…as if Libertarians didn’t have enough in the misconception department on their web-plate to sort out—now political cross-dressing transforms civic discussion even more–is Obama a stealth budget hawk…the greatest since Ike?
Why y-e-a-h says budget-hawkish Forbes citing Marketwatch and popular confusion of the Bush rise with Obama, confounding common conceptions and vindicating those saying Obama is a closet Reaganite as government spending actually goes down at one point: will he if re-elected pull a Harry Truman and slash defense 75% after those awful wars while restoring some efficiency? A darn good question many Libs (INSIDE baseball alert: …most of whom voted for Obama –70+%–when faced with the derided LP candidate Barr, who say observers was put in by a conservatizing ‘pragmatist’ group and soon outraged people like Libertarian Party co-founder and http://www.TheLibertarian.Info founding co-editor David Nolan–who even introduced a resolution condemning Barr’s campaign– as Barr e.g. advocated executing women for abortions and said business regulation was fundamental)–are raising of the President who is privatizing left and right, establishing racial harmony, easing towards gay marriage and pot decrim, advocating a tax rate cut, and leaving international Libs alone to spread the tools to kick out dictators..( and who with many Dems do hope he will follow through on his promises to end the war, torture and other policies)… .http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ (Our NB: If the data is adjusted for inflation, Obama’s small rise turns into a cut if we read the figures right, but not sure how accounted for…then again, these are OMB stats in a period where Congress has not been able to pass a formal budget; we’re not clear on whether deficit finacing is included, and of course many complain GAAP standards for private entities would show a far larger debt– http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-18/federal-deficit-accounting/55179748/1 –plus ultimately it is Congress/the House that detrmines spending, not the though obviously influential President. ..) Read the intriguing article and have a laugh at the over-the-top obscene and conspiracy-nutjob comments–and note the author citing neutral and data-loving Libertarian-direction think tanks and then an anti-Libertarian hyper-conservative organ (which seems to hate anything beginning with an ‘L’ e.g. Libertarians, love-children, Liberals, lesbians, etc.)..to back him up (at bottom) in a response to comments as you ponder this month’s…
/24/2012 @ 6:33PM |538,527 views
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It’s Barack Obama?
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.
Check out the chart –
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…
Response to comments by author saying he has the baseline wrong…
from none other than Daniel Mitchell of The Cato Institute:
“The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).
And how big of a deal was the portion of the year’s pending was attributable to the Omnibus spending bill?
Not much according to the Von Mises Institute!
“The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.”
And it gets worse. Calling The Weekly Standard a bunch of idiots might get you drummed out of the Sons of Liberty brotherhood! Here’s what they have to say-
“In fairness, however, Obama can’t rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn’t sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush’s column). Rather, Obama’s record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic “stimulus” package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush’s should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).”
The Weekly Standard http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt …