Obama’s new budget: Still more red ink
President Obama released his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal yesterday. A lot can, and will, be written about it — including writings by me on this blog. For now, just the bottom line:
Accounting for the roughly $200 billion in net deficits attributable to the 2009 “stimulus,” Obama has taken an inherited deficit of $1.21 trillion and borrowed an increasing amount of money in each of the three fiscal years since then:
$1.29 trillion in FY 2010
$1.30 trillion in FY 2011
$1.33 trillion in FY 2012
We are expected to believe that this number would shrink to “just” $900 billion in FY 2013 if Obama’s budget were implemented. Here’s why I say “expected to believe”: All of the reduction comes from higher taxes, and this administration has been very wrong in its revenue estimates before — most recently by about $230 billion this year. This is in largest part because the economy has yet to improve in the way the administration thought it would. And all of this is without even delving into the likelihood that Obama will get the tax increases he wants.
But let’s assume the forecast will turn out to be correct this time. Obama still will have missed — by a wide margin — his pledge to halve the deficit by the end of his first term.
Again, attributing $200 billion in 2009 deficits to his “stimulus,” his rosy scenario would have the deficit down by just 26 percent (32 percent in inflation-adjusted terms; 37 percent as a share of gross domestic product). Each of those numbers is a long way from 50 percent.
If reality next year turns out to be more like the last three years, however, we will be talking about single-digit increases in absolute terms (inflation-adjusted or not) and a 2 to 3 percentage-point drop relative to GDP.
All of this, in spite of rising revenues (no matter how they are measured) every single year of his presidency.
It’s the spending. It will always be the spending with this president.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
220 comments Add your comment
Linda
February 14th, 2012
3:29 pm
GT@3:12, Don’t you ever tire of race-baiting?
The Tea Party is composed of fiscal conservatives. It has NO social agenda. There are social conservatives & social liberals who are members of the Tea Party, but their membership does not change the mission of the Tea Party.
With the natl. debt approaching $16 T, our credit rating already downgraded once & Bernake warning this month that the debt threatens our natl. security, anyone who is not fiscally conservative is not a patriot.
Get Real
February 14th, 2012
3:33 pm
Finn….I would have responded in Klingon knowing that it is your native toungue but I could not find a translator…
Trailer parks are full of them.
February 14th, 2012
3:37 pm
This is what I do…call names, all I have.
GT
February 14th, 2012
4:10 pm
Tib how does running a fever cure the body? The problem with Republicans are they take O in his extreme and try to interpret it as his norm. In doing so the real picture is lost, conveniently, of what and who the president is. Any other medicine and this country would be in depression. I come from parents who lost everything they owned in the last depression. It may be the most reality changing real thing in their lives and in many ways ours. The reason many conservatives are what they are is from fear of stories of the great depression. The south prides itself in how poor it is. You listen to grown men out poor mouthing each other on every street.
If we stop having wars against ghost, homeland securing every blade of grass and in some pork barrel districts doing it twice, and legalize drugs,we would not have trillions in deficits. You blame it on the Obamacare, but unless we are using New Orleans as a example of practicing medicine, we spend huge amounts of money keeping the dead, that are uninsured, off the public streets as it is. All the drug violating prisoners in federal and state prisons gets their medicine including prescription free. Nope the real cost is these wars we fight with the world, and the cost of fear. We live in a house with the curtain drawn, chasing little kids out of our front yard who want to play. Taking care of our own may be the cheapest way to insure this country against terrorist. The problem with conservative America they think the might of this country is unlimited, those of us who lived through, Vietnam, realize that is not true. Shock and Aw was not as advertised, and now terrorist live in a country we built with trillions, Iraq, plotting against us. Now you focus Tib and tell me how you can be so blind to all of this.
Viet Nam, and
Just Saying...
February 14th, 2012
4:10 pm
Holy Smokes, musta touched a nerve…
In order, then:
Dusty @ 2:36 pm – Define most Americans, re 2000 Presidential election. Most Americans, or most Electoral College votes? “War on dictators…”? Any of them left in the world, for the dollars spent? Avg cost per dictator removed?
# of dead American soldiers in Tunisia?
# of dead American soldiers in Egypt?
# of dead American soldiers in Libya?
# of dead American soldiers in Abbottabad?
Try cut him a little slack…O’Bama may come to realize he’s not spending as many foreign war dollars as is popular.
But you’re right, the GOP way sells way more munitions. Dwight W. Who?
Most of the Democratic objection I hear about Iraq is, “More nation building in US, less in Iraq”.
Not mixed up, just different (and IMHO, better) priorities.
My objection to chicken-hawks Bush/Cheney/Wolfson/Newt/Romney/Rush is that when it was their turn to serve, their “enlightened self interest” kicked in.
Don’t forget your ID.
Rafe @ 2:54 pm:
Thanks for the GWB capsule summary, but whatever O’Bama is, here’s the 2012 Prob: Can’t beat something with nothing. Especially incumbents. Who is the GOP Something to beat the incumbent? Will that person win, or just make a Goldwater-Miller splat? BTW, they got my first vote.
As for budgets, gotta get ‘em passed. And, until today, no congressional Republican was willing to publicly confess to compromise.
Linda @ 3:00 pm:
Is there a primer somewhere on those macro economic theories? A course maybe? Audit? Clep?
“The most expensive bill ever passed in the history of the world”. Uhhhh, ok, if you say so. No need to channel Newt here…unless it’s just the thrill of it. Would that be in absolute, or inflation adjusted, dollars? % of GDP? Your consent to run that through Politi-Fact? Well, maybe just Paul Krugman? David Stockman? Grover Norquist?
As for “total waste”, let’s a least wait until the Michigan voters speak. Well dang, there’s auto industry factories and suppliers everywhere now. Even Mississippi.
oh really
February 14th, 2012
4:14 pm
“The south prides itself in how poor it is.”
Oh great one, please explain.
“The problem with Republicans are they take O in his extreme and try to interpret it as his norm. In doing so the real picture is lost, conveniently, of what and who the president is.”
Oh great and mighty one, do tell us who he REALLY is.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 14th, 2012
4:25 pm
Just Saying: Because the reason for running two wars for 7 years and Never budgeting for either is…?
——
Stay focused on the past. That’s how Obozo wants his receptacles–distracted and ignorant.
VBC
February 14th, 2012
4:32 pm
The White House projections for GDP growth in this budget are entirely unrealistic unless there is a huge turnaround in the economy. Therefore, the revenue projections probably aren’t close to realistic. It’s a pretty safe bet that the spending projections are. The projected deficits are understated, probably by a lot.
Linda
February 14th, 2012
4:35 pm
Just@4:10, I have a degree in economics from one of the largest universities in the SE US, but a 5th grader could come to the same conclusion with a little common sense. Obama’s economic advisers promised unemployment would never exceed 8% if it was passed. Oops! Too bad they were professors who never practiced in the economy. There has not been ONE SINGLE MONTH in which the unemployment rate has been lower during 3 yrs. of Obama than it was during 8 yrs. of Bush. Krugman claims the stimulus wasn’t “big” enough. Obama claims he had no clue what “shovel-ready” meant.
If you look at the figures on the Bureau of Labor site, you will see that between 12/11 & 1/12, the unemployment rate went down after being “seasonally adjusted” while the number of employed decreased & the number of unemployed increased. Funny math? Here’s the page “not seasonally adjusted” which states that it increased from 8.3% to 8.8%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
Obama did not “save” the auto industry. Rather than going thru court bankruptcies, he micromanaged 2 of 3 US companies himself, illegally, throwing bondholders under the bus in favor of the unions. One is now Obamamotors & the other one is Italian owned.
GT
February 14th, 2012
4:51 pm
One of the reasons we have such hypocrisy in southern politics is we have people running and getting interned that end up being like Newt. People who say they are conservative but have $500,000 dollar charge accounts at the jewelry store. To Newt’s favor he speaks English unlike many of our Georgia governors who butcher it to the delight of the voters. Poor English, and we have has some classics, make the politician look like he comes from poverty which only in the south turns on the vote. One of the problems Romney is having with southern and Tea Party voters is he is too rich and educated. Probably too good looking too, that is another turn off down here.
Republicans would leave it out there that O is a serial killer if they could find someone dumb enough to believe it, which I am sure there are a few. The Tea Party has absolutely no respect for Obama, as the president of our country. They shout him down in State of the Union speeches, chase him around a crowd in Ohio and refuse to call him the president while addresses the media. This is the same crowd that demand you take your hat off during the national anthem. They describe him as a socialist, which he is not, they describe his as a liberal which liberal take offense to, Obama compromises and they call him weak. The truth is the right have had superstitions long before Obama came along, The raw meat plays well for the man who made the wrong choices of education, or self determination, but wants someone else to blame. You really can’t find much wrong with Obama, like you can Newt or Ron Paul or even Mitt, so you make things up like his nationality or his religion, or even his political positions. Part of what you make up or miscommunicate is that Obama wants to put us in a trillion dollars of debt. The man is playing the card he was dealt, quiet well. When the economy comes back by November which it sure looks like it will, you may need a super computer to produce you lies because the human one are just not sticking.
Just Saying...
February 14th, 2012
4:52 pm
Dear Revised Downward @ 4:25 pm:
How often does the Republican Party acknowledge or disavow their handiwork? Was Bush a Republican then? Is he one now? Were those Republican methods and deficit budgets, or not? Can a voter today be informed by the way the last Republican President governed, or no? If not, and the GOP True Believers have now emerged, when will the next version emerge? Mid-term, or after? How often will the Republican Party be changing their budgeting methods, if not their values?
What Are the core Republican Party values? How long (terms/years/months/days) can a voter rely on those values?
Isn’t that the Republican problem now? If you vote Republican, do you get a deficit Bush, or a Libertarian Paul? Anti abortion, or no? Gay marriage (caution, Cheney may be watching)? Free markets, or subsidized corn? Global trade, or protected US Sugar donors/growers?
I think the Republican values issue is why people have said we don’t need a Third Party. We need a Second.
Definition of bigot:
February 14th, 2012
4:58 pm
GT
Just Saying...
February 14th, 2012
4:59 pm
But when one learned O’Bama graduated from Harvard, one’s admiration….?
Or was that Bush…?
GT
February 14th, 2012
5:07 pm
Just Saying, you are so right about a second party, give us somebody that can debate facts and represent the other side without disgracing the party or the country. This one party system brought us Nixon in the late 60s and is not good for the country even now.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 14th, 2012
5:10 pm
“You really can’t find much wrong with Obama”
Oh yes we can.
And it has nothing to do with his birth or his race.
It has everything to do with his failed polices, his lack of leadership, and is inability to comprehend an economic system he’s never really participated in.
Just Saying...
February 14th, 2012
5:17 pm
Remind me lightn’ rod, O’Bama’s 2011 Tax Return was for…?
And no bonds, stocks or CDs, you say?
Clearly, I need to look up participate.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 14th, 2012
5:33 pm
Just saying, YOU need to look up the definition of “Blind Trust”.
You also have to look at his “job history”
Academia and community organizer. Not exactly the stuff a knowledge of economic systems is built upon.
Nice try, though. (Not really)
GT
February 14th, 2012
5:37 pm
Tib it has everything to do with his race and birth. This man has all the family values that Newt talks about and had a grandfather who fought with Patton in WII. When he wins this thing by the landslide. I am seeing him completely destroying the “Republican Party”not just the presidential candidate but the do nothing congress, which should be talking about a little leadership themselves. and the economy is back to what it was when we handed it over to the Republicans in the first place, you people will still hate him. By then you are in such a minority you can’t fill a good row boat.
MarkV
February 14th, 2012
5:48 pm
It’s the spending. It will always be the spending with this president.
One expects a lot of ridiculous statements about the President on this blog. One also expects that political journalists/commentators try to come up with some catching phrase to summarize their article.
Still, one could expect from somebody like Kyle to come up with something more intelligent than the following: “It’s the spending. It will always be the spending with this president.”
Are those two sentences supposed to have some meaning? “It will always be the spending with this president.” You mean, Kyle, that with a president of your choice, there would not be any spending?
gm
February 15th, 2012
8:17 am
Amazing when bush spent billions building up Iraq, the hypocrites on the left said nothing, but when this President tries to spend money on Americans to help this economy, the hypocrites takes shots at him.
Billlions were being spent from 2001- 2007 and the right was letting bush spend on these two wars at no end, now these hypocrites are now concern, how can anybody take these hypocrites serious?