What is it you keep saying? Corroborating links from three unbiased sources? Where is yours? (And if you think Democratic Underground, the source for this particular chart, is unbiased, well, there's no hope for you.)
Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
…
Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.
…
In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.
So why the disconnect between Obama’s image as a big spender and the reality of how much federal spending has actually grown?
First, Obama’s record on debt is a lot less flattering than is his record on federal government spending. During the same time that spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.
Second, federal spending under Obama is higher as a share of gross domestic product than it has been in most of the previous 60 years. That, too is because of the economy, which has simultaneously slowed the growth of GDP and boosted government spending for programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.
Third, the aging of the baby boomers has driven a rise in entitlement spending that is masking cuts Obama and the GOP Congress have made, and have promised to make, in discretionary spending. Using outlays as the unit of measurement, as Nutting and the Facebook post have done, means focusing on money already spent. It does not take into account future spending that’s been committed to but not yet carried out.
And finally, many Americans associate Obama with the high-profile legislative activities of his first year or two, when initiatives such as the stimulus sent spending upward the fastest. Since then, spending has slowed, thanks in part to spending cuts pushed by congressional Republicans.
Which brings us to another important issue: The president is not all-powerful, so his record on spending was accomplished in collaboration with congressional Republicans.
…
Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single "correct" way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim -- that Obama’s spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.
Oh, but wait. Wasn't there something in that ragged old document, the Constipation, uh, Constraption, uh, Oh Right, The Constitution about revenue bills only originating in the House? It's Congress that sets the budget, not the President!
Since I don't have a left-leaning site handy which admits that, I'll just have to use this link:
This chart is structured like Pelosi's chart. The major difference is that we’ve highlighted Congress since 1981, instead of the presidency. Of those sixteen Congresses, Democrats controlled the House nine times while Republicans controlled it seven times. While in power, the Democrats dramatically outspent the Republicans. The 471% increase in the debt during 18 years of Democratic control is staggeringly more than the 105% increase during 14 years of Republican control.
Consider the contrasting stories told by these two charts. Pelosi's office is telling a fairy tale that places the blame for an exploding debt squarely on Republican presidents, especially Reagan and George W. Bush. However, reality provides a very different account: It was Democrats controlling the House that swelled the debt. Presidents don’t hold the “purse-strings” of government, only the veto power. Nancy Pelosi’s chart is simply deceptive.
Note that Nancy Pelosi's chart is basically the same chart in a different format.
Of course, this is all based on past spending, i.e., money that has already been spent. What about future spending, money that will have to be spent based on policies being put into place now (or in the recent past)?
4 comments:
What is it you keep saying? Corroborating links from three unbiased sources? Where is yours? (And if you think Democratic Underground, the source for this particular chart, is unbiased, well, there's no hope for you.)
How about this one?:
The facts about the growth of spending under Obama
Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
…
Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.
…
In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.
Or how about this one (which has a bias, to the left)?
Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president
So why the disconnect between Obama’s image as a big spender and the reality of how much federal spending has actually grown?
First, Obama’s record on debt is a lot less flattering than is his record on federal government spending. During the same time that spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.
Second, federal spending under Obama is higher as a share of gross domestic product than it has been in most of the previous 60 years. That, too is because of the economy, which has simultaneously slowed the growth of GDP and boosted government spending for programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.
Third, the aging of the baby boomers has driven a rise in entitlement spending that is masking cuts Obama and the GOP Congress have made, and have promised to make, in discretionary spending. Using outlays as the unit of measurement, as Nutting and the Facebook post have done, means focusing on money already spent. It does not take into account future spending that’s been committed to but not yet carried out.
And finally, many Americans associate Obama with the high-profile legislative activities of his first year or two, when initiatives such as the stimulus sent spending upward the fastest. Since then, spending has slowed, thanks in part to spending cuts pushed by congressional Republicans.
Which brings us to another important issue: The president is not all-powerful, so his record on spending was accomplished in collaboration with congressional Republicans.
…
Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single "correct" way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim -- that Obama’s spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.
Oh, but wait. Wasn't there something in that ragged old document, the Constipation, uh, Constraption, uh, Oh Right, The Constitution about revenue bills only originating in the House? It's Congress that sets the budget, not the President!
Since I don't have a left-leaning site handy which admits that, I'll just have to use this link:
Who REALLY Increased the Debt?
This chart is structured like Pelosi's chart. The major difference is that we’ve highlighted Congress since 1981, instead of the presidency. Of those sixteen Congresses, Democrats controlled the House nine times while Republicans controlled it seven times. While in power, the Democrats dramatically outspent the Republicans. The 471% increase in the debt during 18 years of Democratic control is staggeringly more than the 105% increase during 14 years of Republican control.
Consider the contrasting stories told by these two charts. Pelosi's office is telling a fairy tale that places the blame for an exploding debt squarely on Republican presidents, especially Reagan and George W. Bush. However, reality provides a very different account: It was Democrats controlling the House that swelled the debt. Presidents don’t hold the “purse-strings” of government, only the veto power. Nancy Pelosi’s chart is simply deceptive.
Note that Nancy Pelosi's chart is basically the same chart in a different format.
Of course, this is all based on past spending, i.e., money that has already been spent. What about future spending, money that will have to be spent based on policies being put into place now (or in the recent past)?
Chartage: Spending is the problem with the debt
How can we know this chart is valid? Because Nancy Pelosi wants to raise tax revenues even higher because even the current hike isn't enough to keep up with the spending, which is what the chart shows.
The Clinton years just keep looking better and better.
Post a Comment