Here is the text of the previously referenced post #14 from the other thread on this same issue:
Consider the extent to which the FY2009 base was increased by measures initially intended to get us through the 2008 crisis. TARP, for instance, was passed in late 2008 (during FY2009) and was intended to be (and should have been) a burst of one-time spending. (I don't remember exactly, but think something like $300-350 billion from TARP was spent during that fiscal year.) The author notes that Obama should be responsible for about $140 of stimulus spending and a few other things, but doesn't mention that in normal times, a budget is put together before the start of a fiscal year -- and that's it. But there was a "reconciliation bill" Obama signed a couple of months into his term. There were objections that he had allowed congress to pork up the bill unjustifiably, but he was dismissive of those, saying that was "last year's business" and that we should move on. In other words, a number of bailout, stimulus spending, and reconciliation items were included that normally would not have seen the light of day.
Just a few weeks after taking office, Obama signed the ARRA, arguing that it was necessary to sustain a big spending binge in order to mitigate the severity of the recession and propel the economy to a robust recovery (although it obviously did no such thing).
So all in all, I don't think Nutting did a very objective job of painting a picture intended to show how Obama is supposedly not a big spender. The FY2009 surge should have been a one-off rather than part of something with which to form a new baseline.
My key point is that a president's fiscal record should not be judged simply on what his rate of spending increase over a certain base year may be. Rather, it should be judged on
how he wants to spend the money, what the current fiscal outlook is, and what the prospects are for establishing a path toward fiscal sustainability.
By those criteria, I don't think Barack Obama deserves a very good grade.
(End of post.)
Doove failed to respond to it, offering the excuse that it contains "fancy phrases." Besides, in his mind, his incoherent non sequiturs in post #12 should be considered a blanket debunking of everything I posted before or after! Amazing logic.
And did anyone besides Doove see any "fancy phrases?" I think just about everyone knows what "TARP" is. And I doubt that many people who follow public policy don't know what the abbreviation "ARRA" stands for. If you don't know, google it.
The FY2009 budget was vastly greater than the prior year's, primarily because it contained a lot of "emergency" spending including the bailouts and "stimulus" package. (The bailouts should have been recognized as
one-time events, not stuff with which to create a new baseline enabling and encouraging a permanently higher level of spending.) So the "base" year involved a jump over the prior year of a modern-era unprecedentedly large percentage.
Additionally, please note this: I posted earlier that a president's fiscal responsibility also ought to be judged on
how he wants to spend the money. Even many economists who support fiscal stimulus gave the ARRA poor marks for squandering resources ineffectively. There's no evidence that the functional equivalent of paying one group of guys to dig ditches and another to fill them in does anything to create any lasting benefits for the economy.
Obama's neo-Keynesian advisors told us that all that debt-financed stimulus spending was going to produce a wonderful "fiscal multiplier" effect and propel us to a healthy recovery.
But just look what a sorry position we're in now, running a current budget deficit of about 9% of GDP while the year-over-year rate of GDP growth seems to be stuck at about one-quarter of that level. Put in simple, raw terms, that means that we're running up about four bucks of new debt for every dollar of real economic growth.
Does that really sound like a very good deal to anyone?
By the way, Glenn Kessler, the well-know "fact checker" of
The Washington Post gave Jay Carney's statement three "Pinocchios."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...h6nU_blog.html
