Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

(CNSNews.com) - When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).

Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.

The $4.997-trillion increase in the national debt since she took the gavel is more debt than the federal government amassed from the speakership of Rep. Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, who became the first speaker of the House on April 1, 1789, to the start of the speakership of Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the 58th speaker, who took up the gavel on Jan. 4, 1995.

The national debt first topped $5 trillion on Feb. 23, 1996, more than a year into Gingrich’s speakership.

Gingrich served as speaker in the 104th and 105th Congresses, officially taking the office on Jan. 4, 1995 and leaving office on Jan. 3, 1999. During that period, according to the Treasury Department, the national debt increased $812.4 billion dollars ($812,423,595,162.98), rising from $4.8 trillion ($4,801,793,426,032.89) to $5.6 trillion ($5,614,217,021,195.87).

Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the 59th speaker, who presided over the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses (serving as speaker from Jan. 6, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2007), enjoys the distinction of having increased the debt more than any other speaker except Pelosi. During Hastert’s time, the national debt increased $3.1 trillion ($3,061,785,703,851.74).

Thus far (the 111th Congress will not be done until the end of the year), Pelosi has increased the debt by an average of $2.5 trillion for each Congress she has led as speaker. Hastert increased the debt by an average of about $785 billion per Congress, while Gingrich increased the debt by an average of $406 billion per Congress.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot spend any money that has not been approved by congressional appropriations; and, by congressional precedent, appropriations bills originate in the House.

"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," says Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution.

“By precedent, appropriations originate in the House, with the Senate following suit,” says the House Rules Committee in an explanation of the appropriations process.

Annual federal expenditures have increased by about $730 billion in the Pelosi era, while annual deficits have increased almost 8 fold. In fiscal 2007, when Pelosi became speaker, the federal government spent $2.73 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $162.8 billion, according to the Treasury Department. In fiscal 2009, the federal government spent $3.52 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $1.4157 trillion. In fiscal 2010, the federal government spent $3.46 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $1.2941 trillion.

“The 2010 deficit was equal to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, down from 10.0 percent in 2009 (based on the most current estimate of GDP),” the Congressional Budget Office said in its October Monthly Budget Review. “The 2010 deficit was the second-highest shortfall—and 2009 the highest—since 1945, relative to the size of the economy.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdSUuznz6U

[Obama 2012 1,714]

shhhhh, stop reminding people that Democrats have been in charge for 4 years.... It takes away from the BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH script.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Aside from the stimulus bill, what new deficit spending amounting to that $5 trillion figure specifically has the Congress passed since 2007?

[mawilson 2,133]

Aside from the stimulus bill, what new deficit spending amounting to that $5 trillion figure specifically has the Congress passed since 2007?

2007 GDP=$14,077.6bn Deficit=1.14% ($161 bn)

2008 GDP=$14,441.4bn Deficit=3.18% ($459 bn)

2009 GDP=$14,258.2bn Deficit=9.96% ($1,420 bn)

2010 GDP=$14,623.9bn Deficit=8.89% ($1,294 bn)

Total deficits since 2007 (incl 2007): $3.334 trillion

There's some dodgy accounting going on - something is clearly off the books, if the public debt increased $5 trillion.

Edited October 25, 2010 by mawilson

[spookyturtle 9,466]

A trillion really isn't that significant anymore. It will become chump change just as billions have and millions before that. That's the price of progress.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Aside from the stimulus bill, what new deficit spending amounting to that $5 trillion figure specifically has the Congress passed since 2007?

5 or 10? doesnt really matter does it?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

A trillion really isn't that significant anymore. It will become chump change just as billions have and millions before that. That's the price of progress.

Are you insane? A TRILLION isnt much?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Are you insane? A TRILLION isnt much?

It's a lot now, but in 10 years it will be spoken of like a billion is today.

[Pooky 3,787]

It's a lot now, but in 10 years it will be spoken of like a billion is today.

Only because current fiscal policy is numbing the public to the point of helplessness

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2007 GDP=$14,077.6bn Deficit=1.14% ($161 bn)

2008 GDP=$14,441.4bn Deficit=3.18% ($459 bn)

2009 GDP=$14,258.2bn Deficit=9.96% ($1,420 bn)

2010 GDP=$14,623.9bn Deficit=8.89% ($1,294 bn)

Total deficits since 2007 (incl 2007): $3.334 trillion

There's some dodgy accounting going on - something is clearly off the books, if the public debt increased $5 trillion.

For starters, two wars were done off budget for the longest time. That adds to the debt but doesn't reflect on the budget deficit. If I am not mistaken, those expenditures have now been been moved into the budget where they belong in the first place. That's the right thing to do of course but politically, it's suicide.

It is interesting that nobody can name the specific new $5 trillion deficit spending that Nancy Pelosi is presumably responsible for. Perhaps that is because it doesn't actually exist. Perhaps these deficits were already pre-programmed by say, unfunded new Medicare spending and tax cuts that weren't offset with spending reductions. But that would then suggest that the GOP has actually set these deficits in motion and that would simply be impossible since we all know that the GOP would never, ever do such a thing. Or would they?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

2007 GDP=$14,077.6bn Deficit=1.14% ($161 bn)

2008 GDP=$14,441.4bn Deficit=3.18% ($459 bn)

2009 GDP=$14,258.2bn Deficit=9.96% ($1,420 bn)

2010 GDP=$14,623.9bn Deficit=8.89% ($1,294 bn)

Total deficits since 2007 (incl 2007): $3.334 trillion

There's some dodgy accounting going on - something is clearly off the books, if the public debt increased $5 trillion.

Deficit is funds out less funds in. (Annual) debt includes money raised for one purpose, but spent for something else. The difference between the two numbers is getting smaller, as Social Security, the largest of the slush funds, is taking in less than they are paying out. Soon, the deficit could exceed the annual debt, if you really want to see some shady accounting. Government will have to take in more than they are spending, to pay for funds already spent, owed to Social Security, and other intergovernmental funds, including interest. That is on top of the interest we owe on debt held by other than entities, including China.

Edited October 26, 2010 by ##########

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

For starters, two wars were done off budget for the longest time. That adds to the debt but doesn't reflect on the budget deficit. If I am not mistaken, those expenditures have now been been moved into the budget where they belong in the first place. That's the right thing to do of course but politically, it's suicide.

It is interesting that nobody can name the specific new $5 trillion deficit spending that Nancy Pelosi is presumably responsible for. Perhaps that is because it doesn't actually exist. Perhaps these deficits were already pre-programmed by say, unfunded new Medicare spending and tax cuts that weren't offset with spending reductions. But that would then suggest that the GOP has actually set these deficits in motion and that would simply be impossible since we all know that the GOP would never, ever do such a thing. Or would they?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Taking something "off budget" doesn't change the deficit. What it does change is baseline budgeting, the screwy way Congress does their accounting.

Edited October 26, 2010 by ##########

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

For starters, two wars were done off budget for the longest time. That adds to the debt but doesn't reflect on the budget deficit. If I am not mistaken, those expenditures have now been been moved into the budget where they belong in the first place. That's the right thing to do of course but politically, it's suicide.

It is interesting that nobody can name the specific new $5 trillion deficit spending that Nancy Pelosi is presumably responsible for. Perhaps that is because it doesn't actually exist. Perhaps these deficits were already pre-programmed by say, unfunded new Medicare spending and tax cuts that weren't offset with spending reductions. But that would then suggest that the GOP has actually set these deficits in motion and that would simply be impossible since we all know that the GOP would never, ever do such a thing. Or would they?

How many times have I heard you say we could be spending it here?

[luckytxn 2,264]

A trillion here and there and then we are talking about real money.

I laughed when Pelosi said that back then. She was a gung ho Socialist with programs she wanted in place and any program the Feds take on will cost big time. It is no surprise that when the Socialists took both houses that the deficit was going to soar but also getting Obama the Socialist in and having all the reigns of government has shown everyone how big of morons the Socialist really are. They don't care that it is OUR taxes that are paying for everything because it is the future that will be paying for this and they will be gone.