Obama spending binge never happened...Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

[웃 910]

Obama spending binge never happened

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans, but many Democrats too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well under way. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s’ health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per-capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

[^_^ 5,021]

I can see socialism from my house.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can see socialism from my house.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's amazing the things that we forget "Senator" Obama was responsible for as well.

Not to mention the fact that the "previous congress" was a Democrat majority...

We can play the spin plan all day long, but the fact remains that eventhough Bush was President, the Democrats were highly responsible.

If anything, you thank the current Republican congress for the small increase in spending and not the big whopper.

Also there again more idiot authors trying to attribute expiring tax cuts to reducing the defecit. The ONLY way that happens is if payrolls grow and more jobs are created. However a tax increase at this point would inhibit growth and lead to more job losses.

The irony here is Obama could gain credit for the economy if he wins the election again in November. Not because he did anything great, but because a re-elected President gives the market stability. If Romney is elected in November then 2013 will see a sight economic downturn until 2014 due to the market not know how the Presidents policies will effect the overall economy.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Congress is not doing it's job and that is a good thing.

[james&olya 1,121]

Since when do actual facts have anything to do with republican, especially tea party, political 'wisdom'???

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Since when do actual facts have anything to do with republican, especially tea party, political 'wisdom'???

You mean this bit isn't fact? I am shocked.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Fox News isn't reliable?!

[james&olya 1,121]

Fox News isn't reliable?!

Fairly unbalanced!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Fox News isn't reliable?!

Shocking, isn't it?

[mawilson 2,133]

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

There has, however, been a huge increase in deficit spending. As in "revenues minus expenditures" - the bottom line of the balance sheet.

But I guess facts don't really matter.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There has, however, been a huge increase in deficit spending. As in "revenues minus expenditures" - the bottom line of the balance sheet.

But I guess facts don't really matter.

Okay, I'll bite. If deficit spending has increased significantly while spending itself hasn't, then that would clearly suggest that the problem are revenues rather than expenditures. You just blew the tea party and their GOP sheep to hell. In one simple sentence. You know, since we're talking about facts.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Okay, I'll bite. If deficit spending has increased significantly while spending itself hasn't, then that would clearly suggest that the problem are revenues rather than expenditures. You just blew the tea party and their GOP sheep to hell. In one simple sentence. You know, since we're talking about facts.

Revenues declined because the economy tanked. These are now the Obama tax cuts that are set to expire in 2013. People wonder why businesses are sitting on the sidelines holding cash. That is because we have seen our own revenues decline, so we stopped spending. That is the way the private sector does it. Government should do the same thing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Revenues declined because the economy tanked. These are now the Obama tax cuts that are set to expire in 2013. People wonder why businesses are sitting on the sidelines holding cash. That is because we have seen our own revenues decline, so we stopped spending. That is the way the private sector does it. Government should do the same thing.

If nobody spends money, nobody will sell anything, nobody will produce anything and more people will be out of work and businesses would not make any money to sit on. Had the government cut back on spending the way individuals and businesses have, our GDP would be roughly the size of the 2000 GDP and we'd be looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% - 25% worth of an unemployment rate. Ireland, Spain, Greece, Italy. Take a look how well they're doing with all that austerity. Then take a look at the US, France, Germany and the Netherlands. You see, the way out of debt and deficits is growth not austerity.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If nobody spends money, nobody will sell anything, nobody will produce anything and more people will be out of work and businesses would not make any money to sit on. Had the government cut back on spending the way individuals and businesses have, our GDP would be roughly the size of the 2000 GDP and we'd be looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% - 25% worth of an unemployment rate. Ireland, Spain, Greece, Italy. Take a look how well they're doing with all that austerity. Then take a look at the US, France, Germany and the Netherlands. You see, the way out of debt and deficits is growth not austerity.

You have to fall back to your core, and build from there. When you are overextended, you can't keep borrowing and spending hoping that things will improve in the future. Instead, you cut away the non-productive areas, and limit your liabilities. You concentrate on things that continue to maintain your revenue base, build your core workforce, and look for opportunities to expand again. Capital is cheap at the moment, I get offers for $250K or more of working capital at virtually no interest almost everyday, but there is nowhere to go to recoup at the moment. So, I get a chance to make a few improvements around here with sweat equity in between busy spurts, and spend way too much time on the internet. Normally, I would be burning the candle at both ends this time of year, well into October, before I had a chance to regroup. I am still working off excess inventory, which I own free and clear, and order most of my stuff only when I need it, instead of keeping a ready supply.