economic mess, but heck, if Bush's policies were so horrible and destructive, why in the last 2 years did they not do something about it?

They call it the VETO power of the president.

Not that Bush did anything but threaten a veto, the wimp!

Edited August 27, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Congress passes the budget. The President just gets to sign it.

Every Presidential budget except for one (Clinton FY1994) was dead on arrival. Republicans lost control of the House in the 2006 election. FY2008 and FY2009 are the Democrat's budget, not the Republicans, and not Bush's alone. Any spending passed since January 1, 2007, belongs firmly in the Democrat's lap

This is a fact that I think escapes many people. How many times have you read "Obama is fixing the mess the Republicans left him". The Republicans other than Bush left in the beginning of 2007, when things were actually pretty darn good. The deficit was fairly high, but actually heading in the right direction and certainly not at an unrecoverable level. I hate to say this, but if you look at just about every economic indicator, things only really started going downhill from the moment the Democrats took over congress and just went pop when the control was capped by the election of the President. I'm not saying the exchange of parties caused our economic mess, but heck, if Bush's policies were so horrible and destructive, why in the last 2 years did they not do something about it?

They call it the VETO power of the president.

Not that Bush did anything but threaten a veto, the wimp!

While threatening a veto is quite enough if the majority votes for any piece of legislation aren't enough to override such veto, it isn't like Bush didn't use his veto power at all. He sure didn't in the first and earlier part of his second term. But come 2007, he used it on several occasions. Wonder what changed towards the end of his second term that encouraged him to break out that veto pen from time to time...

1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed).

2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of... H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval.

3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).

5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto.

6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[20] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).

8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[21]. A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President's approval as Pub.L. 110-181 on 28 January 2008.

9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[22][23] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.

10. May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[24][25] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246.

11. 18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[26] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.

12. July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[27] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President's veto.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

i'm well aware of when the federal fiscal year begins....der!

so now you wish to back off from "... Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion" statement?

either that is the truth (as portrayed from your earlier post or you're backpedaling now.

I'm not backpedaling from that 1.5 trillion projection. You just don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that 1.5 trillion (09 deficit) is not more than 5 trillion (Bush's total red ink) which is what the claim of the article posted above was. 1.5 trillion is less than 5 trillion. Is that really so hard to understand?

And yes, I am saying that Obama is not solely responsible for that 1.5 trillion either seeing that he did neither submit that budget nor preside over the entire fiscal year.

get my head around the fact that 1.5 trillion is not more than 5 trillion? ####### are you smoking? it's a reading comprehension fail on your part. i covered that on my earlier post (see #30 in this thread). what's so hard for you to understand about what i said earlier?

All of the countries problems are because of Bush and the Republicans.

some would sure be pleased if everyone believed that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i'm well aware of when the federal fiscal year begins....der!

so now you wish to back off from "... Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion" statement?

either that is the truth (as portrayed from your earlier post or you're backpedaling now.

I'm not backpedaling from that 1.5 trillion projection. You just don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that 1.5 trillion (09 deficit) is not more than 5 trillion (Bush's total red ink) which is what the claim of the article posted above was. 1.5 trillion is less than 5 trillion. Is that really so hard to understand?

And yes, I am saying that Obama is not solely responsible for that 1.5 trillion either seeing that he did neither submit that budget nor preside over the entire fiscal year.

get my head around the fact that 1.5 trillion is not more than 5 trillion? ####### are you smoking? it's a reading comprehension fail on your part. i covered that on my earlier post (see #30 in this thread). what's so hard for you to understand about what i said earlier?

I gotta ask to share some of whatever it is that you're on. I responded to an article posted here (post # 2) that sought to make the claim that Obama's '09 budget deficit alone (1.5 trillion) is larger than all of Bush's red ink over 8 years combined (5 trillion). That's false. The fact that Bush's annual deficits were less than said 1.5 trillion is undisputed. I never said anything to the contrary. But the claim that Obama's first annual budget deficit is larger than all of Bush's red ink over 8 years combined is hogwash. Now you went and constructed an argument that I did not make and now you want to ask me what I am smoking? Dude, put your strawman some other place.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

i'm well aware of when the federal fiscal year begins....der!

so now you wish to back off from "... Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion" statement?

either that is the truth (as portrayed from your earlier post or you're backpedaling now.

I'm not backpedaling from that 1.5 trillion projection. You just don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that 1.5 trillion (09 deficit) is not more than 5 trillion (Bush's total red ink) which is what the claim of the article posted above was. 1.5 trillion is less than 5 trillion. Is that really so hard to understand?

And yes, I am saying that Obama is not solely responsible for that 1.5 trillion either seeing that he did neither submit that budget nor preside over the entire fiscal year.

get my head around the fact that 1.5 trillion is not more than 5 trillion? ####### are you smoking? it's a reading comprehension fail on your part. i covered that on my earlier post (see #30 in this thread). what's so hard for you to understand about what i said earlier?

I gotta ask to share some of whatever it is that you're on. I responded to an article posted here that sought to make the claim that Obama's '09 budget deficit is larger than all of Bush's red ink over 8 years combined. That's false. The fact that Bush's annual deficits were less than said 1.5 trillion is undisputed. I never said anything to the contrary. You constructed an argument that I did not make and now you want to ask me what I am smoking? Dude, put your strawman some other place.

i am not disputing that overall, bush's deficit is larger (well duh, he had 8 years to work on that!). however i am disputing the alleged fuzzy math fail you spoke of when obama's on track to beat bush's yearly average. has that sunk in yet?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i'm well aware of when the federal fiscal year begins....der!

so now you wish to back off from "... Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion" statement?

either that is the truth (as portrayed from your earlier post or you're backpedaling now.

I'm not backpedaling from that 1.5 trillion projection. You just don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that 1.5 trillion (09 deficit) is not more than 5 trillion (Bush's total red ink) which is what the claim of the article posted above was. 1.5 trillion is less than 5 trillion. Is that really so hard to understand?

And yes, I am saying that Obama is not solely responsible for that 1.5 trillion either seeing that he did neither submit that budget nor preside over the entire fiscal year.

get my head around the fact that 1.5 trillion is not more than 5 trillion? ####### are you smoking? it's a reading comprehension fail on your part. i covered that on my earlier post (see #30 in this thread). what's so hard for you to understand about what i said earlier?

I gotta ask to share some of whatever it is that you're on. I responded to an article posted here that sought to make the claim that Obama's '09 budget deficit is larger than all of Bush's red ink over 8 years combined. That's false. The fact that Bush's annual deficits were less than said 1.5 trillion is undisputed. I never said anything to the contrary. You constructed an argument that I did not make and now you want to ask me what I am smoking? Dude, put your strawman some other place.

i am not disputing that overall, bush's deficit is larger (well duh, he had 8 years to work on that!). however i am disputing the alleged fuzzy math fail you spoke of when obama's on track to beat bush's yearly average. has that sunk in yet?

Again, Chuck, context. Did you register yet that there's a post in this thread very early on where the very fact that Bush accrued more deficits over his presidency than Obama will accrue on his first FY is being disputed. That's what I responded to. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

i'm well aware of when the federal fiscal year begins....der!

so now you wish to back off from "... Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion" statement?

either that is the truth (as portrayed from your earlier post or you're backpedaling now.

I'm not backpedaling from that 1.5 trillion projection. You just don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that 1.5 trillion (09 deficit) is not more than 5 trillion (Bush's total red ink) which is what the claim of the article posted above was. 1.5 trillion is less than 5 trillion. Is that really so hard to understand?

And yes, I am saying that Obama is not solely responsible for that 1.5 trillion either seeing that he did neither submit that budget nor preside over the entire fiscal year.

get my head around the fact that 1.5 trillion is not more than 5 trillion? ####### are you smoking? it's a reading comprehension fail on your part. i covered that on my earlier post (see #30 in this thread). what's so hard for you to understand about what i said earlier?

I gotta ask to share some of whatever it is that you're on. I responded to an article posted here that sought to make the claim that Obama's '09 budget deficit is larger than all of Bush's red ink over 8 years combined. That's false. The fact that Bush's annual deficits were less than said 1.5 trillion is undisputed. I never said anything to the contrary. You constructed an argument that I did not make and now you want to ask me what I am smoking? Dude, put your strawman some other place.

i am not disputing that overall, bush's deficit is larger (well duh, he had 8 years to work on that!). however i am disputing the alleged fuzzy math fail you spoke of when obama's on track to beat bush's yearly average. has that sunk in yet?

Again, Chuck, context. Did you register yet that there's a post in this thread very early on where the very fact that Bush accrued more deficits over his presidency than Obama will accrue on his first FY is being disputed. That's what I responded to. Nothing more and nothing less.

here's something to put it all in perspective for you.......surely you read this about the budget

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=214216

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday. while we may have pretty good figures from bush now that he's gone, it should be interesting to see if obama's yearly totals exceed bush's. now let's see you say obama doesn't own anything in that thread i just linked!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Obama's 09 deficit exceeds all eight years of Bush red ink

National debt when Bush took office: $.5.5 trillion

National debt when Bush left office: $10.5 trillion

Total red Ink under Bush:........... $.5.0 trillion

Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion

Falling for obviously fuzzy math:.... PRICELESS

0.625 trillion a year for every year bush was in office.

obama - 1.5 trillion in one year. fuzzy math indeed!

Hey Derwood, do you think it costs much to service 10.5 trillion in debt? Obama has a pretty damn large Bush mortgage to pay off, while trying to run the country out of a major world wide economic crisis...

Something's fuzzy...

Edited August 27, 2009 by ready4ONE

[Tahoma 2,292]

i'm well aware of when the federal fiscal year begins....der!

so now you wish to back off from "... Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion" statement?

either that is the truth (as portrayed from your earlier post or you're backpedaling now.

I'm not backpedaling from that 1.5 trillion projection. You just don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that 1.5 trillion (09 deficit) is not more than 5 trillion (Bush's total red ink) which is what the claim of the article posted above was. 1.5 trillion is less than 5 trillion. Is that really so hard to understand?

And yes, I am saying that Obama is not solely responsible for that 1.5 trillion either seeing that he did neither submit that budget nor preside over the entire fiscal year.

get my head around the fact that 1.5 trillion is not more than 5 trillion? ####### are you smoking? it's a reading comprehension fail on your part. i covered that on my earlier post (see #30 in this thread). what's so hard for you to understand about what i said earlier?

I gotta ask to share some of whatever it is that you're on. I responded to an article posted here that sought to make the claim that Obama's '09 budget deficit is larger than all of Bush's red ink over 8 years combined. That's false. The fact that Bush's annual deficits were less than said 1.5 trillion is undisputed. I never said anything to the contrary. You constructed an argument that I did not make and now you want to ask me what I am smoking? Dude, put your strawman some other place.

i am not disputing that overall, bush's deficit is larger (well duh, he had 8 years to work on that!). however i am disputing the alleged fuzzy math fail you spoke of when obama's on track to beat bush's yearly average. has that sunk in yet?

Again, Chuck, context. Did you register yet that there's a post in this thread very early on where the very fact that Bush accrued more deficits over his presidency than Obama will accrue on his first FY is being disputed. That's what I responded to. Nothing more and nothing less.

here's something to put it all in perspective for you.......surely you read this about the budget

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=214216

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday. while we may have pretty good figures from bush now that he's gone, it should be interesting to see if obama's yearly totals exceed bush's. now let's see you say obama doesn't own anything in that thread i just linked!

Charles...You must have invested in foxholes and shovels, because you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper on this one.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

i'm well aware of when the federal fiscal year begins....der!

so now you wish to back off from "... Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion" statement?

either that is the truth (as portrayed from your earlier post or you're backpedaling now.

I'm not backpedaling from that 1.5 trillion projection. You just don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that 1.5 trillion (09 deficit) is not more than 5 trillion (Bush's total red ink) which is what the claim of the article posted above was. 1.5 trillion is less than 5 trillion. Is that really so hard to understand?

And yes, I am saying that Obama is not solely responsible for that 1.5 trillion either seeing that he did neither submit that budget nor preside over the entire fiscal year.

get my head around the fact that 1.5 trillion is not more than 5 trillion? ####### are you smoking? it's a reading comprehension fail on your part. i covered that on my earlier post (see #30 in this thread). what's so hard for you to understand about what i said earlier?

All of the countries problems are because of Bush and the Republicans.

some would sure be pleased if everyone believed that.

But at least you realize why I say it.

[K1Warrior 0]

SOURCE: AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari Former President George W. Bush, seated, signed the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington. The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are clearly the primary source of the current deficits.

By Michael Ettlinger, Michael Linden

The revised deficit numbers reported by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget today show a lower deficit than previously estimated for 2009, with higher deficits for 2010 and beyond. Political opportunists will be busy looking for chances to score points over these numbers—pinning the dismal fiscal picture on the Obama administration.

The real story is, however, fairly obvious. The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are clearly the primary source of the current deficits. The Obama administration policies that are beginning to give the economy a needed jumpstart—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in particular—place a distant third in contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficit numbers. The deficit picture for the years beyond still needs to be painted.

To come to these conclusions, we calculated the relative importance of the several factors contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficits by looking at the impact in those years of various policies. A detailed description of our approach is at the end of this column. Below is the percentage share of the major contributing factors to the total deterioration from the surpluses projected in 2000 to the current deficits according to our analysis. The policies of President George W. Bush make up the largest share, followed by the current economic downturn, and then President Barack Obama's policies.

Shares of contribution to fiscal deterioration 2009 and 2010

CAUSE......................................................PERCENT OF TOTAL

President Bush's Policies....................................40%

Current economic downturn...............................20%

President Obama's policies.................................12%

Financial rescues begun by President Bush..........12%

All other..........................................................12%

Before explaining these further, it should be said that the generally worse deficit numbers reported today aren't all that surprising. Since the last projections in May, it's been plain that this recession has been worse than most analysts thought. With a weak economy comes lower tax revenue and higher safety net expenditures—with the loss in tax revenue causing the lion's share of the deficit problem. The effects of a deeper recession have a long-lasting impact. Even as growth is restored, it is growth from a reduced starting point—a smaller economy in 2009 usually means a smaller economy than previously predicted for several years hence. Encouragingly, there have been signs of late that the administration's policies to end the recession are starting to take hold. Without such efforts, the picture would be much gloomier, particularly in the short term. One piece of good news is that the government is no longer expecting to spend another $250 billion rescuing financial institutions through the Troubled Assets Relief Program—which explains the improved deficit picture for 2009. And the projections for economic recovery would be far more pessimistic if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act policies were not starting to get traction.

As for the deficit's cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush's legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies—fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping—contributed mightily to the nation's current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010.

President Obama's policies have also contributed to the federal deficit—but only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable to those policies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to help bring the economy out of the recession is, by far, the largest single additional public spending under this administration.

The cumulative cost of the financial sector rescue, mostly initiated under President Bush in response to the financial markets collapse, is also significant—contributing to 12 percent of the problem. A variety of other changes, described in the methodology section, are also contributors.

For the longer term, it's a bit disingenuous to assign any responsibility for the deficits. That's a story yet to be told, and CBO and OMB provide a selection of numbers to choose from for the long run. Much will depend on how the economy fares. If the Bush tax cuts, scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, were to be continued in their entirety there would be large deficits. If, as the Obama administration has proposed, they are only extended for those making under $250,000, then they still contribute to the deficit but not as substantially.

There are a number of similar budget items that have a long history for which one can, with equal legitimacy, assign responsibility to either their originators or current policymakers for continuing them. New Obama program initiatives, it's important to note, contribute little to future deficits. The administration has insisted that its additional spending, especially on health care, be fully paid for with savings elsewhere in the budget and additional revenues. In fact, to address our budget challenges it is critical to reform health care which, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, is the single biggest budget headache in the long run.

Regardless of responsibility, of course, the long-run deficit situation is one that needs to be addressed.

Michael Ettlinger is the Vice President for Economic Policy and Michael Linden is the Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at American Progress.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/200...it_numbers.html

Congress has much more control over fiscal policy than the president regardless of who is in office. Regardless of political party Congress is out of control!