• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Bush's Spending Cuts vs Obama's Spending Cuts in Pictures

    On Wednesday we exposed the farcical nature of President Barack Obama’s proposed spending “cuts” and today we posted a graphic putting his spending transfers in perspective.

    Senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush Keith Hennessey adds another angle comparing President Bush’s last spending cut request with Obama’s latest effort:

    comparisonofdiscretionarysavings-thumb
    This graphic does a great job exposing the Obama administration’s effort to cut our nation’s defenses while exploding every other area of federal spending

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    28 Responses to Bush's Spending Cuts vs Obama's Spending Cuts in Pictures

    1. cris, CA says:

      This graphic tells it all when it comes to exposing Obama's position on weakening our national security as he detroys American's economy by cutting defense spending, nationalizing banks and auto companies,expanding government jobs, denying fossil fuel development; the taxpayers are forced to pay higher taxes and consumers pay higher fees for services, but, the greatest price all Americans will pay for all of his policies is the loss of our liberty and Constitutional freedoms on all levels.

      • Sam says:

        Do you have a better option to take when the day you started office, the country was already in ruins?

    2. splux, williamsburg, says:

      I enjoy looking at your graphics regarding the "proposed" budget cuts. My question is why bother since the "proposals" are so small they are barely measurable as a percent of the total budget. Instead of faling into the administrations trap of refocusing the budget battle do an analysis of the various new programs and the excess in the current programs.

    3. Barb -mn says:

      Clearly this president wants America weak and vulnerable.

      Yesterday the president was heard saying with reluctance, how the economy was turning slowly, but for the better. His tone of voice was as if this is not a good thing. I suppose not, when it is a fact, government and he is not needed and government and he are the problems as we continue to clean up their government-made crisis', wasted costs of wasted messes.

    4. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      Obama Administration is the most anti-American government. American electorate voted for Obama under the guise of change without knowing what that is. I didn't vote for him. But we are forced to drink the poisoned KoolAid.

      We are forced to face the biggest economic debacle of our country's existence as a result of uncontrolled borrowing and printing money to support the transformation of our country into a socialist state.

      Obama tax cuts are a joke. It is a cynical derision of our country's founding principles. I can not but conclude that Obama hates our founding principles.

    5. jr., Michigan says:

      and this proves, what? that obama is a liar a cheat, and a thief? we already knew that.

    6. Garrett - Cambridge says:

      Interesting.

    7. James says:

      Man this tells it all and you guys have got to see Obamadeception. Lookup Obamadeception on youtube under the channel name of changedachannel . Its a great video showing obama for who he really is. good video.

    8. Pingback: Who cut federal spending more, Bush or Obama? « Wintery Knight Blog

    9. Conserve, Vermont says:

      Uhm, this admin is not cutting defense, only cutting some so called useless programs identified by the military. How can people disapprove of that.

    10. Ryan, VA says:

      Sure, the cuts in defense spending are alarming on the surface, but I'm not sure that the numbers tell the whole story.

      Many of the programs that have been cut really are just taking us off the road to Abilene. The process of deciding to end programs with enormous sunk costs is not easy and has to be carefully aligned with the Pentagon's modified plan to achieve our strategic goals. In truth, we have been carrying some very large burdens that over the years have seen their potential returns dwindle to essentially zero. Why? Because we signed an outrageously large contract for a product that was not delivered on time or on budget. For years, we have "punished" the companies that have failed to deliver by renegotiating their contracts in a way that gives them more time and more money to deliver the original product. In the meantime, improvements in technology make the product we are waiting for anything but "state of the art" and often no longer a significant combat multiplier. No one within the Department of Defense wants to be part of a failed acquisition program, so we hold on to these behemoth projects that grow in size and produce nothing of value.

      So what we are seeing equates to a "market correction" in the defense industry. Our leadership has looked at a series of ongoing projects, weighed their benefits against the their expected future costs, and most importantly screened out projects that no longer fit in the current national security plan.

      The current threat environment requires our military to be increasingly adaptive and flexible. Likewise, the industry that equips our Soldiers must transform in order to stay relevant. To measure national security strategy solely by the dollars committed to defense projects fails to provide any measure of effectiveness. Defense spending must support defense policy. We have learned that allowing spending to drive policy does not work.

      To me, it is refreshing to see the National Command Authority synchronized in its efforts to ensure that defense money is spent responsibly on projects that will be relevant when delivered. I’m sure it was not easy to walk away from the table with industry leaders that have made asking for more a routine part of their business practices. Let’s hope that industry leaders can adapt to this new environment and strengthen our national security by delivering relevant products on time.

    11. Stephen, Republic, M says:

      It is so sad to me to see the Democratic party treating the ignorant in this country like pets in order to maintain power. This has to end one way or another. Now we are again cutting military spending at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous. When will people wake up!

    12. Tom G, NJ says:

      Actually, Bush was playing a shell game, cutting "non-defense" appropriations and dramatically increasing "defense" appropriations. In the long and short of it, he sought to have the US become a "war machine" unlike anything seen since Hitler's Germany in the 1930's.

      The ironic thing is that there was nothing "defensive" about our "defense" budget…it was all an offensive machine built to invade and destroy, not defend.

      Obama would have to do a lot of spending to equal the amount Bush has spent in Iraq…and something tells me that the investments Obama is making here at home will pay far greater dividends to the American people than the money Bush wasted in Iraq. The great part is that Obama need not kill over 114,000 people to make such an investment.

    13. Jim, Gainesville Fl. says:

      This is an example of the CHANGE he promised us and we have started that slide down the slippery hill to socialism, with our new Christ "OBAMA"

      as our leader. It's goodbye to the USA that I grew up in, where liberty and freedom and being a individual meant something..

    14. Brad Raffensperger, says:

      What about a spending freeze for 3 to 5 years? Some people in Washington would probably call that a "cut" in spending, but this is just a simple freeze across the board. In this current economic environment how many employees have taken payroll cuts to keep their jobs and their companies afloat? That is real sacrifice. Why can't our elected officials freeze spending to rein in the deficits? Personally, I think military spending should increase since the number one goal of the government is to defend this nation, but in the interest in restoring our house to fiscal sanity I would certainly not object to a freeze. Share and share alike. Freeze spending for the next 3 to 5 years.

    15. George in Mass says:

      I would love peace in the world just as anyone else would but the cold hard facts remain that there are people/countries that don't truly desire peace and it is because of that that our military must remain strong in both defense and offense. Our country came about through the military and will only remain a truly free country through the military.

      Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck."

      –Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822

    16. Brad S,, Detroit, MI says:

      I have no problem cutting spending – especially if the original spending is wasteful (Something that our government is an expert in).

      I do have a problem with the tremendous spending our government has decided to implement in the guise of "stimulating" the economy. Completely bogus. Increasing SCHIP spending and the increase to the Dept. of Education spending alone in 2009 cost more than the entire war on Iraq. (Check the facts.) I know. I must be a heathen because I dare challenge the sacred "spending money on education" mantra that every politician uses. I have 3 kids and let's face it – recent data shows that in 30 years our school's have not done a better job in educating our students yet have paid nearly triple (adjusted for inflation) what we paid for education back in the 1970's. Do the math – our government run school system is a joke.

      Bottom line – cut programs that don't work and spend on programs that do.

    17. Moose says:

      Many of the Defense cuts by Obama are in those sophisticated programs that take soldiers out of harms way. I guess the Democrats need the body counts.

    18. Ben C, Ann Arbor, MI says:

      I wonder how many cost over-runs in the Department of Defense are due to "additions" to the original contract and favortism to suppliers by congressman for political favors and gains. My dad has first hand experience in this area. There are many facets of pork barrel spending – it isn't limited to ear marks in budgets.

    19. Pingback: Bush/Obama Spending Cuts In Pictures « Justbkuz

    20. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      All of Mr. Obama's ideas come under what is termed, "O'Tools Law." We all know, "Murphy's Law." "O'Tools Law', simply stated, says, "Murphy was an Optomist!"

      Hozro

    21. Conserve, Vermont says:

      If the leaders in the military do not want the programs that are being cut, than good, lets save some money.

      The programs that are to be cut are deemed unwanted or not priorities. For instance the multi-billion Presidential helicopters. The only politicians you will see object to this are the ones whos districts the cuts are made in.

    22. John, Colorado says:

      Let's face it. We have a communist president and communist controlled legislature now.

      It's time the massive coordination of communist efforts in all facets of American life be considered what it is, a deliberate plan instigated and controlled by some other country's foreign agents.

      Review Yuri Bezmenov's 1985 interview on Google video or You Tube.

      We should stop calling Democrats "Leftists". All Democrats, and some Republicans, break down into one of two groups: communists, or useful idiots.

    23. Dave Schraub, Indian says:

      I don't know if all of you kool-aid drinkers up east realize it but the military is run by congress, duh! Congress funds the military budget, so it just goes to figure, that every thing congress has a hand in, is not designed to run properly. Have you ever heard the term SNAFU? Situation normal all screwed up. But they don't use the word screwed. Congress did a bang up job with Viet-nam, 63,000, young men and women wasted, and do you think that money is spent on the soldiers? You kool-aid drinkers are a bunch of ungrateful, spoiled, socialist,that have the right to protest America, because it was paid for by the blood of our military. I wish all of you would move to these other countries, that you think is so damn great. Oh, by the way, congress was democrat, during viet-nam.

    24. taz, mn says:

      Oops, I forgot to mention,two of the most dangerous defense cuts are:

      -the F-22 program, the world's best fighter plane

      -the anti-missile defense program

      I don't know about you, but it seems pretty important to life in America to be able to shoot down missiles aimed at us with Kim Il, Pakistan, Putin, Chavez, etc… all armed hating, and waiting…

    25. Shorty Longstrokin, says:

      As it should be. President Obama is wasting far less money on an ill-conceived and poorly executed war effort when compared to Bush. Thank you for this graphic. It will help me demonstrate how the Obama Administration wants to spend money on Americans rather than explode our nation's debt with bogus war spending like the Bush crew did.

      End the wars and bring our troops home! No more of this short-sighted military machismo that's angered our enemies turned the world against us.

    26. Oberon, CA says:

      If Obama decides to cut the military budget in half, the United States would still rank highest among top leading countries in terms of military expenditures. These minor cuts are insignificant and do not weaken US military. Please stop whining. That argument is old and tiresome.

      Whether it's a Republican or Democrat the government will engorge. Under Bush, it was less civil liberties and a larger police state. What was that new government agency, oh "Homeland Security." Got to love that agency every time one boards a plane! Don't forget the 43% increase in Federal spending Bush plowed into, while his cronies made billions.

      As the middle class continues to erode further, the right cry "Socialism" as if it's an inherent evil. There are benefits to Socialism, and there are benefits to Democracy, but one does not address the needs of all as a panacea. It's time to incorporate the two. Let Obama work to improve the middle class which bears the heaviest tax burden.

      Let Obama Reign!

    27. Floyd says:

      You realize that $9billion is nothing but a drop in the bucket when it comes to defense spending, never mind the entire budget. Your graph proves nothing.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×