The notion that federal spending soared after President Obama took office is one of those "facts" that the political world just accepts implicitly. Republicans have repeated the claim so often (and so loudly) that it's no longer even questioned. Indeed, Mitt Romney promises to "stop the excessive overspending" on a nearly daily basis.
Marketwatch
But MarketWatch's Rex Nutting took a closer look at the assumption that many assume is true, but isn't. (The MarketWatch piece included this great chart, too.)
Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace -- slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
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.... There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
It matters, of course, that a political myth is accepted as fact, especially when it's likely to be one of the driving messages of the 2012 campaign.
But let's also keep in mind that this has dramatic policy implications: the fact that the economic recovery is so weak and fragile has nothing to do with the debt and everything to do with not enough capital in the system, leading to too little demand.
In other words, the fact that spending growth under Obama has been so slow is practically a form of austerity, and it's bad for the economy, not good.
Leave a Comment:
Oh brother. Taking the emergency spending of the first year of fiscal crisis as the new normal is misleading and manipulative.
http://factcheck.org/Images/image/2010/Wire%20Items/Spending_GDP(3).png
So, there was emergency spending in Reagan's first year? Your point is somewhat obscure, since both your chart and the blog's chart point to supporting the blog's point.
@Shooter242 - you are confusing spending as a percentage of GDP with growth in spending. If you examine the chart you linked to, you'll see the numbers for each President in the Factcheck chart are different from the numbers in the MarketWatch chart, as they are talking about two different things.
And your link didn't post properly - so I've re-posted it below - with the URL to the page where it's located:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/07/geithners-gdp-whopper/
As for FactCheck's argument, that's another story for another day!
@June
Thank you very much for cleaning up my cite. That was the fastest chart I could find that illustrated a jump in spending for 2008-9. This chart may be better.
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=e36ffbbb-398d-4897-835f-056869178ca7
www.usgovernmentspending.com (and related sites) have some very handy tools for pulling this data, people.
I knew something was afoot when I first saw this but I was not sharp enough to catch it (poor, me). It is interesting, though. It is essentially President Obama spending about 20% more his first year of office and then maintaining that level and thus saying, "during" my presidency spending has not increased.
No, not if you don't count that first over 1/2 trillion dollar increase thus tripling the deficit in one year. He essentially made one big increase over Bush's last year and then kept it at that level, thus his ability to claim no increase "during" his presidency.
Interesting twist, though.
When will dems learn to grab the mic away from republicans and tell it like it is.Just keep pounding away at the lies they tell day after day. Oh and by the way,thank you Pres Obama for lowering gas prices!
Here are the per-capita spends in constant 2005 dollars:
2008 5336.65
2009 5942.71
2010 5920.00
2011 6050.51
2012 6282.00
Federal only:
2008 2982.54
2009 3517.68
2010 3456.21
2011 3603.06
2012 3795.55
President Obama cut the deficit by $312 billion from Bush's final deficit thur the deficit projection for 2012...
http://www.thedailybanter.com/2012/05/the-truth-about-the-president-and-the-deficit-part-2/
April existing home sale surpass expectations with 3.4% gain (analysts expected gain of 2.9%)
http://www.businessinsider.com/april-existing-home-sale-2012-05
You're welcome, Shooter242 - but the point is still being missed (and the second chart you posted on outlays vs. revenues can be laid squarely at the feet of "No-Revenues-Ever!"-Republicans) - the MarketWatch chart is not illustrating spending as a percentage of GDP as your chart did, it is illustrating how much each president increased the growth rate of spending. Therefore, to prove that the MW chart is not correct, you need to look up what the spending percentage of GDP was when each president took office, and by what percentage spending increased during their term(s) - that's what the MW chart is showing. You'll also see that at least two of the sources for the charts you're posting are the same as the MW chart - same sources, but they are talking about different things with regard to the budget.
When Pres. Obama took office, spending as a percentage of GDP was 24.9% of GDP - the MW chart states that the president only increased that rate by 1.4% - according to my rough calculations (rounding the numbers), that means that in a time of extreme financial crisis, spending under Obama only increased from 25% to 25.4% - and it looks like the number will actually come in even lower:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/15/484767/obama-budget-chart/
To round up, you're confusing 'spending as a percentage of GDP', and 'outlays vs. revenues' with increasing the spending rate.
Sorry June but using the fiscal crisis response via Govt spending as a baseline is bogus, no matter how you reference it. Which reminds me, how is a chart of outlays different from a chart of spending?
In any event trillion dollar plus deficits as the new normal is just amazing. To advertise that as austerity is absurd.
June isn't using the stimulus as a baseline. Again re-read her comments. You are purposely manipulated what she is saying and ignoring the point. The MW chart is looking at percentage increase. Unless you can refute that you aren't making a valid counter-argument.
What happens to "spending as a percent of GDP" when spending drops but GDP drops even more?
I'm not using the stimulus as baseline. I'm talking about the bill Bush ran up before handing over the office to Obama. The year of the fiscal crisis. It's absolutely true that Obama inherited a humongous deficit. It was extraordinary. Using that amount of spending as normal, is the problem.
Obama's spending, nowadays according to the chart you linked to, is less than Reagan's when he started, and Reagan didn't have active wars or a Great Recession to deal with... so you shot yourself in the foot there.
@Shooter242, bottom line is, Bush bequeathed Pres. Obama "spending as a percentage of GDP" that was at almost 25%. That's from Bush. So, if you want to throw around the phrase "trillion dollar plus deficits" - understand that 1.3 trillion of that deficit was Bush's parting gift to the nation, and it can't be said enough. Next, take a look at the outlays vs. revenues chart and tell us what the growth rate in spending was under Pres. Obama, and what it was under Bush - strictly according to that chart. You can't. That's the difference.
Back to Bush's increased spending - compare Bush's 7.3% & 8.1% annualized spending growth rate with Pres. Obama's 1.4%. Look at those numbers and tell us which ones Republicans should be looking at as "out-of-control." Even grappling with two unpaid wars and a global financial crisis, Pres. Obama actually only increased spending by less than 2% - far less than his predecessor who came into office under almost the best of circumstances. Further, the very GOP criers now running around hollering about out-of-control spending would rather the public-at-large forget the fact that their fingerprints all over that debt, deficit and "out-of-control" spending from the Bush era. That's the story these numbers start to tell, and it is indeed relevant to an honest conversation about the economy.
Edited to add: Obama is not using that amount as "normal," he has actively looked to decrease it, and has accomplished that.
Siiighs. Eap the point of this chart is to show spending as a percentage of GDP and display how much it increased per each POTUS per each term. If your complaint is seriously that you believe that we should not be running a 1.3 trillion deficit every year that is in and of itself an OK complaint to be made. However this does not a. alleviate you from the hypocrisy you've made beforehand by talking about PBO's supposed addition of 5 trillion to the debt (an accusation I've debunked multiple times over w/ you, I might add) and b. it's a red herring argument.
We're not talking about whether or not spending should be a trillion+ above the revenue amount we're taking in. That is not the Republican argument as it's being levied against Obama. That argument- you personally, in fact, have argued that PBO has added more than $5 trillion in debt and has increased spending- is that PBO has increased spending by the US government by some egregiously high amount. His administration has not done this. Absolutely NO ONE was making the argument that current spending rates are necessarily OK. The argument being made here is that it is disingenuous to claim that PBO has increased spending in some epic way when in reality he has not.
You are either not understanding the information being presented to you, are ignoring that information to make a scapegoat argument as opposed to discussing the issue at hand, are arguing against a phantom hypothetical that no one but you heard, or a combination therein.
That's what tr0lls do.
Also I should really check for grammar and spelling. Should read:
You are purposely manipulating what she is saying and ignoring the point
Bleh!
Great chart from MarketWatch, Steve. Striking, even. Over the last 30 years (at least) Federal spending has grown more rapidly under Republican presidents than Democratic. It's not even close. This is another instance of "I'm rubber, you're glue". The GOP accuses the Dems of, often and loudly, what they, themselves, are guilty of: overseeing big increases in the size of the Federal government.
This "Dems are expanding the size of gov't" meme has taken hold because the MSM has become a shell. And the Dem establishment is complicit, too, for not fighting back.
Agreed that both parties are prolific spenders - its what politicians regardless of party do. However if not for the Tea Party, the mainstream Republicans would have gone along with the Dems and raised the debt ceiling without a fuss and we would have had a much higher than 1.4% annualized growth that Steve is now touting and we would be much closer to Bush's 7-8% increase. Can I hear some praise from Steve and others for the discipline that the Tea Party has instituted?
Get this chart out where people can see it.
The problem with the media is this kind of stuff does little good on the internet, if it stays there.
Are the big three going to run a story?
Doubt it.
This furthermore shows Republicans count like 3rd graders.