National Debt: Bush v. Obama

The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion since President Obama took office.

The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion.

President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion.

But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt.

It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days.

source

Who is to Blame fo the FY 2009 Deficit?

Some Republicans, for instance, complain that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama's policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year.




While this might make sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while President Bush was in the White House.

So if we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is mostly right in claiming that he inherited a mess.

source

Bush: Big Spender

Figure 1 shows the average increase in total spending under recent presidents. Bush II was the biggest spender since LBJ. His spending increases were far larger than the three prior presidents.

Of course, presidents share spending power with Congress and it is easier for presidents to control discretionary spending than entitlement spending. Nonetheless, the results in these charts reflect the general spending approach taken by the presidents quite well. For example, Bush II was instrumental in adding the Medicare drug benefit, which by 2009 was adding more than $60 billion a year to federal spending.

source

Health Care Reform and the Budget Deficit

In the Mid-Session Review of the 2010 Budget issued last August, the Administration estimated that we were on a path that would result in a cumulative deficit over the ten-year budget window from 2010 to 2019 of $9 trillion...

Finally, by far the lion’s share of the projected cumulative deficit is due to policy actions taken in the last Administration. Economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale find that policies from the last eight years that we failed to pay for, including cutting taxes, introducing a new entitlement program for prescription drug benefits, and fighting two wars, are contributing approximately $700 billion per year to the budget deficit. Before those actions were taken, we had been on track to run large budget surpluses over the coming decade.

read the entire paper

Stimulus or Sowing the Seeds of Depression?

Government intervention, in all of its forms, distorts the market place; it directs scarce resources away from productive ventures to unproductive ventures. The measures, taxation, borrowing, and monetary inflation, which the government utilizes to pay for the extravagances of its various stimulus proposals and other constitutionally dubious programs, generate negative economic consequences. Economic prosperity is the product of innovative entrepreneurs who use capital, which is derived from real savings, to produce additional goods and services that market participants can purchase at lower prices. The government stimulus plans encourage capital consumption, which reduces the supply of goods available to consumers, and lays the foundation for an economic depression. The government’s response to the current economic crisis is the identical policies that contributed to the Great Depression. This is not the appropriate foundation for long term economic prosperity, but the inappropriate path to economic ruin.

read the entire essay

My thoughts: An outstanding essay.

Bush Deficits and Projections

The Bush-era deficits were bad. I know. I spent eight years complaining about the president’s lack of fiscal responsibly (here and here for instance).

First, while President Obama is fond of promoting what he calls a "new ethic of responsibility"—in fact he named his first budget, for fiscal 2010, "A New Era of Responsibility"—that is a misrepresentation of his actual budget plan. For each of Obama’s years in office, the deficit is projected to be larger than any year during Bush’s terms.

Second, Obama is right to note that he inherited a large deficit in fiscal 2009. But as we can see here, he is responsible for growing the deficit beyond expectations in fiscal 2009 and thereafter...

Third, Obama’s deficits are frightening but they promise to get worse. Each month that goes by the president adds spending to the deficit. The August 2009 projections for instance, do not include any of the president’s healthcare reform spending and they assume that the “temporary” stimulus spending will not be prolonged past fiscal 2011. Finally, they also assume that the economy will recover soon and that it will grow enough to generate increasing tax revenue, in spite of the president’s plan to impose new taxes and regulations on the private sector.

read the essay

Keynesianism Fails Again

From the beginning, our representatives in Washington have approached this economic downturn with old-fashioned, Keynesian economics. Keynesianism—named after the British economist John Maynard Keynes—is the theory that you fight an economic downturn by pumping money into the economy to "encourage demand" and "create jobs." The result of our recent Keynesian stimulus bills? The longest recession since World War II—21 months and counting—with no clear end in sight. Borrowing close to a trillion dollars out of the private economy to increase government spending by close to a trillion dollars does nothing to increase incentives for investment and entrepreneurship.

The record speaks for itself: In February 2008, President George W. Bush cut a deal with congressional Democrats to pass a $152 billion Keynesian stimulus bill based on countering the recession with increased deficits. The centerpiece was a tax rebate of up to $600 per person, which had no significant effect on economic incentives, as reductions in tax rates do.

Learning nothing from this Keynesian failure, which he vigorously supported from the U.S. Senate, President Barack Obama came back in February 2009 to support a $787 billion, purely Keynesian stimulus bill...

The fallacies of Keynesian economics were exposed decades ago by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Keynesian thinking was then discredited in practice in the 1970s, when the Keynesians could neither explain nor cure the double-digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment that resulted from their policies...

U.S. economic recovery and a permanent reduction in unemployment will only come from private, job-creating investment. Nothing in the Obama economic recovery program, or in the Bush 2008 program, helps with that.

Producing long-term economic growth will require a fundamental change in economic policies—lower, not higher, tax rates; reliable, low-cost energy supplies, not higher energy costs through cap and trade; and not unreliable alternative energy surviving only on costly taxpayer subsidies...

Expect an eventual return to 1970s-style economic results instead.

read the entire essay

Federal Budget Deficits: Bush v. Obama

source

Cartoon: Bush Legacy

Bush: Rhetorical Capitalist, Practicing Socialist

History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market. We saw this in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Because these firms were chartered by the U.S. Congress, many believed they were backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. government. Investors put huge amounts of money into Fannie and Freddie, which they used to build up irresponsibly large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities. When the housing market declined, these securities, of course, plummeted in value. It took a taxpayer-funded rescue to keep Fannie and Freddie from collapsing in a way that would have devastated the global financial system. There is a clear lesson: Our aim should not be more government -- it should be smarter government.

All this leads to the most important principle that should guide our work: While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people.

In the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and right equate the free-enterprise system with greed and exploitation and failure. It's true this crisis included failures -- by lenders and borrowers and financial firms, and by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free-market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems, make reforms, and move forward with the free-market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people all across the globe.

Capitalism is not perfect. But it is by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy. Capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do, the opportunity to buy or sell products they want, and the dignity that comes with profiting from their talent and hard work. The free market provides the incentives to work, to innovate, to save, to invest wisely, and to create jobs for others. And as millions of people pursue these incentives together, whole societies benefit.

read the essay

My thoughts: A great defense of free markets in a speech basically advocating more government interference in the market. At this point no rational person believes Bush supports free markets in the abstract or practical sense.

Bush on the Bailout

President Bush on Friday defended recent federal intervention in the financial system as necessary to ward off a wider economic crisis and said the actions were not just a Wall Street bailout.

"People look at the crisis and say, 'Oh, it's only Wall Street,' " said Bush, addressing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "I don't think so. In fact, I know that if we had not acted, it would have affected the American people directly."

"If the government had not acted, the hole in our financial system would have gotten larger," he added.

Bush said the government would limit its intervention in size and scope, and did not intend to nationalize the banking system. "The government intervention is not a government takeover," he said.

read the CNN story

My thoughts: Look at the actions, ignore the rhetoric.

Cartoon: Bush the Commie

Cartoon: 401k and Bush

A Solution to the Crisis: Government or Markets?

Government

"We can solve this crisis - and we will," said Bush, in a speech at the White House...

"Here's what the American people need to know: The U.S. government is acting, and we will continue to act, to resolve this crisis and return stability to our markets," he said.

Bush said that the government's "wide range of tools" included the $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, which he said is "big enough to work." This plan will authorize the Treasury to buy bad mortgage-related investments from finance companies, unfreezing the credit markets by freeing up banks and finance firms to lend once again.

Bush also said the government has started to take steps to help homeowners to refinance into more affordable mortgages; cut the target for the federal funds rate; unveiled a plan to support the market for commercial paper; and has offered government insurance for money market mutual funds.

In addition, he said the U.S. government is coordinating its efforts with other counties.

source

Markets

If government wishes to alleviate, rather than aggravate, a depression, its only valid course is laissez-faire – to leave the economy alone. Only if there is no interference, direct or threatened, with prices, wage rates, and business liquidation will the necessary adjustment proceed with smooth dispatch.

Any propping up of shaky positions postpones liquidation and aggravates unsound conditions. Propping up wage rates creates mass unemployment, and bolstering prices perpetuates and creates unsold surpluses.

Moreover, a drastic cut in the government budget – both in taxes and expenditures – will of itself speed adjustment by changing social choice toward more saving and investment relative to consumption. For government spending, whatever the label attached to it, is solely consumption; any cut in the budget therefore raises the investment-consumption ratio in the economy and allows more rapid validation of originally wasteful and loss-yielding projects.

Hence, the proper injunction to government in a depression is cut the budget and leave the economy strictly alone. Currently fashionable economic thought considers such a dictum hopelessly outdated; instead, it has more substantial backing now in economic law than it did during the 19th century.

source

Cartoon: Bush is a Socialist

Bush Threaten Martial Law

Brad Sherman (D) California

Cartoon: Mission Accomplished

Financial Crisis and Bush Legacy

I think it's safe to say that George W. Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents of all time.
While he was hellbent on fighting terrorists on the other side of the planet...

He missed the domestic ones in Congress, in his party, and even in his administration.

These *financial bailouts* - or should I say, this *nationalization* of our banking industry is an unmitigated disaster. Soon it will make his blunders of No Child Left Behind, the War in Iraq, and Medicare's Prescription Drug Bill look like small potatoes.

source