First, this point is fatuous. Presidents before Obama have had responsibilty for the federal budgets they put to Congress, haven’t they.
Secondly, it’s a dubious distinction to claim credit for, since it’s why we remain stuck with one foot in the shitter. He ought to foist “credit” for it off on Congress, if he can.
It does of course fly on the face of crazypeople who run about claiming that he is respoaible for massive increases in government spending. Usually these people also work Socialism into each sentence as well.
Well, let’s see. Spending bills have to be approved by the House, the Senate, and the President, and Republicans only took control of the House in 2011 (which has only worked on the FY2012 budget), so I wouldn’t go giving them too much credit just yet.
Obama took office in 1/2009. At that time, the House and Congress were controlled by Democrats for the next 2 years.
If I am reading your graph correctly, spending went from 1% to 7% in 1 year, back down to 2% in 20011.
In 2011, Dems lost control of the House. Republicans have been stonewalling budgets since then, to the point of threatening to shut Government down. Holding the budget hostage was based on the reducing budget (according to media).
My question would be, how much credit should the House get for holding the budget Hostage and how much does Obama get for giving in to the Hostage demands?
Oh, I was just trying to remind people that presidents aren’t kings. Yes, they get credit and blame for all sorts of things they shouldn’t. But I would hope the folks around here were a bit more sophisticated than that.
And yes, some people think low spending, especially now, is bad. But the OP is obviously trying to throw something in the face of those who think it’s good.
I would say that the credit should be apportioned exactly the same as how you want to apportion credit/blame for economic growth and unemployment.
That is, if you think slow growth and small numbers of new jobs are Obama’s fault then the spending freeze should count to his credit. Conversely, if you want to credit the GOP for holding the line on the budget then they should get the blame for anemic growth.
Clearly it’s not fair to give Obama no credit for holding the deficit steady while giving him all the blame for poor economic performance, right? Or vice versa, obviously.
I really find it hard to believe that anyone can really buy into this nonsense. This one is easy to dismiss without even thinking too much. Linden, since you didn’t think my argument was coherent let me break it down and you are free to dispute the points.
A large part of the Bush FY 2009 budget was signed as an omnibus spending bill by Obama in 2009…a bill that he called “imperfect.” If you want to blame Bush for something Obama signed I’m fine with that. Let’s go from there.
Total spending in 2009 was a huge increase over the 2008 budget. Why? Well, there was a huge increase in **one-time **spending that included Bush and Obama stimulus, TARP, auto bailouts, etc. You remember…all that stuff to save the economy.
All of that one-time spending is now included in the baseline budget. The stimulus money was spread throughout the budget. That budget was the last one that has been passed by Congress. Spending for FY 2010 was not a huge increase over 2009, but remember that 2009 contained all that one-time spending. The fact that the money spent in 2010 is even higher than 2009 means that those one-time expenditures are part of the new baseline. It is as though we are having a stimulus, auto bailout, etc. every year.
To quote myself:
Obama has submitted even larger budgets every year that fail to get any votes. So, even if the budget baseline is inflated, we have to give Congress some credit for spending less than Obama wanted.
So, as you should be able to see, the 2010 budget should have been lower than 2009 since we did not have additional stimulus programs, auto bailouts, etc. Instead, that inflated 2009 budget is considered the new normal and idiots like Nutting use that to say Obama has not increased the budget.
Not that the President has much to do with spending (certainly not state and local spending), but this chart seems to show that spending has gone up in the quite a bit (and this chart shows that the deficit certainly has).
I like Obama as much as the next guy, but as a statistician I gotta say, I’m not too happy with this analysis. Its basically the same analysis that global warming deniers have used to say that we have been undergoing a cooling trend for the last 15 years because we had a super hot year in 1997.
This is an excellent point. There was an artificial spike in spending in 2009. Using that as a baseline does show that spending has increased slowly since then. The problem is that using 2009 as a baseline is dishonest. A better way to calculate this would be to subtract out all of the one-time spending from FY2009 to get a true baseline.
As an Obama supporter, I agree that this analysis sucks. There was a huge spike in spending in 2009 due to both Bush’s and Obama’s policies and that money is still in the budget.
I don’t know what you were expecting Obama to do… The budget doesn’t authorize spending. Bush submitted a ~$3.1T budget in for FY09 and the truth is, Obama gets blamed for it because he was in office in FY09 and signed the spending bills. That’s why when most pundits say “Spending UNDER Obama has risen x%” (where x% includes FY09 spending), while technically true, it is a bit misleading.
I agree it’s lousy analysis. Fortunately, the “baked cake” gets a lot tastier next year when lots of tax cuts expire and agreed-to sequestration kicks in. Then we can really talk about deficit reduction.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. A passed budget does authorize spending. Obama does NOT get blamed for the 2009 budget as it was mostly finalized under the former president. That being said, Obama is the one who signed it. I assume he could have worked with Congress to retool it if he wanted to make some cuts. Also, we have to remember that there is a difference between the FY09 budget and the total spent in FY09…remember the stimulus package?
The point is that spending UNDER Obama has increased only slightly. But, as I pointed out, this is misleading as it considers all of the one-time crisis spending in FY09 to be the new budget baseline.