Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s deficits & the restraining influence of a Republican Congress

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:54 pm - November 12, 2012.
Filed under: 112th Congress,Big Government Follies

Looking at the recently released Congressional Budget Office tally on the FY 2012 budget, the editors of the Wall Street Journal find the feds the feds rolling up

. . . another $1.1 trillion deficit for the year that ended September 30, which was the biggest deficit since World War II, except for each of the previous three years. President Obama can now proudly claim the four largest deficits in modern history. As a share of GDP, the deficit fell to 7% last year, which was still above any single year of the Reagan Presidency, or any other year since Truman worked in the Oval Office.

Now take a gander at this chart they provide beginning with FY 2007, the last year that had a budget passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president:
image
As point of reference, the federal budget deficit for the preceding fiscal year, 2006, was $248 billion.  In other words, while the divided Congress of then-President Bush’s first two years in office  ramped up spending, the more Republican 109th Congress exercised greater fiscal discipline.

Only with the election of a Democratic Congress in 2006, responsible for passing the FY 2008 budget, did spending start to increase and deficits burgeon.  As the chart shows, we wouldn’t see any decline in the deficit until FY 2012, the first year in which a Republican chamber of Congress had a hand since FY 2007.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  ILoveCapitalism says it’s

Worth repeating that FY2009 belongs to Obama because His signature is on it, not Bush’s. The Democrat Congress held it back from Bush’s signature, so that Obama could increase the spending, when He took office in early 2009.

Consider that notion repeated.

Share

7 Comments

  1. Worth repeating that FY2009 belongs to Obama because His signature is on it, not Bush’s. The Democrat Congress held it back from Bush’s signature, so that Obama could increase the spending, when He took office in early 2009.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - November 12, 2012

  2. ILC is exactly right. It was so duplicitous for Democrats to claim credit for whatever good the stimulus did yet blame the 2009 deficit on Bush. And even when they appropriately did not assign the stimulus to Bush, they still blamed the 2009 budget on him.

    Since Democrats are so obsessed with the Clinton years and point out that tax rates were higher under Clinton, how about we restore the Clinton tax rates while at the same time restoring Clinton era spending levels? That seems fair to me. But Democrats would never agree to that, since their commitment to raise tax rates, no matter how strong, is exceeded by their desire to spend, spend, spend.

    Comment by chad — November 12, 2012 @ 1:28 pm - November 12, 2012

  3. Even if Obama hadn’t of signed the FY2009 budget, he’d still be to blame for it. He came into office with his party controlling both Houses of Congress. If he had wanted to he could have revised that budget and gotten the revisions passed through, but he didn’t. No, he owns that budget even if he’ll never be held accountable for it. He’s had 4 years and hasn’t done squat to get the deficit under control and there’s nothing to indicate that he’ll do anything better during his second term.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 12, 2012 @ 2:27 pm - November 12, 2012

  4. It’s amazing how congresses only get blamed when they’re Republican controlled. Could have something to do with the media not being Republican controlled.

    Comment by chad — November 12, 2012 @ 2:56 pm - November 12, 2012

  5. chad, great point. The Democrats have said in effect, “We take credit for the stimulus – but the fact that it cost money is all Bush’s fault.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - November 12, 2012

  6. Since Democrats are so obsessed with the Clinton years and point out that tax rates were higher under Clinton, how about we restore the Clinton tax rates while at the same time restoring Clinton era spending levels? That seems fair to me.

    I would not call it “fair”, but perhaps “necessary”: shrinking the government to Clinton levels (never thought I would type that sentence) is needed to restore American prosperity and living standards. Though the tax hikes would harm the economy, they’d be outweighed by the other good.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 3:12 pm - November 12, 2012

  7. 2009 also has the distinction of being the last budget the senate has passed, and yet Reid and Obama blame the stalemate in congress on the GOP house.

    Although I am not certain I want to see a budget the DNC controlled senate would produce.

    Comment by Just Me — November 12, 2012 @ 3:27 pm - November 12, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.