Illustrative of his contempt for the truth, Mitt Romney's campaign website continues to host the following statement: "Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history."
On Friday, we discovered yet another reason why this is a super-colossal lie.
With the end of fiscal year 2012, the Congressional Budget Office announced the 2012 federal budget deficit: $1.1 trillion. Taken purely at face value, this number is enormous. Yet every Democrat, and especially the Obama campaign, ought to be telling anyone who will listen: Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he's cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted as is, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion -- a four year total of nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction.
Okay, yeah, I get it. It's risky to mention the deficit, but not when you couch it in math and the facts.
As I've documented before, the CBO reported in January, 2009 that the federal budget deficit for that fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2008, was already $1.2 trillion. President Obama's additional '09 spending added another $200 billion to the deficit, bringing the total to $1.412 trillion. Unprecedented and huge, but given the enormity of the financial crisis and the depth of the recession, there weren't many other options on the table. Add two wars into the mix and there you go.
But since then, deficit spending has dropped precipitously. Why? Chiefly because President Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in February, 2010, which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. Yes, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress passed this legislation. Guess how many congressional Republicans voted for the law. Zero. Not one. Perhaps during this week's debate, Vice President Biden could ask Rep. Paul Ryan who voted against the bill.
Consequently, the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch.
Once again, Mitt Romney's website still contains the words: "Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Pants on fire times a thousand.
Fact: the president's record is exactly the opposite of what Romney says. And how long ago was this statistic released by the Wall Street Journal and subsequently affirmed by fact checkers? Five months ago. On September 26, when asked about his record of mendacious claims, Mitt Romney told CNN's Jim Acosta, "We've been absolutely spot on. And any time there's been anything that's been amiss, we correct it or remove it." Oh yeah? Well, Mr. Romney, you missed a whopper.
Another whopper: during Romney's "winning" debate against the president last week, he claimed, "The president said he'd cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it." Another lie. Yes, the president said he'd cut the deficit in half -- but he absolutely did not double it. As I've outlined here, he's cut the deficit by 22 percent so far -- 35 percent by the end of 2013.
Furthermore, I can name two Democratic presidents who've cut the deficit through the duration of their presidencies: Clinton and Obama. And what about Republican presidents? Bush 43? He turned a $200 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit by the end of his first term, and a $1.2 trillion deficit by the end of his second term. Bush 41? No. Reagan? No. Ford? No. Nixon? No. The last Republican president who cut the deficit was Eisenhower. By the way, I'm sick of hearing the farcical line about Congress "controlling the purse strings." Any six-year-old child who's watched a Schoolhouse Rock cartoon knows the president signs all legislation before it becomes law, including appropriations bills. The House can't magically spend money without a presidential signature. Besides, if the president is to be blamed for the size of the deficit -- and the Republicans have been merciless on the president in this area in spite of reality, and their own party's record -- it's only fair that he should get credit when the deficit is reduced.
Yet without objections, the Romney campaign and the Republicans continue to champion their status as "fiscal hawks" even though the facts prove that to correlate "fiscal responsibility" and "Republican Party" is absurd on its face. Even though Romney's plan for the deficit and the economy is as shifty, murky and ambiguous as he is, there appears to be nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about the Romney plan that's any different from every Republican presidential plan in recent history, but we're supposed to believe that Romney will cut the deficit anyway. In fact, as we all know by now, Romney is proposing $5 trillion in un-funded tax cuts, as well as massive increases in military spending, and, if Romney wins, you can bet the Republicans will jettison their deficit and debt hawkery into the next nearest memory hole to be forgotten until another Democrat enters the White House.
If the Obama campaign and the Democrats can talk about the deficit in these terms, it undercuts one of the leading Republican attacks and becomes a winning issue for the president. Plus it helps to cement the reality of Mitt Romney The Pathological Liar.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Rockville attorney Kush Arora.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
David Coates: Memo to the Presidential Candidates: Cut the Warfare State, Not the Welfare State
Jonathan Del Arco: Pregnant... With Anticipation
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
With the largest personal staff in the history of the presidency, one would think Barack Obama had all the help he could possibly need, but apparently this is not the case. In addition to the Cabinet and his army of presidential assistants, junior assistants, and secretaries, Barack Obama also has a record number of czars on his staff—43 as of this writing. This number is not a misprint, and you are reading it correctly. The number of czars reporting to Barack Obama is 43, and this number is still increasing. Even Bill Clinton had only eight czars.
--------------------------------------------------->
If as Cheney said, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," when did deficits become important to republicans? Did Cheney lie then, or are Boehner and the conservative cabal lying now?
Or are they only important to republicans when they are out of the executive office?
So I decided to analyze the raw data myself.
The author seems to be both right and wrong. In Obama's first year in office (2009) spending increased 18% which is extremely high. In years two and three the spending increase was below 1/2 %. So, at least for years two and three the author is correct.
However, using inflation adjusted spending (adjusted to 2004 dollars) that same three years is $1.5T in spending above Bush's last year in office.
If we look at the same data in terms of a three year average we get a 5.0% yearly average growth in spending, which is greater than any spending increase in Bush's last four years.
The average growth in spending during Obama's first three years in office is actually greater, although only slightly, than Bush's last four years in office. And, we can conclude that during the first three years of Obama's term the national debt increased 1.5T dollars as a direct result of an increase in spending.
Hence, I believe the author's premise is incorrect.
Year Spending Transfers Inflation Spending Increase
2004 2,292.8 -423.1 2.68 2,292.8
2005 2,472.0 -438.6 3.39 2,388.2 4.2%
2006 2,655.1 -453.0 3.24 2,479.1 3.8%
2007 2,728.7 -464.6 2.85 2,470.0 -0.4%
2008 2,982.5 -477.4 3.85 2,584.9 4.7%
2009 3,517.7 -527.2 -0.34 3,060.8 18.4%
2010 3,456.2 -623.7 1.64 2,950.6 -3.6%
2011 3,603.1 -678.1 3.16 2,962.1 0.4%
You're assuming that Obama is responsible for FY in 2009. However, George W. Bush signed the budget into effect for FY 2009 on October 1, 2008. It took effect immediately.
If you notice, the author of piece refers to Reagan's budget years for his first term as 1982-1985 despite the fact that his first term was from 1981-1985 Clinton's first term as 1993-1997, but the budget years are reflected as 1994-1997. The reason for this is because you never count the first fiscal year of a President's term because the fiscal year is always put in effect the previous year and in this case would be put into effect by his predecessor.
National debt Jan 2009 - when Obama entered office: 10.6T
National debt Sept 2012 - this is from the National Debt Clock: 16.2T
I confess, I graduated from a large Midwestern college so I'm not the smartest bulb in the box so you'll need to help me through the math.
16.2T - 10.6T = 5.6T
If Obama takes responsible for spending of his watch, the National Debt increased 5.6T on his watch?
He is the President and he is responsible, right?
The math suggests the National Debt increased at a faster rate in the last for years then any time since the Second World War.
As President you can order troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan at any time. In addition, the President has enormous control over the daily spending of the government, as demonstrated by Reagan with the air traffic controllers. The President has the bully pulpit and can approach Congress at any time propose spending cuts.
In the end the math doesn't support your argument.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1
1. All of the democrats' major spending and budget defidits were designed NOT to kick in until AFTER the 2012 elections - they don't care if Rome burns while they play the fiddle, just that Obama can get elected by the skin of his teeth for 4 more years of fiscal destruction.
2. REPEAT AFTER ME: Obamacare BARELY passed approval by the Supreme Court because it is, effectively, THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA - AIMED SQUARELY AT THE MIDDLE CLASS. People can cite the CBO, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, MSNBC - or XYZ. I don't care, because none of you hot-wind blowers will be able to withstand the crippling costs, taxes, debts, interest, inflation, & devaluation of the dollar which are about to occur - unless you are prepared for it.
So, keep on blowing your hot air in my direction - I'll continue to busy myself with my Constitutionally protected right to acquire firearms, ammunition, solar-panels, batteries, long-term food storage, water purification systems, etc... To the rest of you: be sure to smile & be respectful to the U.N. troops as they escort you onto trains, headed for the FEMA concentration camps - and definitely DON'T PASS UP YOUR CHANCE TO GET YOUR FREE FLU-SHOTS!!! (Goggle "squaline" - then check your reproductive
you wouldn't see that number going down until the year 2040.
2010 fiscal year budget deficit $1.267 trillion signed into effect by Obama 2009
2011 fiscal year budget deficit $1.3 trillion signed into effect by Obama 2010
2012 fiscal year budget deficit $1.327 trillion signed into effect by Obama 2011
2013 fiscal year budget deficit $900 billion signed into effect by Obama 2012
When you add these numbers it comes out to roughly 6.2 trillion. Keep in mind no president or congress has actually cut government spending in over 85 years