Tucson Citizen.com
Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats

President Obama: Out of control spending?? Not hardly

by on May. 23, 2012, under Pol. & Govt.

Self appointed savior of free enterprise Mitt Romney recently attacked President Obama for “out of control spending”, claiming he would lead us out of “spending inferno”. It took MarketWatch, a division of that liberal bastion The Wall Street Journal (owned by Fox News parent News Corp) to dispel that big fat lie.

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. 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. Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Bolded emphasis is mine. Mitt Romney apparently subscribes to the Karl Rove tactic of “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”  (Even though Karl Rove stole that idea from a guy named Joseph Goebbels).  I subscribe more to the “a picture is worth a thousand words” line of thought:

Big spender? That “severely conservative” Ronald Reagan leads the list. Bush the Wiser gave it his old college try and far outspent Bill Clinton, but was far outdone by Bush the Lesser.  But President Obama? A clear lightweight when it comes to growth of federal spending. In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. Numbers don’t lie, unfortunately politicians do often. Republicans also love claiming that the national debt is “exploding” under President Obama. It is true that the national debt has risen from $10.6 trillion to $15.6 trillion under Obama’s watch, which makes for easy partisan attacks. But the vast bulk of the increase was caused by a combination of revenue losses due to the 2008-09 economic downturn as well as Bush-era tax cuts and automatic increases in safety-net spending that were already written into law. Make no mistake, current deficits and increases to the national debt are unsustainable. When we have fully recovered from the worst recession since the Great Depression we must address deficit spending and pay down our debt. Like Bill Clinton did, like GW Bush should have.

Another saying I like is “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. Mitt Romney should know a thing or two about “out of control spending”. During his four years as governor of Massachusetts, state spending increased by 6.5% per year, government jobs grew six times as fast as private sector jobs, taxes and fees went up by $750 million each year, and debt increased by 16%. In fact, he left Massachusetts with the largest per-capita debt of any state in the country.

Mitt Romney says he want the economy to be the focus of his campaign. We say “bring it on”.



  • Jonathan_Duhamel

    It seems the claim that Obama is spending less is a result of mistakes and cooking the books. Investor’s Business Daily shows that Obama spending as a percent of GDP is highest since World War II. See:
    http://news.investors.com/article/612620/201205241756/obama-is-a-spendthrift.htm?p=full

  • Jonathan_Duhamel

    This is a good example on how to lie with graphs.  The only reason it seems to work is that the author is attributing the $825 billion stimulus, which Obama, promoted and signed, to Bush when it was really under Obama’s watch.

  • fortbuckley

    For the sake of discussion, I’ll not dispute the MarketWatch opinion columnist’s general argument, that President Obama hasn’t spent as wildly as many people think.  (I won’t come out and agree with it, because I suspect the author left some key facts out when he made his analysis.  We’ll see how well his “blockbuster” article stands up under scrutiny.)

    I can do that because we Republicans have so much OTHER stuff to talk about:
    - The president’s promise that (I’m paraphrasing here), if you like your own doctor and your health plan, you can keep it.
    - The 787 billion stimulus plan, known appropriately as “Porkulus,” that was an orgy of deficit spending, targeted at Democratic party pet interests, which our grandchildren will pay for.  (Our kids are already broke).
    - Solyndra, Lightsquared and other boondoggles paid for with our grandchildren’s money.
    - The hyperpartisan, twisted way in which Obamacare was passed. 
    - The unemployment rate that is hovering around 8% (the president’s target), because SO MANY Americans have quit looking for work, out of despair.  Otherwise, the rate would be much higher.
    - The deficit has gone up—by your own words, David—FIVE TRILLION dollars since President Obama took office.  What, it’s OK for a president to let the nation’s deficit go up FIFTY PERCENT during his first term?  We’re supposed to overlook that because he’s new? 

    Republicans are doing so well in the polls now because Americans are starting to realize that Democrats are very good at spending other people’s money (or, in this case, their grandchildrens’), but they seem to have no real plausible plan (or any apparent interest) in paying their debts. 

    Yes David, we can make “easy partisan attacks,” because the deficit totals accruing under a Democratic Party president are so large, they’re impossible to ignore.

    “When we have fully recovered from the worst recession since the Great
    Depression we must address deficit spending and pay down our debt.”

    You make it sound so easy.

    “Like Bill Clinton did”

    Yes, after a Republican Congress taught him fiscal discipline.

    “Like GW Bush should have.”

    I’ll agree with you here.  George W. Bush spent more money than lots of conservatives wanted.  But, he did have other things on his plate, which the previous administration had left for him to handle. Why don’t you meet me in New York City, at the “Windows on the World” restaurant (look it up) and I’ll explain it to you.

  • CascaRufio

    Please repost the numbers as a ratio of federal spending to GNP.  Also only post for periods where both houses of congress and the presidency were of the same party for at least a year prior, since only during those times can effects be attributed to a party.  Also consider that for a long time the government has been dominated by incompetent bloated idiots.  The problem now is the private sector is also dominated by incompetent bloated idiots.  If the private sector continuously cuts back on employment of working class to maximize profits simply because with technology they don’t need very many, either the government has to provide jobs for them, pay them for doing nothing, or deal with the crimes they commit trying to survive. 

  • Denise_Early

    Very interesting info. Why is it that when we have a President who is a Democrat, Republicans start yelling about spending and deficits? Then they take over and spend like drunken sailors. So much for being fiscal conservatives. But is this too much info for the American public to understand?

    • fortbuckley

      Well Denise, Ronald Reagan spent like crazy to rebuild the military that was being allowed to rot away.  As a result, we won the Cold War and the Gulf War. 

      George W. Bush spent lots of money to put better prescription drug benefits in Medicare—what, you have a problem with that.  He also had to fight two wars in order to beat back a terrorist threat that metastasized under Bill Clinton.  (What IS it about modern-day Democratic Party presidents that puts a smile on terrorists’ faces.)

      Before you bring up SOF taking down Bin Laden and the PREDATORS—George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld built that capability.  President Obama had the good sense to use what he’d been given.  I doubt that many Americans think that President Obama would have built up such strong military force on his own.