Comparing Bush Spending to Clinton Spending
Yesterday, Jed Lewison of Daily Kos put up a post comparing Clinton’s eight years of spending to Bush’s eight years of spending. The post- which cited the very reputable Tax Policy Center for its budget claims- showed just how badly Bush spent compared to Clinton. According to Lewison, Clinton saved over $100 billion in his final budget, Fiscal Year 2001.
I found the post interesting- not the least because Lewison cited the TPC, a partnership of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution- but also because TPC’s (and, thus, Lewison’s) claims are in direct contrast to what the Treasury itself shows in the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year, which is an increase in the federal debt of over $100 billion. I decided to contact Lewison about his claims. Below are the questions I sent, and his responses:
1. According to the Treasury, the debt increased from 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2001. What are the differences between the numbers you used and the numbers from the Treasury?
2. How much of the Bush debt you cited can be attributed to the growth in entitlements started pre-Clinton and pre-Bush years (i.e. not including the Medicare Drug Bill, etc. that added to the debt) and that obviously grew during both presidencies?
Lewison’s response:
1) The increase in total debt is basically an increase in the Social Security Trust Fund (i.e., intragovernmental debt, money that the government owes itself, which accounts for a bit over a third of all debt). I’m not an expert on all the accounting rules, but if you look at the non-intragovernmental debt, it decreased. But how Social Security is accounted for is a separate issue from the overall fiscal well being of the Federal government under Bush and Clinton.
2) Outside of new programs like the Medicare drug plan, the rate of growth in entitlements should be a wash; since they are proscribed by law, both administrations would have experienced growth in them. The underlying demographics would have had to have been huge to explain the difference in overall spending growth rates.
Regarding #1, Clinton almost balanced the annual budget, but never took care of the long-term entitlement issues America was (and still is) expected to face. So while he (and his Republican Congresses) should get credit for almost balancing the budget, they should also get blame for not touching the Third Rail of politics that is Social Security. I think Lewison is mostly right on this one, though I disagree with his last sentence. (Note: the 2000-2001 recession cut into the revenues in FY2001, which Clinton could not have accounted for in his FY2001 budget, since the recession started one month after the start of FY2001.)
Lewison is a bit more inaccurate in his second point. The rate of entitlements can’t be a wash, as they continue to annually increase as a percentage of the national budget. This in no way excuses Bush and the Republicans for their spending spree(s), nor the Democrats who were in charge for two fiscal years during the Bush presidency, but it does clarify things a bit, I think.
Lewison’s post does point out that a Democratic president spent much better than a Republican president, and rightly so. He did, however, miss that that Bush was opposed by most Republicans on TARP (which Democrats mostly supported, as well as much of the Republican leadership), and while he acknowledged the drop in revenues from the recession at one point in the post, he neglected to do the final math. Using Lewison’s numbers:
- The FY2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion;
- the stimulus accounted for $200 billion of that deficit;
- and the recession accounted for $400 billion losses in revenue for FY2009.
So, while the deficit was an atrocious $800 billion, what Bush was directly responsible for in FY2009 deficit was not nearly as bad as Lewison would like to think. It certainly was not as bad as the FY2010 or proposed FY2011 budgets under President Obama (who, admittedly, has to deal with a terrible recession and seven decades of entitlements and many years of war he is not responsible for).
Overall, as I have been saying for some time, both parties need to grow up. The Debt-Paying Generation is here, as a previous post pointed out, and unless we get a batch of politicians willing to reform how much we spend on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense, the situation is only going to get worse. (And no, the new health care law won’t help prevent that financial worsening.)
Full disclosure: I informed Lewison I would likely be using his comments in a post. I am not pulling a bait-and-switch by asking him for his thoughts without disclosing I would use them.
Dividing Lines-The Aftermath of Brown’s Stimulus Vote, Jeb Bush on Charlie Crist’s Socialist Policies
In an article published this morning, The Washington Post details the political backlash against Senator Scott Brown’s (R-MA) decision to vote for increased stimulus spending in the form of the ‘jobs bill’.
A month after being crowned the darling of national conservatives, Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is being branded “Benedict Brown” for siding with Democrats in favor of a jobs bill endorsed by the Obama administration.
However, according to the Post,
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wasn’t particularly perturbed about Brown’s vote, saying his election last month has “made a huge, positive difference for us and for the whole legislative agenda.
In other news, Politico reports that Jeb Bush has openly condemned his successor, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and his decision to support last year’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A bold move, considering that Bush’s own brother was responsible for signing The Economic Stimulus Act of the previous year into law. “”I know I’m supposed to be politically correct and I said I was neutral and all that,” Bush said, but added of Crist’s move: “I got a problem with that.” While the former governor called Crist “about the nicest guy I’ve ever met in politics,” Bush called Crist’s support for the stimulus bill a critical “mistake.”” Bush’s words provide a superb example of both diplomacy and leadership, and a sharp contrast to McConnell’s slippery appeal to party politics.
While some may question the significance of drawing fine lines in the political sand, it is nevertheless of the utmost importance that we stand firm on those principles necessary to our country’s success and survival. Any and all votes for federal stimulus and subsidies, the expansion of federal social programs, and increases in federal regulation of private enterprises must be strongly opposed regardless of their source.
However, it is also important that we distinguish between sin and sinner. Although All proponents of socialist legislation, whether Republican or Democrat–Scott Brown or Barack Obama–inhibit progress through their acts, there is no reason why we must question their intentions. Nevertheless, playing nice does not require that we cease to play, but rather, that we play with grace and style. Kindness is not Compromise.
Sins of The Children-Brown Backs New Government Bailout While Romney and Palin Endorse McCain
Reuters reports that, in a statement defending his vote for a new government stimulus package that creates more government stimulus–cloaked under the benevolent title of the ‘jobs bill’–in the form of “subsidies for state and local construction bonds and $19.5 billion to shore up a highway-construction fund”, Senator Scott Brown explained “I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington”. Adding insult to injury, The Associated Press reports that Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have both thrown their support behind Senator John McCain–seen by many as the quintessential socialist republican–in his quest for re-election. Such actions demonstrate a preference for people over principles. If we are ever to overcome our socialist past and present, and truly evolve into a free-thinking, industrious future, we must refuse to accept programs or candidates that contravene our ideals. A vote against the ‘jobs bill’ or McCain’s candidacy is not, contrary to popular belief, a show of closed-minded partisanship, rather, it is a demonstration of true political mettle.
More of The Same
Politico reports that, In a few hours, President Obama will speak on the economic effects of last year’s stimulus package. We can expect to hear how the stimulus is responsible for creating jobs, restoring confidence in the stock market, and saving the economy from catastrophic ruin. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MONOLITHIC INCREASE IN NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT FROM 8% TO 10%. No, things are peachy keen here in the Republic. In fact, what we really need is more government spending. Paul Davidson, author of The Keynes Solution, reviewed in this morning’s Bloomberg seems to think so. And faithful readers of the New York Times may be led to believe that the Keynesian touch is more than necessary after reading an article condoning the argument that stimulus spending may be “the most cost-effective way for the government to create jobs.” Lest we forget, an article in today’s Wallstreet Journal reminds us that the “Bulk of Stimulus Spending [Is[ Yet To Come.” It’s as if the current administration is out to scientifically prove Einstein’s theory that Insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech
Some Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech
The transcript of President Obama’s speech can be found here. Any quotes below from the speech are found in the transcript.
1. I missed the first few minutes of the speech. Did he do the traditional shout-out to members of the audience? I thought I saw the two Fort Hood heroes next to First Lady Obama. (According to the transcript, he did not do it in the beginning of the speech, and I don’t remember it happening at any other time.)
2. He wants to help grow America’s economy by raising taxes on those who outsource. On the one hand, he’s rewarding those who stay. However, without other incentives to stay- such as a practical tax structure- he is asking/telling them to stay out of fear, not out of the dynamic opportunities America offers businesses. This is equivalent to punching someone in the nose who leaves, and telling the rest you’ll not punch them in the face. Thus, you are doing them a favor, or so it appears. Unfortunately for America, business leaders generally aren’t stupid, and they will leave the country completely or simply find a way around the laws.
3. He promised to pay more money for education, more money for community banks to lend- the latter, mind you, out of what the big banks and lending institutions have paid back to the taxpayer- to spend money on green initiatives and to balance out the massive spending increases the Democratic Congress has put on this country in the last twelve months. How would he balance these seemingly contradictory proposals? By freezing discretionary spending for three years and “not continu[ing] tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year.” For fun, let’s see how much he cuts from trial lawyers (huge Democratic supporters) and see how much he raises on those making less than $250,000, as he did last year, breaking a campaign promise. Too, freezing discretionary is to freeze only about 18% of the budget, and he is only targeting $25 billion, a relatively paltry amount. According to MarketWatch, non-military discretionary spending is about $447 billion. Doing the math, we see he is supporting freezing about 1/18th of the discretionary budget, or approximately 5.5%. I am definitely not complaining about the effort, but why is he pretending it’s going to be enough to pay for the new programs and monies he and the Democrats have saddled us with this past year? Perhaps if he were to support real efforts to cut back spending as supported by Senator Coburn (R-OK) and Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation, we could begin the long road back to fiscal sanity.
4. He said “health insurance reform” again, not health care reform.
5. He called for the lifting of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. *Big Yawn* While I have yet to see enough evidence to support lifting DADT, it’s right around the 80th issue back on the list. Too, I think he announced his support for lifting it to get the same kind of energy from the base President Bush was looking for when he called for the Federal Amendment banning gay marriage in his 2006 State of the Union speech. Gays are increasingly incensed with the president, so he had to throw them something. After all, they put thousands of hours and millions of dollars towards his election, and he has pretty much ignored them since that happened, except for some of the requisite events to re-ingratiate himself with them. I don’t see, however, DADT being lifted in the next few months, what with re-election the major concern of most Democrats.
6. He supported nuclear power and offshore drilling. Yes, he still wants cap-and-trade (which won’t happen in an already-tough election year for Democrats), but supporting nuclear power and drilling was one of the few bipartisan ideas he offered, and I was both surprised and glad he supports them.
7. Actually, this might be the Lie of the Day: “That’s the leadership we are providing: engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people.” Given that he was ridiculed by France’s Sarkozy for being soft on Iran, ignored the protesters who were dying in Iran for quite some time, did not support the legal coup by the Honduran people and their government and military, snubbed Germany’s Merkel at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, snubbed Britain’s Prime Minister and Queen once each and broke a missile shield contract with Poland, how can he say he is using engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people?
8. I was surprised at the enthusiasm and wide-ranging efforts he talked about. I thought he would be both more mild and more cognizant of the fact that his policies are unpopular and Congress is not going to take political risks right now. Will he convince politicians to be more concerned about the state of the country versus their own survival? I expect Democrats will make some noise in that area, then blame their opponents for not wanting to work together and thus continue this ridiculous and harmful cycle of politics we have in DC.
9. Chuckle of the Day: He wants people to stop campaigning and lead in Washington. Because, you know, he stopped campaigning on November 5, 2009. (As Jonah Goldberg noted today, the president brought back his old campaign manager this week to retool his message. You know, because he’s stopped campaigning.)
10. For all his talk about education, he still has not supported the DC School Voucher program.
11. Last but not least, his “jobs will,” or third stimulus in the last two years, not only won’t do anything positive but will coincide with the current stimulus, only $172 billion of which has been spent. Since we have $600 billion still to utilize, why not use that first before putting more debt on us?
12. Enough with the SOB stories. Please. Use evidence to convince us, not a story about adding 1,200 jobs, because most Americans know at least 1,201 were lost at the same time these 1,200 were brought into play. Please? Treat us like adults, not starry-eyed children. THEN you will be a president we might be able to follow.
*This was originally published at Race42012.com.
The Heritage Foundation Bloggers Briefing
Rob Bluey, The Director of Online Strategy for The Heritage Foundation, was kind enough to invite me to the weekly Bloggers Briefing held at The Heritage Foundation every Tuesday. Today’s speaker was Representative Mike Pence (R-IN), a leading conservative in the House and the first Member of Congress to have a blog, which can be seen here.
Below are my takes from the event:
1. I met a number of interesting people, including Dan Kotman, Press Secretary for American Solutions and Steve Johnston, Associate Director of New Media for the office of the Republican Whip. I also met bloggers from Think Progress and RedState, and managed to give my card for www.thelobbyist.net to all of these people.
2. Pence spoke and, as always, was excellent (this is the third time since October I have heard him speak in person). He turned down the opportunity to run for the Senate this year, and he said it was because he wanted to lead a “conservative majority” in retaking the House in 2010. When asked if he wanted to run for President in 2012, Pence said of course he did (as he said, “Isn’t that the American Dream?), but that it would depend on the time and circumstances. He also said he was staying because he felt it was his “duty.”
3. The Think Progress blogger- a very brave young man, showing his face and speaking up, I might add- asked Pence about the Citizens United vs. FEC decision by the Supreme Court last week. In short, Pence made two points: first, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” means just that. Secondly, he said he agreed with the great conservative writer George Will, in that transparency was the issue at hand, not who can and cannot have freedom of speech. He said he would have no problem with a requirement that all Members of Congress should have to put received funds on their websites at the end of every day.
One thing Pence avoided answering by sticking to the transparency and freedom arguments was the Think Progress blogger’s second question, which was what did Pence think of the ramifications of the SCOTUS decision regarding international funding of campaigns. Pence made reference to the Democrats having to pay back such funding in the 1990s, said foreign funds should not have influence on our elections…and then never really answered the question any further.
4. I managed to put a plug in for www.rightosphere.com. A CATO blogger sitting next to me immediately began asking me about www.Race42012.com, which he said he enjoyed reading.
5. I asked Pence two questions. The first was would he prefer a Republican majority in the House or a conservative majority? He stated that he believed the new conservative majority would be made up of a new generation of leadership in Washington, DC, but never answered the real question I had, which was the difference between conservatives and Republicans.
The second question was what would a new conservative majority in 2011 push for their first step in transparency. While he never directly answered the question, he did reference negotiating bills in front of the public and a couple of other basic points that are slipping my mind at the moment.
6. Four excellent quotes from Pence:
A. On the expected move by President Obama to try to freeze billions of dollars over three years: “I never met a spending freeze I didn’t like.” Pence was also asked when he had first heard about this freeze proposal, and said it was in December, when Republicans recommended it to President Obama at a jobs summit.
B. “Any gesture at fiscal sanity would be welcome.” Pence said , however, that Republicans would compare that proposed freeze to the laundry list of expected spending programs in tomorrow’s State of the Union speech.
C. “This isn’t anymore about debates about actuarial perfection – this is about what kind of country we are.” Possibly the best quote of his 50-minute presentation (including Q & A). Pence made the point that the bailout in 2008, the stimulus from 2009, the takeover of the private industry etc. by the government was about who we are as a country regarding the role and size of government, as well as regarding personal responsibility. Regarding the latter, Pence was almost entirely directing his comments at Wall Street.
D. Paraphrased: “Two things have happened [since I came to Washington in 2000]. My opinion of national government has gone down and my opinion of the American people has gone up.”
*Originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.
The Party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea?
Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the ?Party of No.? Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote?s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg?s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn?s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.
Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea.? All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.
When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner?s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama?s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of ?No, but here?s a better idea,? he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders? single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.
Other ?No but here?s a better idea? Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum?s recent piece supporting the individual mandate?s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.
Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying?saying?’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.
Stimulus Fail, Part 2 (Part 3? 4?)
The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway takes it away with this one:
“A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.”
Later: “The Mercatus Center analysis also found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.”
Lastly: “Finally, the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities — nearly $88 billion to $69 billion.”
What a surprise- you mean to tell me the stimulus is failing again? I’m shocked. Really. (Okay, not really.)
This is really bad, for four reasons: first, since a majority of public employees are members of unions, the money is going to sources of voting power for Democrats as opposed to helping all Americans (assuming, of course, it did help, which is doubtful). Secondly, the money was not distributed for efficienty of employment- even though that was its selling point. Thirdly, the money was spread by two departments not Congress, which means either those departments are biased (unlikely) or they are following a formula, as the study Hemingway quotes concludes, and that means the formula is skewed. Fourth, this is almost exactly 20% of the $770 billion approved by Congress, and it’s been ten months or so since it was approved.
George Will called it- “Which suggests that Stimulus II is…primarily designed to save a few dozen jobs — those of Democratic members of the House and Senate.”
Here’s Your Bogus Jobs Map
Thanks to the Washington Examiner for putting this together. What an excellent resource!
View Bogus jobs ‘created or saved’ by the Stimulus in a larger map
-nick
FORD IS… JOHN GALT?
There was a glimmer of real Hope yesterday for those of us that are more inclined to study the stocks and markets and profit margins: you know, libertarians. ?This was not the sort of “Hope” that can only be dispensed by your local politician and his/her district office, or the kind of “Hope” that represents the mere spinning?of facts to fit the administration’s particular world view that day to advance their agenda. ?
FORD… F-ed On Race Day, Found On Road Dead, Fix Or Repair Daily, F-er Only Runs Downhill…
Well, Ford Motor Company was the one American car company to politely decline salvation from the Messianic Administration and chose to atone for their own sins instead of being saved by the grace of… government. ?Ford Motor (F) posted a nearly $1billion profit for the third quarter. ?Ford Motors is doing things the American way, the rugged individualist way, the way that fathers teach their sons is the best way to get things done: Do It Yourself! ?Sometimes people need help, I am aware; but most of us have seen those good old mafia movies and shows, and getting help from the Obama administration seems to have similar consequences.
It is safe to say, I am a bit biased… my first car was a ’68 Ford Bronco, my last truck a 2004 Ford Ranger (I had a ’91 Volvo, which is now?owned by Ford if that counts for something). ?And my understanding has always been that Chevy was Latin for… feces.
?
-rj
