Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Obama Spending Slowest in Decades

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

Even though last spring MarketWatch and Forbes had the story that Obama was not spending like a 'drunken sailor' during his term, it didn't seem to faze the Conservative media who repeated their narrative that he was spending more then any President in modern history.  When you look at facts which the media had at their disposal since MarketWatch is part of the Wall Street Journal, you realize that the Conservative media was touting a narrative not the facts to prop up Romney/Ryan and still doing it today.  

Here are the facts from late last spring from MarketWatch about the spending habits of President Obama and how he has cut spending in the Federal Government -- he gets zero credit as the GOP now wants 'entitlement' programs slashed and no revenue raised by keeping loopholes for the wealthy.  GOP prefers to cite how spending has risen under Obama which follows the GOP narrative not the facts:
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear. 
Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. 
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock. 
The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. 
Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations. 
Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill. 
The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely. 
When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook. 
Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009. 
If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

Many members of the media still tout President Obama as the big spender which is not true and Cong Ryan as this budget guru which makes no sense as Ryan's numbers usually don't add up. While searching for answers why Ryan was the head of the Budget Committee I discovered Ryan while attending Miami University of Ohio volunteered for the congressional campaign of John Boehner.  Dots connected as the background of Ryan on economics was never mainstream Republican but then today there is no mainstream Republican Party as the Party went hard right.  Found this part on Ryan from his days at Miami University in Ohio extremely interesting:
Ryan majored in economics and political science at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, where he became interested in the writings of Friedrich HayekLudwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman. He often visited the office of libertarian professor Richard Hart to discuss the theories of these economists and of Ayn Rand. Hart introduced Ryan to the National Review, and with Hart's recommendation Ryan began an internship in the D.C. office of Wisconsin Senator Bob Kasten where he worked with Kasten's foreign affairs adviser.
Having grown up in Ohio, but not living there for years, I did not realize that Miami of OH had become such a hotbed for far right conservative ideas where the most popular Club on campus is the College Republicans.  When you read Ryan's background, his budgets begin to make sense as he followed the writings of Ayn Rand which he later disavowed in 2012 saying he was not an Ayn Rand disciple which is quite common in GOP circles today - say one thing one day and next day do a 180 - sometimes GOP members flip flop in the same interview e.g. Jeb Bush on his book on Immigration.

The reason that today's GOP makes no sense and many of us say they use a narrative not facts is the Paul Ryan example on Ayn Rand:
At a 2005 Washington, D.C. gathering celebrating the 100th anniversary of Ayn Rand's birth, Ryan credited Rand as inspiring him to get involved in public service. In a speech that same year at the Atlas Society, he said he grew up reading Rand, and that her books taught him about his value system and beliefs.[37][38] Ryan required staffers and interns in his congressional office to read Rand and gave copies of her novel Atlas Shrugged as gifts to his staff for Christmas. In his Atlas Society speech, he also described Social Security as a "socialist-based system".  
Looks like Ryan turned on Rand philosophy in April 2012, after receiving criticism from Georgetown University faculty members on his budget plan, Ryan rejected Rand's philosophy as an atheistic one, saying it "reduces human interactions down to mere contracts."
This is the same Paul Ryan as part of Romney/Ryan that accused President Obama of being the biggest spender of any President which was flat out wrong but that didn't keep the lapdog media from reporting what they said.  It wasn't only the conservative media but the mainstream media didn't do any better in their reporting.  The only three I remember pounding it home that Obama was not this big spender was Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow, and Rev Al Sharpton of MSNBC but their voices were drowned out by so many others.  

Next time a Republican says that Obama spends like a 'drunken sailor' to grow Government, throw these facts in their face:

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics: 
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. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — 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. 
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%. 
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Facts are on the side of President Obama not Republicans!

No comments:

Post a Comment