About the idea that Obama’s spending has been tame
You’ve heard of lies, damned lies, and statistics? Well, here’s Exhibit A: a column at MarketWatch by Rex Nutting.
Nutting’s column, titled “Obama spending binge never happened,” has caused a lot of excitement among people who would like to believe it’s true. And the bottom-line numbers — which are as far as Nutting goes in his column — do show that total spending has risen more slowly between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2013 than you might have otherwise believed. Annual federal spending growth during President Obama’s first term, Nutting’s numbers show, has been 1.4 percent. That would be slower than in any of the seven previous terms, dating to the beginning of the Reagan years. Going out of his way to be even-handed, Nutting even graciously attributes Obama’s “stimulus” spending in FY09 to Obama rather than to George W. Bush, under whom that fiscal year began.
What a guy!
But what Nutting’s surface-level “analysis” fails to acknowledge — aside from the fact that he’s giving Obama full credit for a level of spending that won’t even begin for four more months, making it a completely unknowable quantity — is the vast amount of spending that was supposed to be temporary but instead has been baked into Uncle Sam’s cake. Accounting for the temporary-turned-permanent gives us a truer depiction of the Obama’s (sorry to say it!) spending binge.
Let’s start with the appropriations bills Obama signed for FY09 other than the stimulus. The two major ones were the $105.9 billion supplemental defense bill and the $2.9 billion “cash for clunkers” bill. So that’s $108.8 billion that ought to be put on Obama’s ledger rather than Bush’s.
Now let’s take a deeper look at the stimulus spending Nutting attributes to Obama in FY09. Nutting puts it at $140 billion. The next year’s budget, which included the FY09 spending, instead pegged it at $202 billion with an estimated $30 billion in FY13; subsequent budgets have not broken out the spending specific to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (probably because the ARRA has been so amazingly popular and successful). Nutting doesn’t tell us where he gets that $140 billion figure, and so, to avoid mixing numbers, I’m going to stick with the figures from the FY10 budget. That’s $172 billion in “temporary” spending that, under The Most Fiscally Responsible President Evah, should have disappeared.
That’s not all. Spending in FY09 also included $151 billion for the bank bailout, or TARP, and the FY13 budget puts the figure at $12 billion. That’s another net $139 billion in “temporary” spending that should have gone away. Add that to the $172 billion from the stimulus, and we’re talking about $311 billion.
Now, to be truly fair to Obama, let’s make comparisons without including the costs of Medicare, Social Security and net interest. These are big-ticket items that are growing quickly on automatic pilot, and they couldn’t have been changed without a long national debate. So, here’s what we have:
FY09 spending: $3,518 billion
Less Medicare, Social Security and net interest: $2,218 billion
Less “temporary” TARP and stimulus spending: $1,907 billion
Less Obama’s supplemental spending for defense, clunkers: $1,798 billion
The equivalent figure in Obama’s FY13 budget is $2,418 billion, which would represent an annualized growth rate of 7.7 percent. That’s five and a half times faster than the rate with which Nutting credited Obama. Once we adjust Bush’s record to account for the $108.8 billion in Obama’s supplemental FY09 spending outlined above, it places his spending as the second-fastest out of the last eight presidential terms rather than the slowest, as Nutting claimed. (The rankings are the same even if we adjust for inflation.)
Where did Obama want to stick this extra money? In International Affairs ($22 billion, or 59 percent, higher than FY09), Transportation ($30 billion, or 36 percent), Education ($42.2 billion, or 53 percent), Health (not counting Medicare, $51.5 billion, or 15 percent), Energy ($9.2 billion, or 193 percent), to name a few of the largest examples.
However, Nutting did not use Obama’s FY13 budget as a comparison. Perhaps that’s fair, given that the president’s budget was defeated 99-0 in the Senate recently. In any case, Nutting instead used the Congressional Budget Office’s projected baseline, and this really is the coup de grace for his argument.
The CBO’s projected baseline gives us an equivalent FY13 figure of $1,968 billion, which in turn gives us an annualized growth rate of 2.3 percent, which is actually OK by recent historical standards. But what is the CBO’s projected baseline? It is the agency’s estimate of what revenues and spending will be if current law is kept in place. That is, it tells us what happens if the president and Congress do nothing. For this lack of action, Nutting wants to give Obama credit.
But wait, there’s more! Even if we use the CBO projections, it is worth noting the enormous difference between Obama’s first two years, when Democrats had huge majorities in Congress, and his third and fourth years, during which Republicans have controlled the House. The annualized growth rate in the first two years was 7.7 percent; since then it’s minus-2.9 percent.
So, to conclude:
We are supposed to ignore Obama’s budget proposal, which showed his spending rising faster than what’s typical for the past 30 years, and instead give him credit for a) not going beyond the baked-in spending he set in motion early in his term and b) the gridlock that came to Washington after Republicans took over the House?
Seriously?
You will not find conservatives lauding the George W. Bush years as a model of fiscal restraint, because they weren’t. But it is just as laughable for Nutting and his fellow travelers to try to make such a claim for Obama.
– 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
324 comments Add your comment
Kyle Wingfield
May 24th, 2012
12:41 pm
Manny: Budget bills require only 51 votes in the Senate; cloture rules don’t apply. If Senate Dems liked his budget, they could have passed it without even nodding to Senate Republicans. The fact that they didn’t is what opened the door to the Republican “mockery.”
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
May 24th, 2012
12:44 pm
And yet, Cheesy Grits, you haven’t pointed to one actual fact in my piece that you dispute.
I’m no economics major ill grant you that.
Listen every American knows that the Government is out of whack financially.
But they aren’t stupid enough to believe its just one party or the other.
Its both.
And from where im sitting the Dems seem to be much more rational about the issue. Cutting spending is one thing. But taxes must be raised as well.
Unfortunately Republicans will not budge on this issue. So the can gets kicked down the road a little further.
This is why I cant support the Republicans. That and the whole Max Cleland being un American thing turned me off forever.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
May 24th, 2012
12:45 pm
And to think, last night I fell upon the pillow as a tea bagging limited government freak and this morning I awoke as common tax and spender. Such chaos. Such turmoil. What’s next, obozominions, will I develop a desire to cut national defense?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
May 24th, 2012
12:45 pm
I seem to recall Obama offering an 8 to 1 cuts to tax idea.
You conservatives aren’t really serious about cutting spending. We get another Repub in the White House and you will become silent about the spending once again.
And remember, it wasn’t like W did all that spending without anyone in your own party noticing and raising a stink – look at all the work Bob Barr did to rail against it.
Hypocrites, one and all.
Joe the Prophet
May 24th, 2012
12:46 pm
Mitt Romney = Evening in America
He neither has backbone, the charisma, nor the Christian background to unite the country…We continue to limp along, further divided by tax cuts and social injustice…only this time with no biblical legitamacy….How can you point the finger at homosexuals and abortionists when you support polytheism…!?!?!?
American Exceptionalism…!?!?!? I’m sorry, that has been outsourced to China and Mexico by private equity….Gotta keep those investors happy….
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
May 24th, 2012
12:48 pm
By all rights, this should make George W Bushie into getalife and paul krugman’s hero, correct?
Grimlock
May 24th, 2012
12:53 pm
Me, Grimlock, no vote for President because he can dance and shoot basketball to make young, uneducated people with right to vote think he/she is cool while also “guilting” them into voting for your unqualified behind to try to prove they are not racist.
Obama is over
May 24th, 2012
12:58 pm
Becky obviously balances her checkbook with the strategy that Daddy will cover her if she gets overdrawn. Same thing with her credit cards. No need to worry about paying them off. She will just raise the limits and ask Daddy for more money. No need to actually have a plan in place to achieve fiscal responsibility. Paying off debt is somebody else’s problem because Obama is going to take care of everything by taxing the rich. Curtailing spending is out of the question because Becky is entitled to it and Daddy is going to live forever. No need to plan for the future. Obama has been an incompetent steward of our tax dollars. Sacrificing our children’s future by accumulating too much debt because of people like Becky’s naivete is simply irresponsible.
JDW
May 24th, 2012
1:02 pm
@Kyle…you are making this way too complicated and in the process obscuring the truth and misstating the facts. The government puts out a spreadsheet that details spending by function and sub function since the 1940’s (Table 3.1). That’s actual dollars going out the door which is the proper measure.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Now if you download that sheet and delete the big ticket items of Medicare, Social Security and net interest (lines 8-12, 17-19) the Commerce Housing Credit bit which is immaterial except for 2009 you can get a true picture of discretionary expense performance for all Presidents (clear subtotals and sum after new line 20).
What you find lo and behold is exactly what anyone that can see would expect.
Reagan 1 31.84% Average 7.96%
Reagan 2 14.19% Average 3.55%
Bush 1 1 18.48% Average 4.62%
Clinton 1 1.06% Average 0.27%
Clinton 2 23.18% Average 5.80%
Bush 2 1 51.42% Average 12.86%
Bush 2 2 26.13% Average 6.53%
Obama 18.57% Average 4.64%
It’s not rocket science and its real simple. Obama/Clinton spend less Reagan/Bush spend more.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
May 24th, 2012
1:06 pm
Conservative whine circa 2004 (after starting two wars WHILE handing out tax cuts!!): “chirp chirp….nothing but crickets….”
Conservative whine circa 2012 (a time when their party is rightfully no longer in control of anything): “We’re soooooo sorry we didn’t speak up or try to stop it. Honest, all we care about is controlling spending. Now we want you Democrats to act like the responsible adults we were not able to be…. and halt all spending (or at least that which benefits the poor, elderly, etc)………Please, please, please…no, we DEMAND you act responsibly and cut this spending. We are sooooooo sorry. We promise, you give us the reins once again, we will be the responsible adults too….(wink, wink)”
Kyle Wingfield
May 24th, 2012
1:06 pm
Also, Manny: The Politifact article checks only Nutting’s claim that bottom-line spending has grown slowly. I acknowledged as much right from the top of my post — and then went on to explain why this is a superficial way to look at Obama’s spending record. (Fwiw, I would argue that, at the very least, Politifact should have done a better job of looking for other FY09 spending bills Obama signed, which distorts his record vis-a-vis Bush’s.)
Let me use this analogy:
1. Nutting wrote the equivalent of “Joe drove home from work.”
2. I, noting that Joe made some stops along the way, wrote the equivalent of “Joe drove home from work, but stopped at a strip club on the way.”
3. Now, Joe’s friends are pointing to what Nutting wrote and saying, “See? Joe is a great family man because he drove straight home from work!”
In neither Nutting’s actual article nor the sentence I attributed to him in my illustration is there an actual falsehood. (Although, as noted above, I do think he overlooked some critical facts about FY09 spending.) But nor does his writing, in either case, tell the entire story.
My post about Obama’s spending is my attempt to tell the entire story.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
May 24th, 2012
1:09 pm
Going to strip clubs doesn’t make you a bad family man.
Kyle subtly laying out his morals again….
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:13 pm
Becky
May 24th, 2012
11:58 am
Quoting Ann Coulter??? Oh my. This was rehashed to death by Bookman’s bloggers. Very telling that Kyle is reposting a rewritten version for bashing by his minions. They will be here soon…..
_____________________________________________________________________
Becky, would you care to refute the article with logic and facts.
You know, an “honest” debate?
commoncents
May 24th, 2012
1:16 pm
“For this lack of action, Nutting wants to give Obama credit.”
Reminds me of a prestigious award Obama received…
JDW
May 24th, 2012
1:16 pm
@Kyle…BTW I probably should have left the Income Securty line in…I thought it was mainly pensions but it has other programs as well. Really doesn’t change the picture much…
Reagan 1 31.12% Average 7.78%
Reagan 2 12.52% Average 3.13%
Bush 1 1 25.58% Average 6.39%
Clinton 1 3.80% Average 0.95%
Clinton 2 20.91% Average 5.23%
Bush 2 1 45.44% Average 11.36%
Bush 2 2 32.50% Average 8.12%
Obama 14.96% Average 3.74%
marcus bales
May 24th, 2012
1:17 pm
Thank you for your analysis. Now, if you and your fellow Republican could be just as honest when you tout the 8% unemployment figure when Bush left office, instead of being honest and admitting we were just on the cusp of the great recession and that figure would have gone up in the following months regardless of who was elected.
iggy
May 24th, 2012
1:17 pm
Doesnt matter. Obama is floudering on all fronts. Just a matter of time before he disappears beneath the ever so stinky waters of THE ALMIGHTY TOILET, then *FLUSH*.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
May 24th, 2012
1:17 pm
Cons are like the husband that never second guesses his expenditures – he can rationalize them till the cows come home. But if his wife buys something? Watch out!
Husband: “Do you really need that?”
Husband: “Really? Couldn’t you have waited until Friday?”
Husband: “….You didn’t think that through”
Husband: “Look, I needed that new driver, my other three are ruining my game…”
Michael
May 24th, 2012
1:18 pm
Kyle, I’d be interested to know what other items swelled to take the place of the temporary spending you pointed out. It is my understanding that a great deal of the replacement spending was automatic safety net programs that no president has control over. I have trouble pointing to exactly what legislation Obama signed that caused the replacement spending later in his term. The ACA does not kick in for another two years.
Stevie Ray...Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right here I am...
May 24th, 2012
1:20 pm
KYLE,
I’m an actuary and the old adage that figures don’t lie but liars figure is the rule rather than exception with our underperforming (understatement) government. Two things numerical get my mind into the land of fairies and unicorns….First is the idea that the CBO can with even a remote confidence, project impact scenarios 5-10 or more years out so let’s discount that for a moment. Second, the vast majority of voters and our elected corruptresentatives can’t barely compete in simple arithmetic ergo, what does that really tell us? It tells me that spin rules as the gullible rule.
The most amusing part is that our trusted, fiduciarily responsible, masterfully accurate federal government is the first entity known to man to ACCOUNT for $1 Trillion…it’s a really large number that one would be hard pressed to count to in a life time….
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:21 pm
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
May 24th, 2012
12:27 pm
After bankrupting California, Reagan took over the Presidency and reduced taxes for the top 2% from 38% to 12%.. the biggest tax break EVER, and the beginning of the largest gap between the middle-class and the upper-class in America.
He tripled the National Debt while in office.
Yet for some reason he is a hero.
_________________________________________________________________
I love the smell of deflection in the morning.
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:22 pm
Becky
May 24th, 2012
12:27 pm
Kyle’s minions are here. Leaving before the craziness breaks out.
_____________________________________________________________
TRANSLATION: I CAN’T refute what Kyle wrote.
Stevie Ray...Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right here I am...
May 24th, 2012
1:23 pm
Marcus,
The 8% number is best revised to include those giving up or underemployed which is a much more accurate read on the state of the job market…that number is around 16%…may have been same under Bush I don’t know but the gullible who premise all commentary on the 8% number are well…misguided to say the least…
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:24 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
May 24th, 2012
12:27 pm
The “tax and spend Presidency” is the chief, if not only, mantra the GOP has against Obama right now. They will try to tear this report down 9 ways to Sunday.
_______________________________________________
And yet you haven’t.
Skeered?
Apples and Oranges
May 24th, 2012
1:29 pm
Kyle,
The $105.9 billion supplemental defense appropriation that you point out should be attributed to President Obama, was that discretionary in nature? Meaning, was that money to fund additional troops or expand the wars he inherited? If not, then I don’t think it is fair to attribute these funds to Obama when the previous administration had not appropriated enough funds to support ongoing efforts that could not reasonably be wound down immediately.
I would agree that President Obama should be credited with the following year’s request to fund the surge in Afghanistan as that was his policy that he campaigned upon.
Lastly, you malign the misleading use of stats, but finish your article making the point that GOP House of Representatives oversaw a big decrease in the growth of spending, (7.7% to -2.9%), are you not engaging in the same misleading use of figures that you malign? Is this drop mostly a result of the expiration of temporary stimulus spending?
Perhaps we can agree on one thing, this assertion that President Obama is the most fiscally frugal President in recent history is likely no more reality than those that state that he is the biggest spender.
JF McNamara
May 24th, 2012
1:29 pm
I don’t see your point at all. At 2.3%, he has the lowest spend of any President since Reagan. If he’d spent like Bush or Reagan, then maybe it would qualify as a binge.
Those same “What Ifs” could be applied to all of the President. The facts are what the facts are. If you find a way to “what if” some more money to allocate to Obama to get to 5%, maybe you have a point.
The President’s budget proposal is a political tool and you know it. The budget never comes back exactly like the President sent it from appropriations. It’s simply a political tool.
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:31 pm
Manny
May 24th, 2012
12:29 pm
Bryan – The deficits are a result of the following:
1. Bush Tax Cuts – Which Obama extended
2. Economic recession depressing revenue – true
3. Bush Wars – One of which Bush ended and the other Obama increased
4. Entitlement automatic spending increases – Neither Bush NOR Obama addressed
Stevie Ray...Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right here I am...
May 24th, 2012
1:32 pm
JF,
No shortage of political “tools” in Washington….wow, finally something about which all can agree…
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:33 pm
Becky
May 24th, 2012
12:32 pm
Kyle-you so funny. There are smarter people than me tearing your post to pieces. I am just sitting back and watching the destruction of your “theory”.
______________________________________________________________________
Please point to one using FACTS and NUMBERS.
We’ll wait…
a dad
May 24th, 2012
1:33 pm
Kyle – never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience.
Now, how about a fact which everyone can agree with (but I’d love to see someone disagree as well as the basis for their disagreement). Our federal gov’t spend more than it takes in. Anyone run their own personal household (other than allegations against Becky and her daddy) that way?
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:34 pm
Hillbilly D
May 24th, 2012
12:35 pm
You need to work for National Enquirer or some other rag.
Weren’t they the ones who broke the John Edwards story? Just sayin’.
__________________________________________________
Clinton too…
George P. Burdell
May 24th, 2012
1:36 pm
Great points Kyle and I too think it is laughable that Obama’s spending is being lauded. As I pointed out on Jay’s blog, federal spending under both Clinton and Bush II was right at 19.50% of GDP. For Obama, it has been over 24% and all projections seem to show a similar trend although I agree it is also ridiculous to demonize or credit Obama for spending that has yet to occur.
If a family making 100k a year and spending $120k had to suddenly spend $150k due to some crisis, would you then applaud them for their frugality because they only spend 151,500 the year after the crisis? That seems to be what the Obama camp wants to trumpet and they will probably fool most of the people some of this time.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
May 24th, 2012
1:36 pm
Anyone run their own personal household (other than allegations against Becky and her daddy) that way?
Comparing personal finance to the finances of a country which can print money whenever it wants to? Apples and oranges.
JF McNamara
May 24th, 2012
1:39 pm
…and by the way, I forgot to mention that you are the one who is actually lying with statistics. In order to have an apples to apples comparison (and not a lie), you would need to go back for every President and reallocate what they spent similar to how you did with Obama.
What you’ve done is wrong at best and disingenuous at worst.
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:39 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
May 24th, 2012
12:45 pm
I seem to recall Obama offering an 8 to 1 cuts to tax idea. – Link, cite, proof?
You conservatives aren’t really serious about cutting spending. We get another Repub in the White House and you will become silent about the spending once again. – This paragraph contradicts the one below.
And remember, it wasn’t like W did all that spending without anyone in your own party noticing and raising a stink – look at all the work Bob Barr did to rail against it. – This paragraph contradicts the one above.
Hypocrites, one and all. – mirror mirror
Manny
May 24th, 2012
1:39 pm
Kyle: Budget bills require only 51 votes in the Senate; cloture rules don’t apply. If Senate Dems liked his budget, they could have passed it without even nodding to Senate Republicans. The fact that they didn’t is what opened the door to the Republican “mockery.”
Senate doesn’t initiate budgets, the House does. And it wasn’t a budget bill. It was a vote to debate on the budget. You present it as a vote on a budget. Senate Dems aren’t fools, they don’t introduce budgets because that’s not their role. Republicans used a trick where any member can introduce a procedural vote. You should know better about how the Senate works.
As for disagreeing with the Politifact analysis. I suggest your write them if you think they are in error and share their response. Frankly, your numbers are not well sourced and you have done a very poor job of presenting a strong case. You are clearly a partisan hack spewing partisan talking points. That’s fine, but let’s be honest about it. If you want credibility, get a non-partisan source to verify your data and methodology. Write to PF – they will take your analysis seriously and if it is valid post a correction. Somehow I doubt you will do that.
iggy
May 24th, 2012
1:41 pm
Finn fiscal responsibilty consists of tearing checks from the back of his mothers checkbooks, paying for pizza deliverys with said checks then tossing the empty pizza boxes under his moms bed and blaming her for ordering too much pizza and constant check boucing.
Poor Mom.
a dad
May 24th, 2012
1:41 pm
Missed the point Finn. Yes, the U.S. can print all the money it wants, which eventually will be useful for all sorts of non-economic activity such as wiping one’s arse. My point was we spend more than we take in. Agree/disagree? Pretty straight forward. Then you interject something completely unrelated into the debate. Way to go.
Manny
May 24th, 2012
1:42 pm
This is all show. No one here cried about deficits when Bush created them during his tenure. It was fine then. Put a Lib in office, and somehow it’s a problem. The hypocrisy is terrible.
Manny
May 24th, 2012
1:43 pm
a dad – where were you during Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II?
GDRLA
May 24th, 2012
1:45 pm
Too bad this entire issue gets caught up in all of the various rhetoric from all sides – we have serious problems in this country & as yet NO ONE has really gotten serious about addressing them – the left is going to have to give up some of their cherished programs & spending issues while the right is going to have to increase revenue. It requires some radical rethinking of all sides/aspects of the issue – maybe we should legalize some classes of drugs & tax the living H*** out of it, increase the retirement age (Yes, I am a boomer close to retirement age ), reinstate means testing as a condition of public assistance, eliminate many of the corporate welfare programs (agricultural subsidies, etc), cut out all foreign aid, PBS subsidy, etc. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing in the same way repeatedly and expecting a different outcome or result. It becomes evermore true as I get older what my Grandfather taught me @ a young age: I can know that a politician is lying to me when I see his/her lips moving & hear their words! Anyone who gets elected President or to Congress is going to increase the deficit, etc., albeit in their particular partisian way.
That Black guy
May 24th, 2012
1:46 pm
Actually Finn, don’t bother to answer my questions. I won’t see your response. You don’t want dialog, honest debate, or a rational discourse.
You just want to fling poo.
a dad
May 24th, 2012
1:47 pm
Manny – I joined the Navy just as Reagan took office. My first pay raise under Ronnie was something like 18% which I thought was great, till all the older guys told me what they’d been through under Clinton (about 3% totla over 4 years).
As for the Bushes, most of the time I was out of country killing bad guys.
Del
May 24th, 2012
1:54 pm
Becky, didn’t do so well against Fred on Bookman’s blog either.
Michael
May 24th, 2012
1:57 pm
@George P. Burdell:
Looking at spending as a percentage of GDP to compare spending is not the correct way to compare. Spending can be held flat and if GDP plummets (which it did), then this metric goes up. Real increases in spending should be looked at, not changes relative to GDP.
Also, a more accurate way to compare spending is to look at dollars allocated as a direct result of policies enacted by that president. This would mean that if a president signed the bill, it goes on their ledger. If the spending has not happened yet, tough. You signed for it. A Bush would still be on the hook for war spending under Obama and Obama would be on the hook for healthcare spending under his successor. Otherwise, presidents can (and do) pass appropriations that kick in during the next president’s term, effectively blaming them.
And peoples’ opinions in discussions such as this are largely dependent upon their opinions prior to the discussion. We’ll never change, and that is depressing.
Del
May 24th, 2012
2:00 pm
Rex Nutting is a flaming lib. It was funny how Bookman referred to the WSJ implying it was the source of this misleading data when it was really only a Rex Nutting guest column in their editorial page.
UandBob
May 24th, 2012
2:00 pm
How is it that you equate temporary with single use? The programs that you say have become permanent spending were designed to be spent of the course of a few to several years. Your faulty logic is like saying that any gun that is not a single shot must have unlimited ammo. Your description of the spending becoming permanent is also either pure ignorance or a deliberate ploy to fool your readers into thinking the programs continue to spend past the amount they were approved for. That is simply not the case.
What is up with your use of the non-word “evah?” Were you trying to make a racial taunt because you think that is how black people talk, or do you think that you are a pre-pubesent cartoon character named Cartman? Either way, as a supposed journalist (even taking into account that this is more of an editorial column) it really doesn’t help your cause.
So, you either lack the basic understanding of what a multi-year funded initiative is and have no business writing on economic issues (what are your credentials for that anyway?), or you are deliberately lying to your readership and have no business being a journalist (editorial or otherwise).
xdog
May 24th, 2012
2:08 pm
Kyle,
It’s true I think Nutting is more credible. Why shouldn’t I? Journalist versus columnist and all that, plus I haven’t trusted goper economic ideologues since David Stockman stopped telling the truth.
Why should I believe your analysis is anything more than an orchestrated reaction to Nutting’s piece? I doubt you’re an accountant so why not come clean on where you got your numbers? Cato/Koch? AEI? FW? You can tell us.
What I really wonder is why you didn’t pick up the phone and call Nutting and engage him on his numbers. That would have been easy and probably would have led to a decent column.
Finally I am shocked to read your view that anything published in the WSJ could ever be false.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
May 24th, 2012
2:08 pm
UandBob,
Kyle’s use of “Evah” is just his way to throw that term back at libs after dealing with “W ~ Worst.President.Evah.” for 8 years+…..going on 12 years now? wow.
Kyle Wingfield
May 24th, 2012
2:09 pm
A few problems with your 1:02, JDW. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.
The biggest problem is that, if you simply delete those lines you mentioned, you get incorrect totals because some of the remaining numbers overlap (i.e., “Education, Training, Employment and Social Services” is a subtotal included in, not distinct from, “Human resources”).
The next problem is that you deleted “income security.” Why? That refers to things like unemployment compensation and food stamps — programs that Obama has changed since taking office. It should stay in.
After that, while you more or less accounted for the TARP and stimulus by deleting “Commerce and Housing Credit,” that heading includes more than those two programs, which means that eliminating that line item altogether skews the results for previous years. It’s better to isolate those two programs, but this budget doc doesn’t do that — which is why I reviewed this doc but didn’t cite it.
Finally, your method doesn’t account for the $108.8 billion I outlined in supplemental spending Obama approved for FY09 (defense and cash for clunkers). I would hope we can agree that, even in a recent federal budget, that is real money and should be attributed properly.
Instead, I recommend using Table 3.2, which is more specific than 3.1, and keeping only the totals for each department (to avoid duplication). Then, eliminate the totals for Medicare, Social Security and Net Interest.
Then you have to get a true number for FY09. Start by subtracting $108.8B, to account for Obama’s two supplemental bills. Then you have to deal with the supposedly temporary money in FY09 for stimulus and TARP. I believe TARP should be included for purposes of calculating Bush’s spending growth, but not for purposes of calculating Obama’s (since that money was supposed to disappear, and we are trying to measure his “other” spending growth; I surmise you agree with that notion since you were open to cutting the Commerce Housing Credit line).
Finally, the more I think about it, the more I think it’s bogus for Nutting, or us, to use FY13 projections given that all the other numbers in play are actual totals. Who knows what will actually happen between now and Sept. 30, 2013? And we’re looking at yearly averages, anyway, so we don’t need to use the same number of years for each.
Do all that, and you get these average annual results:
Reagan 1: 6.9%
Reagan 2: 4.0%
HW Bush: 4.2%
Clinton 1: 0.8%
Clinton 2: 5.8%
W Bush 1: 9.9%
W Bush 2: 7.7%
Obama 1: 8.7%
Which, as I said all along, puts Obama second-worst, not among the best.