05.29.2012 in Big Government, Government Waste, Politics by Rick Manning 15

Obama’s Deficit Chutzpah

By Rick Manning — “I don’t know how they’ve been bamboozling folks into thinking that they are the responsible, fiscally-disciplined party. They run up these wild debts and then when we take over we have to clean it up,” Obama said. “And then they point and say, ‘Look how irresponsible they are.’ Look at facts, look at the numbers. And now I want to finish the job,” President Obama said at a fundraiser in Denver.

“Look at the facts, look at the numbers.  And now I want to finish the job.”

Like failed 1984 Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart daring reporters to follow him around in response to rumors that he was having an affair, only to have his swinging ways with Donna Rice exposed in tabloids across the nation, Obama has dared people to examine the truth about his fiscal record.

So let’s take him up on it.

Incredibly, Obama has only been a federal elected official since he was sworn into the U.S. Senate on January 3, 2005.

When Obama took office in the Senate, the debt to gross domestic product ratio for the country was 62.9 percent.  This means that the total U.S. debt equaled almost two-thirds of the annual economic production of the country.  Institutions which decide the debt rating for countries look at this debt/GDP number to determine each country’s credit ratings.  When Obama entered the U.S. Senate, the United States had the highest possible credit rating at AAA, allowing our government to borrow money at the lowest possible rates.

During Obama’s first two years in the Senate, Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress and the debt to GDP ratio jumped by .6, still an indictment of the lack of fiscal restraint demonstrated by the GOP in the latter stage of their last time controlling Congress and the presidency.

At least partially due to this lack of fiscal restraint, the elections of 2006 swept the Democrats to power in Congress starting in 2007.  During the next two years, the debt to GDP went up by 50 percent compared to the prior two years, but still was at a manageable 64.4 percent when Obama was elected president.

That’s when fiscal restraint was thrown out the window.

The Obama, Reid, Pelosi troika engaged in a record spending binge and the nation’s GDP did not respond robustly as the nation’s debt to GDP exploded almost 20 percent higher from a 64.4 percent ratio to an astounding 84.2 percent.

The rate of growth continued unabated in the third year of Obama’s term in office as it jumped another 9 percent to 93.2 percent as the U.S. Senate controlled by Obama’s political party, refused to pass a budget or seriously consider proposals to cut the rate of spending in the country.

Now, as Obama is running for re-election full time, the nation has crossed the Rubicon and the national debt to GDP is well above 100 percent.  

Checking the numbers, since Obama became a federally elected official, the White House’s Office of Management & Budget website reveals that when Obama took office, federal government spending was below 3 trillion dollars a year.  During the first three years of Obama’s term in office federal government spending jumped to 3.5 trillion in 2009, 3.4 trillion in 2010 and 3.6 trillion in 2011 with an Obama White House projected increase to just under 3.8 trillion in 2012.

By the same token, our nation’s revenues from taxes and other sources declined to 2005 levels of 2.1 trillion in 2009 due to the recession.  These revenues still remain substantially below 2006 levels with 2.3 trillion received by the federal government in 2011.

These revenue differences are under essentially the same tax law for the entire period, so the lower revenues are not due to any new tax breaks or avoidance, but are a reflection of an economy that is staggering along with more than 300,000 fewer Americans employed today than were employed when Obama took office.

In fact, the federal deficit in the “wild spending days” prior to the Democratic congressional takeover of 2007 was a very manageable $161 billion.  In Obama’s first year of his term in the presidency, the federal deficit was $1.4 trillion with 2010 and 2011 each logging in $1.3 trillion deficits and 2012 projected to jump above $1.3 trillion.

Looking at the numbers as candidate Obama implores makes one long for the good ole days of fiscal year 2007 before he was even considered a credible candidate for president and was still trying to find the restrooms in the Senate office buildings.

Like Gary Hart before him, perhaps Obama should not protesteth too much, because when put under the microscope, Obama’s record deficit spending makes his predecessor look like a piker.

Rick Manning is the Communications Director of Americans for Limited Government. You can follow Rick on Twitter at @RManning957.

This article has 15 comments
  • Seabeebobmu2 29.05.2012 1:19 PM

    Do you really expect him to tell the truth?

  • Seabeebobmu2 29.05.2012 1:19 PM

    Do you really expect him to tell the truth?

  • pduffy 29.05.2012 1:52 PM

    There is one big problem with this article. The “Tea Party” swept in 40+ new congressmen in 2010, and the spending still went wild. The Republican party controlled the house, and the house controls ALL the spending. Obama just signed what they gave him in the “continuing resolutions” which they voted to pass. But all the while, they “blamed” the democrat senate for this wild spending spree, because they masterfully played the “government shutdown” card, which enabled them ALL to spend like drunken sailors and blame Obama and the democrats. This is NOT on Obama alone, but all of congress. Why wasn’t the government shut down until a budget was passed? The Tea Party republicans layed down and died, and just gave in and gave Obama all the spending he wanted. THEY are to blame for not standing in his way.

  • marineh2ominer 29.05.2012 2:56 PM

    ANYONE that listens to what this lunatic says is themselves a bigger lunatic than he is .

  • truthabouttheteaparty 29.05.2012 3:00 PM

    Blame the TEA Party as usual.  Give me a break.

    The first 2 years of Obama’s Presidency the left owned the House and Senate.
    The second 2 years the GOP has a small majority in the House and the left still owns the Senate.

    The blame the GOP line is as pathetic as it is false.  Try sticking to the facts and showing a tad bit of intellectual honesty.

  • impeachyomama 29.05.2012 3:36 PM

    Spending continued going wild because of programs and bills ALREADY PASSED by the Democratically controlled Congress.
    Please quit mouthing the sound bites you hear and read from the brain dead media.

  • dean 29.05.2012 5:08 PM

    Obama is such a egregious LIER.  When are people going to educate themselves of what this fraud is doing to this ‘ONCE’ GREAT country of ours?

  • OldConservative 29.05.2012 6:02 PM

    I wish that Obama and the Congress spent like “drunken sailors”, because when a sailor runs out of money he’s cut off by the bartender!

    If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you weren’t a racist, vote for Romney this time to prove you’re not an idiot!

  • julian8 29.05.2012 8:14 PM

    He is partially right, the next administration is going to have a very difficult time paying off all the debts he put on the nation with his political payoffs and outright bribery.

  • Roadie1 29.05.2012 10:48 PM

    What can the House do because the Senate is run by Reid and the Democrats. Nothing gets passed from the House to the Senate! We need to clean up the Senate and keep the House but still if Obama stays in as president, he willl find ways to get around Congress and do as he pleases unconstitutional or not.

  • topeka 30.05.2012 9:33 AM

    If I recall correctly, (and I’m not getting paid so you can do your own research), the blogosphere was disappointed with the Tea Party Candidates – not the Tea Party, but the Candidates who were elected – because not all of them voted as conservatively as hoped.

    The biggest disappointment was Scott Brown – remember he won Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate to “stop Obamacare.” Frankly, I did not expect him to hold (I have a good idea of the pressure they can bring) – but I had hoped for “more” - more time, more delays, and forcing the Manchurian Potus to pretend a little harder to not be a Marxist.

    Now the fact, that these guys were disappointing is not a reflection on the Tea Party, it is a reflection of

    1. We hold a Thin Majority: Power is shared with congressmen from Lib-tard states.
    2. We hold One House: Obstruction is the only gameplan we have until another cycle passes; and likely multiple election cycles.
    3. We have Weak Leadership: a) Boehner is a center-right conservative … only by an accident of history. He is a Big Govt Guy Who Believes in Big Everything.  The rest of the RINO Leadership are all Big.Gov for the most part. We’re relying on men like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, who have risen up. b) They are just Weak: Boehner couldn’t hold a Lemonade Stand against a troop of Girl Scouts calling him “sissy.” When he’s not crying, or wetting his pants, he’s apologizing for not caving in fast enough.
    4. We share the country with a several states governed by arguably the most corrupt party in a free society since the days of the Roman Empire. (Not that they are the most corrupt or evil – but they are the most who wield power to destroy a civilization and a Republic responsible for changing the world, and saving it on multiple occasions – they’re sick puppies.)

    This is why I brought up Scott Brown: Most of the “Tea Party Candidates” come from districts that are Farther Left than Republican strongholds since Reagan. These candidates are not conservatives. They are not limited or small govt types. At best, they are adults who haven’t murdered anyone in the back of their car.

    So, you cannot expect too much from them. Blaming the Tea Party for calling a “Revolution” and “No True Conservative” shows up – is a bit like blaming Texas Plumbers for California’s bloated deficits.

    Heck, here in Texas even our Gay Democrats are more conservative than Californians. (E.g., the one I have in the office voted for Ron Paul…)

    This is also why we wound up with Romney as the titular candidate – and likely loser – because of the Liberal Republican vote in States the GOP will Never Carry. We need Tea Party candidates in those States to hold, and firm the flanks, long enough to pull off another election cycle at the state level and push back the Democrats from the Governorships, the Sec. of State offices (rolling back Soros) and taking control of the state congressional budgets.

    btw – this is not going to happen. To fix the budgets and cure us of the Democrat’s will take twenty years. … We don’t have twenty years.

    So what are we looking for:

    1. Getting as many people as possible off the Titanic and into life boats.
    2. Holding the Dem’s responsible – which is why I am not going to let you blame 22 Tea Partiers for a Global economy created by Socialists.
    3. Keeping the flame alive so we can convince the Minority-Majority that Western Civilization is a better idea than Mexican Socialism. …

    Ok – got all that? Class dismissed – for now.

  • pduffy 30.05.2012 11:21 AM

    I think you missed my point. I am with the Tea Party. The real problem is that it was coopted by RINOS, and that’s the issue. Many so-called Tea Party candidates did not hold true to their promise to vote against the spending. Check the record. Yes, I understand that being in the minority is a weak position, but at least stay with your principles and lose with dignity, but to cave and vote with the RINOS is a disgrace. We know the democrats will always vote to spend, so when we send representatives to Washington to oppose them, and they give in and vote with them, you can’t just blame Obama and the democrats. You can make all the excuses you want, but the truth is that the Tea Party is really just a faction of the Republican party, and many of the RINOS just jumped on the bandwagon, and once again duped the voters.

  • pduffy 30.05.2012 11:29 AM

    I did not blame the Tea Party but the RINOS that coopted the movement and duped the voters into giving the weak republican establishment the house. They lied to get elected. Well, the facts are that the Tea Party republicans didn’t vote a straight line to stop the spending, but went along with Boener to cave in and give the democrats another ‘continuing resolution’ which was business as usual. Check their voting records. The said they were going to Washinton DC to stop the spending, but failed to vote against it. I don’t blame them for failing, but failing to vote against it. Just vote against it, and if you lose to the democrats, fine, you lost on principle, but to cave and vote with the democrats is a betrayal. Therefore I conclude there is no Tea Party, as they still have no representation in Washington DC. We needed them to go all the way and shut down the government, and call the bluff of the democrats once and for all. Somebody has to take away the ‘government shutdown’ card from these big spenders, or we will never have a victory politically, and it will eventually turn to guns.

  • pduffy 30.05.2012 11:30 AM

    Wrong. The Tea Party republicans voted FOR two “continuing resolutions” which extended the spending that Obama wanted, and this was AFTER they gained control of the house. Get your facts straight.

  • Sonny 30.05.2012 3:43 PM

    Yeah like Dean said Obamas’ a lier and also hes’ trying to destroy are goverment

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2014 NetRight Daily