Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-
•In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) 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.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.
contact Rick at email@example.com
LOL. The measure being used is growth in government spending (not raw spending). And the only way this calculation works is if you take what was billed as a temporary 17% increase in government spending (what was to be the 1-year stimulus passed in 2008-2009), apply it all to the prior president (which is a bit of a stretch, since the budget passed was an authorization, not a mandate- in other words, the President still had the ability to spend less than the budgeted amount, but chose not to), and then use that artificially inflated number as the baseline from which to calculate further spending increases.
It's like a homeless, jobless guy, who hasn't earned more than 10,000 a year the past decade, hitting a $1,000,000 lottery and applying for a loan by identifying his annual income as $1,000,000; hey, that's what it was last year, right?
It's an accounting quirk, not a viable measure of spending under this President.
Just expanding on the above, here are the percentages above the pre-stimulus baseline (2008 budget) for spending in the 2010-2013 budgets:
2010: 3.46T v. 2.98T - increase of $480,000,000,000 - a 16% increase
2011: 3.6T v. 2.98T - increase of $620,000,000,000 - a 21% increase
2012: 3.63T v. 2.98T - increase of $650,000,000,000 - a 22% increase
2013: 3.58T v. 2.98T - increase of $600,000,000,000 - a 20% increase
Total increase is $2,350,000,000,000 against a baseline of $11,992,000,000,000 - an increase of 19.6%
To put that in historical context, the highest 4 year increase in the Marketwatch table, going back to the Reagan years, was 8.1%
In other words, controlling for the artificial inflation of the stimulus, Obama is inflating Federal spending at more than twice the rate of his most profligate predecessors
One more question - why are you posting an article from 6 months ago?
Anyone that believes that spending has not increased massively under Obama is willfully ignorant. Doggin clarified things perfectly in this thread. In addition to the "temporary spending measures" made permanent under Obama yet attributed by, the dishonest writer of the article as well as the dishonest Obama admin to Bush, the Bills for the 2009 fiscal year were passed by the Democrats that controlled both the House and the Senate. Bush did not sign those appropriation bills while in office. Obama actually signed them in March of 2009. Still the writer attributes that spending to Bush rather then Obama. The budgets that Obama has requested since have all included major spending increases as well. The difference is that the GOP controlled House has not passed them. Ironically those Obama budgets were so outrageous that even House and Senate Democrats have refused to vote for them. All of Obama's budget proposals have been shot down by unanimous votes.
This is the liberal equivalent of "Obama is a Muslim terrorist born in Kenya"
And again, Obama didn't just inherit an economy that had just crashed in late 2008 as a result of Wall St deregulation and housing bubble bursting, he inherited the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Less taxable income, lower taxes, more money going into ultra-rich people's savings accounts and tax shelters.
My main criticism of Obama is extending the Bush tax cuts. He should have abolished them the day he was inaugurated in January 2009. Raise taxes, suspend unemployment insurance for 1 fiscal year and legalize all drugs. That will balance the budget in 3 years.
Why hasn't the senate drawn up a budget in four years?
Why were the shares sold at a discount? That's over $200 million.The government sold the 234.2 million shares at $32.50 each, a small discount from the closing price of $33.36 on Monday. The block of shares represented a 15.9 percent stake in the insurer.
Bulk sales are always offered at a discount to the current stock price. If they just threw the shares on the market the supply would drive the stock price down artificially. This way they attract bulk bidders for the shares at a discount.