On several occasions, I have pointed out that never in the presidential campaign did then-candidate Barack Obama propose spending of the likes we have seen since his inauguration as president.
Indeed the third debate, he promised not to bloat the budget with new spending initiatives:
What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.
Over at the Corner, Brian Riedl, a Fellow in Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, digs into the President’s budget and finds the Democrat claims we’ll “save” $1.5 trillion by creating “a fantasy baseline that . . . assumes current spending levels forever.” If the budget deficit starts declining in the middle of the next decade after spiking in the next few years, he offers “It is easy to ‘cut the deficit in half’ after you’ve quadrupled it.”
In sum, the president, “proposes a new PAYGO law and then violates it by $3.4 trillion.”
Now, if left-of-center bloggers applied less stringent standards to President Obama than they did to his predecessor, they’d be calling him a liar. They called Bush a liar for claiming, before the liberation of Iraq that that nation had Weapons of Mass Destruction. So, shouldn’t they also call his successor a liar for claiming before his election that he would match every dollar in increased spending with an additional cut?
Don’t hold your breath.
UPDATE: It’s not just matching spending increases with spending cuts where Obama has broken his campaign promises. He won’t stand up to the congressional penchant for pork.