Federal spending hasn't risen much during Obama's presidency

Well, one more Republican untruth has been demolished by facts.

Contrary to widespread belief (including me, I have to admit), federal spending has increased much less under Obama's leadership than under the last four presidents -- including Reagan.

Check out Rex Nutting's excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal's Marketwatch, "Obama spending binge never happened."

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.

Here's the key to understanding why so many people believe the opposite.

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.

Charts don't lie.

Comments

[DJ]

Nutter attributes the 2009 budget to Bush. That would normally be correct.

But as has been widely written in the last few days Nutter fails to note a few things:

1) $410 billion of the 2009 budget was an Obama-signed March 2009 adder (raising it from $3.1T to the $3.52T Nutter uses in his math).

2) Obama was a member of the Senate Majority who approved the original $3.1T of the 2009 Bush budget in the first place.

3) Many 2009 budget items (TARP, stimulus, auto bailout, loan mods) were one time items – yet Federal spending is still way above 2008 levels as if 2009 is the new norm. So, even if the 2009 spending binge is 100% attributed to Bush – how is the current continuation of spending at that new level not considered the continuation of binge spending by Obama?

BUT…whether you side with Nutter or his detractors on the debate above…there’s a more revealing message here about the cynicism of both Republicans and Democrats in Washington:

Think about it. In the form of further stimulus the Obama administration wanted 2010/2011 spending to be higher that it was – only to be rebuffed by Republican obstruction. That created the resultant lower spending numbers that the DNC is now crowing about and that the Republicans – rather than take credit for – are trying desperately to dispute. Only in Washington.

Sincerely,
Big Oil

[tucson]

This country is, by and large, being run by self-serving jackals as clearly demonstrated in DJ's comment.

However, Ob*ma is not stupid. He knows the situation is grave regarding the debt crisis (how could he not?), but he wants the country to implode so it can be neutered and remade in the image of European socialism. Look how well that is working out. We could look like Greece as soon as next year.