• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight

    The Obama Administration is piggybacking on claims made by MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting that Obama has not gone on the spending spree everyone thinks he has since taking office. As White House press secretary Jay Carney puts it, President Obama has exercised “significant fiscal restraint” and “acted with great fiscal responsibility.”

    Nutting writes: “Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.” So Nutting gives Obama a free pass for his gargantuan stimulus spending package and then marvels at Obama’s restraint in the following years as if it somehow excuses the excesses and utter failure of the stimulus.

    Let’s remember that the stimulus drove spending to a record 25.2 percent of the economy in 2009 and deficits topped $1 trillion for the first time in the nation’s history. This is “great fiscal responsibility”?

    Nutting continues, saying spending during Obama’s four budget years has grown at an annualized rate of only 0.4 percent. Yet this statement does not exactly scrub the President’s spending record of its many blemishes.

    Nutting, and the Administration, simply ignore the fact that spending reached these record heights following the 2009 stimulus bill. Obama has not rectified this gross overspending habit in the slightest. Remember, the stimulus spending was temporary, yet under Nutting’s own analysis, spending has grown.

    Take Obama’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget. Mirroring his past budgets, this one would not bring spending below 22 percent of GDP, 10 percent above the post–World War II average of 20.2 percent of GDP. Obama instead proposes to spend even more, especially on transportation, infrastructure, education, and research. These initiatives are sold to taxpayers as “investments,” which everyone knows is just a fancy word for “spending” in Washington. There is one area that Obama singles out the budgetary cutting floor: cuts to defense, which would gut our military readiness.

    Nutting’s own take on the situation matches this fact:

    By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress…stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

    This is exactly the point. Obama, you will recall, wanted a free pass on last summer’s debt ceiling increase so he could keep spending. Republicans insisted there be spending cuts to accompany any hike in the debt ceiling. But Republicans’ requiring the first of many steps necessary to fix the dismal state of the nation’s budget does not make Obama the fiscal savior.

    What Obama has ignored is the fact that spending on entitlement programs has steadily grown under his presidency. He has repeatedly failed to tackle the entitlement spending tsunami that will swamp the budget as their costs continue to increase at an alarming rate, doubling as a share of the economy within the next few decades.

    The major entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—are the main drivers of future deficits, yet the President has failed to offer any solutions to reform them. He promptly ignored his own deficit commission’s proposals to address the spending and debt crises but proposed none of his own. In fact, Obamacare added a costly new entitlement that will only add to the long-term spending crisis. He pays lip service to the need for strengthening and preserving these programs, and then in the next breath turns to the topic of how earnestly the economy needs government “investments” elsewhere.

    This Administration has no solutions that actually tackle the problems of rising spending and debt. Nor do they seem to like any solutions, such as those contained in the House-passed budget proposed by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R–WI). Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s commented to the committee, “You are right to say we are not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

    With those words, he encapsulated both the sentiment and the clear failure of the Administration to solve these problems. The only fiscal restraint the Administration seems to have is restraint to act with “great fiscal responsibility.”

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    92 Responses to Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight

    1. jeffjackie says:

      The TARP was a one time emergency outlay/expenditure ($750 billion). Obama took that and made it the new norm for annual spending. Period.

      If you have to have a new water heater installed in your home, you don't take that $2,000 outlay and add it to your regular monthly budget going forward.

      • Dan says:

        wrong, your budget should allow for repairs, The accumulated amount is then drawn down to pay for repairs.

      • Dan says:

        Besides, who spends $2000 on a water heater? Old fashioned tank style is about $400, Tankless about $1200 or less. Install it yourself.

        • Fillini says:

          Silly point. To your first point, a person would never budget for a full water heater failure every year. You budget an emergency fund in. Spend the emergency fund and then replenish it. Not act like its the new norm. To replenish an emergency fund you either make more $ or cut your spending back.

      • CBOdata says:

        Perhaps. But isn't that better than what Bush II did? Spending in his last year (2008) was 2.982 trillion. In the year before he took office (2000), it was 1.789 trillion. So spending grew by 1.193 trillion, or a growth of 60% over 8 years. By contrast, spending in FY2011 was 3.598 trillion, so spending so far has grown 615 billion, a growth of 20% over 3 years. Not quite as dramatic as the Nutting figures, but still entirely reasonable to say that spending grew less quickly under Obama than Bush II.

      • Marc Perna says:

        Then I suppose Bush shouldnt have signed the bill to allow that Stimulus.

      • Andy says:

        Bush actually signed TARP into law, contrary to what Fox News would have you believe. And TARP didn't exactly relieve all the troubled assets it was supposed to.

        To use your analogy, if your water heater fails, and you spend $100 on a replacement part, and it still doesn't work, do you just say "Well, I already invested $100 in it, and the water heater knows that, so it should work eventually…" ???

        • Need More Rubios says:

          TARP did not relieve all the troubled assets, but which administration was administering it? Obama's! And don't forget that most of TARP was paid back with interest, but that money was not applied to reducing the deficit, it was just spent.

      • Tom Ilvento says:

        Water heaters don't cost anywhere near $2000 unless it is a very big mansion. Why should I believe anything else you wrote if you can't even get that right?

      • DavidH says:

        I disagree with your analysis here. Obama's average annual increases have been well below the rate of budget increases under GWB for the 7 years before TARP. Even if you were to look at Obama's 2012 budget expenditures as an increase from the pre-TARP 2008 budget (which is unduly ceding a lot of ground to the anti-Obama crowd), the increase is still less than any 4-year period under GWB except 2003-2007, which is only marginally lower.

      • Doug says:

        I hope your the one and only that would spend that kind of money on a water heater. It was probably installed by a Republican Plumber

      • Sharon681 says:

        1st. The next "new" president of the US will own the budget for the year beginning AFTER the year he comes into office, because like a business the decisions for spending must be made in the year prior to the actual spending and actually begin about 4 months before a president will even take office.. This is true no matter what politics one affiliates oneself with. Its beyond dishonest to fail to own that or disclose it. Tell us what Obama's numbers will be including 2010 thru the end of 2013 please. 2nd. Since it appears to most of us that every president determines his own budgets with few exceptions in place, please honestly explain why this graph must run through to 2050. Unless we are so tightly bound by these "entitlements" there is no way to change any of them, if so please illustrate why that is. Please explain it like I'm an average citizen rather than a financial planner.

    2. Bobbie says:

      Once the lie hits, the minds effected are narrowed closing the ability to absorb necessary considerations and all factors. this man and those protecting him are despicable. He uses the truth of what's going on to misconstrue only. He doesn't take accountability because he has no scruples and barely a man with his little men putting the blame on men that have been cleaning up after him since he's been king while all his little appointees are fully protected from all they're accountable for. Can anyone say "3rd world mentality and leadership??"

      I wish everyone could see the truth of this man because it certainly doesn't come from his words!

      Since when does the Republican party supersede the American President's position for the American President to blame all on Republicans? Since the American president doesn't want to fulfill his role diligently? Obama has a great fiscal restraint record? Where's the proof???? How about a fiduciary one? His great fiscal restraint surely isn't seen in the economy!! Sure isn't in health care. Sure isn't motivating independence or freedom. This man has no respect for restraint and continues recklessly undisciplined.

      His standards are beneath the good of all people and it's a wonder he would be accepted at such a low level of significant contrast to what everyone holds his predecessors to?

    3. Stirling says:

      Nutting by putting the Obama 2009 spending on Bush shows the Liberal media will say and do anything.. Unfortunately for them, it's easy to debunk the lies.

      • johncap523 says:

        wow, the moron quotient here is pretty high. Nutting, liberal media, seriously? The Wall Street journal is liberal media, the bastian of capitalism. Just hurts whern the facts aren't in lockstep with Fox ideological news, eh boys?

        The article above is the one trying to spin a response, and fails miserably.

        Wash your motuths out with soap for the langauge you use and respect your President. He's so far saved this country from the ruin inflicted by the previous crew. Bow and genuflect and thank the heavens!

        • Gill O’Teen says:

          The facts are the facts. What your golden idle's tribe is spinning are fabrications. If you know how, just compare actual spending from one year to the next and verify the numbers yourself. What nutty did was 1) blame all Obama's 2009 spending on W, then 2) use baseline budgeting to calculate a year over year rate of change. This is the same scam I used on my children when they were in grade school to prove that they are getting older faster than I am. here's how that works: Pretend I'm 35 years old (any age will do), and my child is 12 years old. At my next birthday, while I will be a birthday older, I will have aged (36-35)/35 years which is at a 0.0286% rate. The kid, even though also advancing the achieved birthday counter by 1 will have aged (13-12)/12 years which is at a 0.083% rate, proving my assertion. My kids didn't buy that load of cowpies then, and those you think morons don't buy it now. Since you buy it, guess what you are. And he has not been my president since he first broke his oath of office, most recently by his blatant attempts to usurp the authority of The Catholic Church over matters only affecting its believers.

          • SBE says:

            Only the extra spending in 2009 belongs to Obama. The 2009 Fiscal Budget was approved in 2008 and was in use for 4 months before Obama was sworn in.

          • Nobody says:

            The catholic church, which itself is a load of "cowpies" as you put it, is having nothing usurped. It belongs COMPLETELY out of government, in the shadows with the voodoo priests and the ghost hunters.

            Its believers can continue believing whatever it want, what they need to do is stop trying to force their beliefs down the throats of everyone who can see through the church's BS.

        • Mike says:

          Nutting is very to the left and very in the tank for Obama. Check his past articles. Also to note, a lot of media allow for left and right analysts.

        • Daryl says:

          You would belive the Sun rises in the west if Oboma siad it did!

        • Bobbie says:

          troubled johncap523? How has he so far saved this country from the ruin inflicted by the previous crew? Dumping sacrifice wherever he wants? Increasing taxes needlessly so he can hide from his responsibilities and accountabilities?? Spending tax payer trillions upon trillions of dollars ignoring solid solutions, just for you to call it "saved?" Putting senseless regulations on good companies without constitution, forcing companies to deal and spend more on government who won't mind it's own constitutional business just because their abuse of unconstitutional authority says so? Wasting trillions on investments that an average brain would be wiser to leave the decisions of someone else to their own consequences instead of abuse of authority inflicting those costs of consequences on the innocence of this country? Just hurts when the words mean more than actual facts. If you respect the president so much, why do you hold him at less expectation than you do any other president? Your words need to be washed from your brain to clear it from the brainwash. Don't deprive your brain, wizen up!

        • E Silva says:

          Thank the heavens for record unemployment? Thank the heavens for a president who apologizes to other countries for America's lack of understanding? Thank the heavens for a president who has shown little compassion for those who have suffered so much due to his ineptness? Thank the heavens for a president who has taken money from people like Bill Mohr, who is a low life, no good, unAmerican. Respect is something that is earned. Just because he is the President of the United States, does not mean that I have to respect him. As a matter of fact, it is he who is showing the lack of respect to the American public!

          • Jenny Mach says:

            What? Republicans were saying just three years ago that George W. Bush is our president so we must respect him. Now, youre saying that just because someone is president, that doesn't mean we have to respect him! That's exactly why I hate republicans: They change their tune to suit the situation.

            • Bobbie says:

              who says anything about respecting Bush but to point out hypocrisy of the democrats!? Don't use your energy on "hate" you'll deprive your mind the ability to conceive truth! you can do it!

      • Jenny Mach says:

        It's not the liberal media saying and doing anything, these are FACTS! Obama has NOT increased spending at all! Look at the article's pictures for god's sake. It's numbers. Hard to misconstrue except to use big words and fear mongering, like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

      • John says:

        Not even close, Obama inherited the Bush jr. dept. obviously you haven't realized that W maxed out our national Visa card. Obama had chosen to keep food on the table while paying the minimum payment plus into principle.

      • Justin says:

        Funny, cause that's the only excuse conservatives used to justify any good in Bush's 2 terms and taking a federal surplus to a deficit in the first place. This response…hell this site is laughable.

    4. Danielle says:

      The 2009 budget was approved in 2008. Yes 2008 BEFORE President Obama took office. That's how the budgets have worked for decades upon decades. The only thing that is standing in the way of you seeing this is willful blindness. To make matters worse for your side is the Paul Ryan budget and Willard Mittens plan adds trillions of dollars of debt onto our existing debt. It's not a fluke that Reagan George HW Bush and Dubya took the deficit and exploded it out of control but magically it's the liberals or dems that are responsible.

      • If that's true, then Bush gets all the credit for more jobs, setting the economy right again, etc. Right?

        • Hojo says:

          Yes. All presidents should get the credit they deserve. The bailouts that Bush brokered, if successful, should be attributed to him. You cannot, however, rally all victories under one president or the other. The economy is not right and therefore neither Bush nor Obama has fully fixed it.

      • Gill O’Teen says:

        All budgets are Constitutionally required to originate in the House of Representatives. Upon passing there they are sent to the Senate for deliberation. If the Senate has a different opinion, they return to the House for appropriate action, though in some cases they are sent to a reconciliation committee consisting of members of both Houses for an agreed upon compromise. Still, the budget must be approved by both the House and Senate before, other than arm-twisting, any president plays a part – and that is limited to approval or disapproval. If he approves he signs it into law or exercises the pocket-veto which lets it become law sans signature. If he disapproves it, he vetoes it returning it to Congress to reconsider. The budget for FY 2009 was fully under the control of the Nancy Pelosi House and the Harry Reid Senate. It was signed into law in April 2009 and guess what – not by Bush who had been sent packing back to Texas. Obama thereby became the first American President to sign a budget into law he had voted for in the Senate. How does Bush get blamed for this?

      • AgentGreen says:

        Well, except if you look at reality – The final FY2009 budget was signed by President Barack Obama on March 12, 2009. And there were other appropriations passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Obama. Bush's proposed budget was $3.1 trillion, and what was actually spent was $3.5 trillion. I don't know how much of Bush's original budget was actually enacted, but the fact remains that what was actually spent is far more.

        For as much as I hated Bush for his over-spending, Obama has made him look like a piker. But don't let some facts get in the way of your blindingly partisan bleating.

        • larry says:

          AgentGreen, where do you get that Obama spent more than Bush. Bush led us into two wars, two of the biggest money-drains on our budget today. We'll be paying the bills on for decades. Are you going to blame Obama for not immediately stopping them, given the "war at any cost" motto of most Republicans?

      • CJII says:

        The 2009 Budget represented a whopping 17.9% increase over 2008 because it included a ONE TIME emergency crisis relief program (TARP). It was supposed to followed by a significant decline in spending in 2010 – back to the baseline projected before the temporary TARP initiative. But of course, what did Obama and his tax and spend liberals who controlled both housed of congress do? They kept spending at the 2009 level and actually increased it from there!!

        The bold faced lying from this so called president is beyond belief.

      • Bobbie says:

        gee, I wonder what part Obama played in 2008 while SITTING in the senate.

      • Bob S says:

        Sorry Dani, you're wrong about the 2009 budget, most of it was passed after Obama was sworn in. Read this and get back to us about who is being willfully blind…
        http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth-abo

      • infidel4ever_1 says:

        Let me give you a few facts: Remember this date Jan 3, 2007. This was the date the Dumbocraps took over the country not 2009. They took over the house and senate at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Dumbocraps party for the first time controlled a majority of the House and senate since the 103rd Congress in 1995.For those who are listening to the (The Liberals) putting out lies sorry to be so blunt, that everything is Bush fault, think about this: January 3 2007 was the day the Dumbocraps took over the Senate and the Congress. At that time the Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77, the gdp for the previous quarter was 3.5%. The unemployment rate was at 4.65 George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD OF 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS OF GROWTH. Remember Jan 3,2007was the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial services and Chris Dodd took over the Banking Committee. The economic melt down 15-months later was in what part of economy? BANKING AND FINICIAL SERVICES, Unemployment–dumping $6-trillion dollars of toxic loans on the economy form your fanny Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES. Bush asked Congress 17-times to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2001, because it was financially risky forth economy. And who took the Third highest pay-off from Fannie and Freddie Mac? Obozo. And who fought against reform for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Obozo and the Dumbocrapst Congress. So remember 2007 Jan 3rd the Dumbocraps took control of both Congresses. Budget due not come From the Whitehouse they come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress was not the Republicans. The Dumbocraps controlled the budget process for 2008 and 2009 as well as 2010 and 2011.In the first year they had to contend with President Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush got somewhat got tough on spending increases. For 2009 though, Nazi Pelosi and Dingy Harry bypassed President Bush completely and kept passing budget resolutions to keep the government running till Obozo could get into the Whitehouse. The Dumbocraps took over 2007 until now and we are where you see us now. If the DUMBOCRAPS say they got handed a big debt it was because the Dumbocraps. Congress handed it to him.2007 was the last of the Republican budget and was the lowest in 5 years and the 4th decline in deficit spending. After that the DUMBOCRAPS and Obozo took over spending and the debt we have now. Rapping it up, Obozo is saying I inherited a budget that I voted for and then voted four times and to expand it since Jan 20th.Go to Face Book and search for Positively Republican and get a good look at the picture that is posted. Scary. These facts are from another poster whom I'm helping past this on. Don't believe this report than prove other wise. Thank you for reading, Wise men listen and search for truth. Blind ones are lead around in disbelief.

    5. And another, but it again skirts baseline budgeting.

    6. harleywaybill says:

      "Let’s remember that the stimulus drove spending to a record 25.2 percent of the economy in 2009 and deficits topped $1 trillion for the first time in the nation’s history" Let's recall that the rest of the economy was tanking and that you are introducing a magic number into the conversation. Feh. These arguments are fluff and the info-graphic was handwaving extrapolation. I know darn well there's a good fiscal conservative case against Obama, but this ain't it. This is kind of contrived baloney.

      • Justin says:

        Let's also remember is was a stimulus package developed by the Bush administration….how so many forget Bust was pushing "stimulus packages" since 2007, lol.

    7. HarryOrielly says:

      You gotta be kidding me- Can America really believe this nonsensical rhetoric? Obama's trips alone could feed the poor for years- the Asian trip alone (in which he took his relatives) cost over 2 and a half billion (for the 10 day trip) es and Obama is in a new fight to raise the debt ceiling again-

      • I AM ONE Maybe says:

        "2 and a half billion (for the 10 day trip)" – Billion??? I think perhaps you need to understand that a Billion is a thousand million. First off if you are going to spread the original myth it was 200 million a day hence a paltry 2 bil for the trip. Sorry but even the Wall Street Journal tanked this myth http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/04/fuzzy-ma… To spend 2.5 billion Obama would have to been buying every hotel, restaurant, company, site he and those crazy secret service folk visited, looked at or stayed at and he might still have change due! As to the Debt Ceiling fight. a Debt Ceiling is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred it does not refer to new spending. A temper tantrum by the republicans trying to tie it to spending cuts will result in perhaps a lower credit rating a stock market debacle and untold losses to those with any investment in those markets. This includes any retirement funds. But heck if it gets bad enough perhaps Mom and Dad can go on welfare…. wait lets cut that out all together too!

        • Bobbie says:

          so what are you saying, no one can make a mistake and perfection is always expected when you're on the side of America? Get with it. This man and his regime are high maintenance this country doesn't deserve in leadership nor deserve the forced obligation to accommodate. Since when does this man follow protocol when he is unwilling to budget within a limit? Again, get with it.

          • Neil says:

            "so what are you saying, no one can make a mistake and perfection is always expected when you're on the side of America?"

            When you post bat-squeeze like that as fact to futher your ideaology, you're damn right perfection is expected. You ought to know that by now, what with the self-professed facts-based-in-truth stewards Conservative folks like you are with everyone else.

            Come correct, or not at all.

      • M.G. says:

        Are you sure this is Harry? I think its really Bill O'Reilly! Keep spreading the bull to all these knucklehead neo-cons. Instead of regurgitating FOX news BullS#$%, try reading real reports from the CBO and and attempting basic math.

      • RedWhite&True says:

        Seriously man, just because Michelle Bachman says something, doesn't make it true. Where did you get that number? Please provide a single piece of factual, sourced data linking an Obama trip to $2.5 billion spent. I dare you. And the talking heads on Fox news don't count, just so you know.

      • harry, you are using the $200000000 BS number that has been torn apart by the seams, but like a true REPUBLICAN you just keep spreading the BS LIES and inflated #'s. I can no longer take repulbicans seriously anymore… their TOP gut has lied 533 times in the last 30 weeks… how can you trust a man who cannot tell the truth…EVER!! just like running mad who cannot remember his time from his brother… BS LIERS!!!!

    8. Emory Jackson says:

      I have been married to the same woman for 53 years and know quite a bit about how she thinks, until yesterday. We were driving to our weekend house, listening to Rush explain the dumb trick Obama is attempting to use to say that he has spent less than previous Presidentts. She poo pooed the facts as Rush explained them. Finally I asked her if she thought Obama was a good President. She replied NO. I then asked if she thought he should be re-elected and she said yes. This explains the thinking of so called Progressives. No matter what they hang in there with the worse President the nation has ever known.

      • Frank says:

        Bush pretty much ruined it for the Republican name. And Romney as President? It's a good thing the corporate dollars can flow freely to help him because otherwise he would not have a chance to defeat Obama.

      • musicgrinder says:

        Sounds to me like your wife it actually doing some sound financial analysis. You might consider following her example.

      • M.Smith says:

        You lost me at "listening to Rush explain."

    9. AgentGreen says:

      No one on the left questions a single thing Obama does because of his Cult of Personality. They are so busy fawning over him and his "historical" presidency that there is the worst case of Partisan Blindness in this country since FDR. No, that's not a coincidence because their goal is the same – increase government's role in the lives of Americans to the point that they are dependent on it for life.

      The left constantly complained (and MSM reported every time) about Bush's trips to his ranch. Yet no mention of the 90+ rounds of golf Obama has played thusfar plus his, and Michelle's, trips here, there, and everywhere. They complain that Republicans are "out of touch" with everyday Americans, yet they cheer when Obama holds a $30,000 per plate fundraiser in Hollywood. Say it with me, class – HYPOCRITES.

      • Mark Wright says:

        Apparently you never read any of the really left-wing media, because they are constantly complaining about Obama. Not the same complaints you are likely to make of course, but they are far from happy with the man, and I include myself in that group.

    10. AgentGreen says:

      No one on the left questions a single thing Obama does because of his Cult of Personality. They are so busy fawning over him and his "historical" presidency that there is the worst case of Partisan Blindness in this country since FDR. No, that's not a coincidence because their goal is the same – increase government's role in the lives of Americans to the point that they are dependent on it for life.

      • RedWhite&True says:

        Are you kidding?! Obama's voters gifted him with a super-majority in Congress, along with the Executive office, in response to 8 years of one-liners and 2 unpaid wars. Obama could have pushed through any legislation he wanted, and nothing, short of a 2-year Republican filibuster, could have stopped him. And what does he do? He plays nice with the Right for the first two years instead of doing what he promised his constituency. His reward? The 2010 mid-term elections. And if he continues to play dead-fish politics into November, he is going to lose this election to a Mormon, whose dogma tells us that when he dies, he and his wife will get their own planet to rule over; and his new running mate, who in his first few days out of the gate, has already admitted to bold-faced lying over the fact that he did in fact accept bailout assistance, when for years he's been saying he hasn't. They fawn over his potential, yes. His personality, yes. The fact that he doesn't make a fool out of himself and this country every other day, yes. But Partisan Blindness? Please.

    11. mark hatfield says:

      gee , it's almost like they've been on another planet …they can't be talking about earth

    12. Max says:

      So looking at the graph, the one solid bit of data given that shows an ongoing rise in "entitlements," I must assume the GOP will campaign this year in Florida calling for cuts in Social Security and Medicare? If you are going to shoot yourself in the foot, why not call for cuts in military retirement and VA benefits while you are at it. I have yet to hear anything at all from any candidate pushing for such reductions so it seems, at least on this point, the Heritage Foundation is singing in the wind.

    13. Mike Harris says:

      Republicans are a riot, and the Heritage Foundation is a perfect example of OMG the truth is getting out, lets bury it! The GOP is responsible for outlandish government spending, and they claim they are the opposite. Hmmm, Bush had a surplus of 200+ Billion which turned into a massive trillion dollar deficit when Obama took over. Numbers don't lie, republicans do.

    14. Mike Harris says:

      Wait. . . .you said, and I will quote here. . . "Take Obama’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget". So if Romney wins, he is responsible for a budget he had nothing to do with? Is that what you are telling me? The rest of the noise piece you wrote is just typical GOP gibberish, but your own words contradict your claims. Obama's 2013 budget. . .that would mean Bush's 2009 budget. . . right? But then, if that were true, your entire article would just be a farce right?

      • Andrew says:

        You're missing the point. Congress creates the budget. Who controled Congress for 2 years before Obama? Pelosi and Reid. Bush was terrible too. He claimed to want less government, but did nothing but expand it. The original article by Rex, as well as this by Heritage are pretty much nonsense and people wording stats in a way that makes it say what they want. For the record, I won't be voting for Romney or Obama this year. It's basically 2 sides trying to impose their will on each other. I don't care who you live with or what type of lightbulb you buy. If you follow the money, Obama and others like John Kerry are terribly corrupt. I don't see Romney being much different.

      • Somchay Chong says:

        Think what this article is saying is, an incoming president has a choice to keep the prior administration's or get a new one. Once a new president take on the old budget, then that budget becomes his/her.

    15. Harvey Bohn says:

      One thing that did go up under Obama was the welfare payout. LOL Talk about a huge increase.

      • @Driveswift says:

        Yes because the policies the GOP has initiated since the 1980s have caused middle class income to stagnate if not drop compared to cost of living expenses, and corporations are making more money now than when they had larger labor forces. Why would they want to hire people back or give anyone a raise if they know they have desperate individuals waiting in the wings to take a minimum wage job when they let someone else go for asking for more money?

    16. Howard Jones says:

      So much hatred for Obama's so-called out of control spending…but where were all the fiscal conservatives during the Bush years. He (George W. Bush) really ratcheted up the "Big Government Spending", but nary a peep came out of the conservatives. Bush was the president who took us into two wars, keeping their accounting off the books, and borrowed large sums of money (from Asian countries) to turn around and provide tax rebates and tax breaks. Indeed, the Bush Tax breaks are still in effect. Think this didn't have anything to do with our current situation? Think again. Under George W. Bush, the federal debt nearly doubled by around 4 trillion.

      Now that a democrat is president, they all find their fiscal religion. I don't think the republicans can make any case for their so-called fiscal discipline any longer.

    17. stuart says:

      On the entitlement graph. Its sources that it is an "alternative fiscal scenario" What does that mean?

      • @Hans_Pfaall says:

        CBO puts forth at least three scenarios; a baseline assuming current trends, a worst case-like scenario, and a best case-like scenario. Guess which is used here?

        I urge everyone to go to the source, do some research to bridge the knowledge gap, and omit places like Heritage, what amounts to a lobby group, from your mind forever. Be liberal, be conservative, but be it on your own terms. Heritage and similar lobbyist troubleshooters from all political perspectives are mind-numbingly blatant.

    18. saintbad says:

      Best not to bring up the debt ceiling thing. Republicans will fare quite badly on that front. If we cannot agree on why our economy hit the skids in the first place–if we each have our own versions of the "facts"–then we will never agree on a reparative course of action.

      One place you're sure not to get the straight scoop is at the Koch-funded Heritage Foundation. Just visiting this place I feel like somebody peed on me.

    19. SweetiePeetie69 says:

      Citations?

    20. Shawn says:

      How dare the president spend money on things like infrastructure and education?!?!? We don't want those things in the America I come from!!!!

    21. musicgrinder says:

      I'm hearing flip… flop…flip….flop…..

    22. Ruffbear7 says:

      "Obama instead proposes to spend even more, especially on transportation, infrastructure, education, and research. These initiatives are sold to taxpayers as “investments,” which everyone knows is just a fancy word for “spending” in Washington." How moronic can you get? Given that these items are things that will last a very long time, yes they are investments created by spending money. That's how we used to have so many middle class jobs in the 1950's, 60's and 70's. That's how we built a country that everyone was proud to live in. If this is the best the Heritage Foundation can provide for argument, it needs to close shop and stop producing idiotic statements that have no meaning and are based on no evidence or fact.

    23. Liz says:

      Why do Republicans always find justification for any military spending but none for domestic spending? Sounds like North Korea to me….

    24. Philpy says:

      Bush was, and and Obama is a big spender, and Mush Romney will be a big spender.
      This is what we get for dismissing Ron Paul.
      Libs like big spending on the welfare state; neocons like big spending on the warfare state (including war on drugs) and foreign aid.
      A pox on both houses.
      Only Libertarianism will save us.
      Libertarianism is, after all, the ideology of the founders.

    25. Chris the Reasonable says:

      It's clear that if you read the post this was a rebuttal for that things aren't adding up.
      1) *blows whistle* TIMEOUT!
      So…since when are education, TRANSPORTATION, infrastructure and research NOT INVESTMENTS?!
      * We complain about being 17th in science and 25th in math but don't spend money for better education.
      ** Complain about horrible roads and lack of efficient travel (BULLET TRAINS WE MANUFACTURE FOR OTHER COUNTRIES) but won't buy them for us.
      *** Complain about the "slums" and ghettos or the US but don't front the money to allow revitalization and build that which will bring fruit to surrounding areas. C'mon man….

      2) Deficits TOPPED $1 TRILLION <– What was deficit at before Obama took office? Exactly HOW MUCH did Obama contribute in comparison to Bush? Who added more to the deficit: Bush or Obama? This isn't stated for the obvious fact that Bush did between two wars, tax cuts for big business, and horrible disaster handling. I won't deny Obama has spent money, but considerably less than his predecessor.

      3) Military readiness?! Exactly what does more money have to do with a ready military or not? Either you're prepared or you aren't. They have more than what's necessary

    26. Thomas says:

      "Take Obama’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget." from the 6th paragraph down. The Heritage Foundation is asserting that Obama, whether he is reelected or not, will be responsible for the 2013 budget. The Heritage Foundation is also stressing that Obama is responsible for the 2009 budget. Now, I am not a mathematician but 2009 to 2013 is five years… My question to the Heritage Foundation is: How can you attribute four years of budgets to one four year term of a president? And, how can you attribute a budget set in 2008 to a president that didn't take office until January 2009? What it comes down to is this: MarketWatch did their due diligence and reported the facts of this story. The Heritage Foundation did not, and they are deliberately mislead readers which is evident in their assertion that Obama is responsible for five budget years.

    27. William says:

      Since The Heritage Foundation is the Oracle at Delphi, what is the Republican answer to the Social Security funding problem? The Republicans have the majority in the House. Where are the brilliant ideas, or the bold new action plans to solve the nations problems? Instead we have Tea Party Republicans who know so little about history that they think the Boston Tea Party was a patriotic event. The BTP was a group of merchants who were heavily invested in high-priced black market tea of poor quality. When the shipment of high quality tea arrived from England with the higher taxes attached, the tea was still was cheaper than the swill the merchants were selling. So in the best free market example: they destroyed the competitions product. The best disguise they could come up with was dressing as American Indians and claim it was an act of patriotism. Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels..

    28. Brian says:

      This article is completely hilarious. It basically hinges under the fact that the national debt grew under Obama and he had to "raise the debt ceiling". It's so unfortunate so many fall for this trickery. How about this fact: the national debt has grown every year, under every president for the last 30 years or more. The rate of growth under Obama, compared to Bush's last years, has slowed! Of course he had to raise the debt ceiling, it needed to be raised so the government would just exist. Obama was the president at the wrong time, it was out of his control. The same would have happened under Bush or any other Republican president. The fact is that Obama has reduced the rate of growth of the debt. So comical that regarding the very issue these conservatives are so concerned about, Obama has actually been better than recent republican presidents.

    29. Invest in America says:

      I don't know what you think research is other than an investment.

      Research is what brings about innovation and new technologies. Innovation and new technologies are what create jobs, not "Job Creators".

      Government is the only entity capable of spending in the amounts necessary to develop things like the computer or the internet, because they take so long to reach a point of profitability that no profit oriented company would spend the money and few could even afford to.

      Government funded research created the very platform you're using right now to decry government funded research, and it was DECADES before anyone was able to, or even tried to make a profit on either computers or the internet.

      Yes, Research spending is an investment that will pay off in the future in a huge way.

      Government spending on Infrastructure is the reason that half the country has electricity and is not still using outhouses. Government spending on education, especially the science education initiatives started by Kennedy in the 1960s is the reason we have technology companies today like Apple and Microsoft.

      You may call it spending, but Investment in Infrastructure, Research and Education are the only thing that will keep America's economy from complete collapse.

    30. lukebohanan says:

      "22 percent of GDP, 10 percent above the post–World War II average of 20.2" – Hey guys, you cant do a percent of a percent like that, its just a trick to make your bigger numbers for your rhetoric, but its bad math with mixed up units. The increase would be 1.8% higher than the post WW2 average. You would have to subtract your percentages to reflect proportions of your original change in spending. Mistakes like this dilute your argument in my mind, and should be avoided.

    31. Lies, lies and more lies ! Obama is the biggest deficit spender, EVER, period.

    32. John says:

      i am not the biggest fan of politics but i do a little about government spending and i know for a fact that Market Watch is far more accurate with there numbers than you are. I don't agree with how the stimulus money was used, but at the same time i don't agree with more than half of what goes on in the government. i agree that we need some type of medical system so that everyone would be able to afford coverage. at one point in my youth i made to much to be on medi-cal but only worked part time at my job so was not eligible for health benefits. when looking into paying for my own i found that i wouldn't be able to afford anything else if i got medical coverage.

    33. Mark Hensley says:

      It's interesting to see republicans trying to refute fact upon fact. But swallow every single proven lie by Ryan and Romney, with a smile on their face while chanting "USA, USA".
      They remind me of the seagulls in Finding Nemo screaming "Mine, Mine, Mine"
      They weren't exactly the sharoest tools in the shed either.

    34. Chris says:

      So how come the only time conservatives talk about fiscal restraint it's in regards to what democrats think we need to spend money on? Where was a piece like this when we were spending 30 billion a month on 2 different wars? That spending is perfectly ok, but fixing roads, or making our education system better is ridiculous? SMH

    35. zac says:

      "This Administration has no solutions that actually tackle the problems of rising spending and debt."

      vs.

      "There is one area that Obama singles out the budgetary cutting floor: cuts to defense"

      Both of these quotes are from the article above. Maybe you disagree with the how, but paint a consistent, accurate picture of the opposition's platform (and refrain from contradicting yourself), and I'll give the GOP a second thought for once.

    36. Dan says:

      Transportation, infrastructure, and education are unworthy investments???
      What are these people smoking.

    37. Sharon 681 says:

      P.S. I am aware a proposed budget needs to be approved.

    38. Ron Z. says:

      "Investments" = "spending"??? Sorry, but your slip is showing…

    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.

    ×