The Obama Spending Future


Sunday October 31st, 2010   •   Posted by Craig Eyermann at 7:20pm PDT   •   5 Comments

We’ve been digging through the White House’s budget projections for Fiscal Year 2009, which was produced under President Bush’s tenure, and Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, which were both produced under President Obama’s direction, to compare how much of the U.S. taxpayers’ money each would have planned to spend in the years from 2010 through 2013.

Why these years? Simple! The budget for spending in Fiscal Year 2009 was crafted to reflect many of President Bush’s priorities prior to the beginning of the October 2008 financial crisis.

With the fallout from the financial crisis of October 2008 receding in 2010, we can use President Obama’s Fiscal Year budgets beginning with that year and projecting forward in time to compare his proposed spending with what President Bush had proposed for those same years to see exactly what President Obama intends to contribute to the total level of the federal government’s spending.

Our results are shown in the chart above, in which we also showed the actual amount of spending that occurred in the years from 2000 through 2009 for reference. All dollar amounts in the chart are adjusted for inflation and presented in terms of constant 2005 U.S. dollars.

What we find is that even after adjusting for inflation, President Obama intends to permanently increase the federal government spending by an average of $576.4 billion during the years from 2010 through 2013. We also see that he doesn’t plan to stop there, as he would plan to spend even more money in 2014 and 2015, the last year for which he projects spending in his Fiscal Year 2011 budget.

Now, if you combine the Obama Spending Future above with the Obama Tax Future, where he projects taxes will rise to a larger and larger share of the U.S.’ annual GDP, you can see why there’s such a problem with the Obama Deficit Future. Even though President Obama plans to raise taxes by quite a lot, he plans to increase federal government spending even faster.

Note to President Obama’s debt and deficit commission: That’s not a tax problem—that’s a spending problem.

Don’t blame us. We’re just showing you what’s in President Obama’s proposed budget plans. It’s not like he didn’t tell you....



5 Responses to “The Obama Spending Future”

  1. CLARENCE SWINNEY says:

    SOMETHING HAYWIRE IN COST
    How can a party allow such a horrid party to get re-elected
    Clinton left Bush Heaven On Earth
    Bush left Obama Hell on Earth
    Clinton left Bush an 1800B Budget and four balanced budgets
    Bush Left Obama a 3600 Budget
    Clinton left Bush a 5700B of Debt
    Bush left Obama 11,800B of Debt
    Clinton left Bush a 237,00 net new jobs created per month
    Bush left Obama a 31,000 lowest since Hoover.
    Clinton left Bush Peace on Earth
    Bush left Obama Hell on Earth Two disastrous wars
    Clinton left Bush a President most highly rated of any peacetime President in Asia, Africa, Europe.
    Bush left Obama the most hated President in history
    Bush left Obama an Housing Tsunami and Financial Volcano
    Bush left Obama, in 2008, an 8500B Bail out commitment
    Bush left Obama his Takeover of Fannie/Freddie, AIG, and first bailout of Chrysler
     
    How can any honest informed person vote to re-continue such horrid actions and results?
     
    clarence swinney
    political historian
    lifeaholics of america
    author-Lifeaholic–Life story of workaholic failure to lifeaholic success
    University President-”Every college student should have this book”

  2. CLARENCE SWINNEY says:

    IS THIS A SERIOUS FORUM???

  3. Terry Montonye says:

    The Toyota Production System versus the Harvard/Thornton/McNamara “management” culture, and look who won!

    Now, it’s emerging economies versus emerging statism, and who’s winning that?

    In the Eisenhower days we had “Hatchet Harrys” and lots of factories. Bosses were up from the bottom, lunches were short and sober and decisions got made.

    Now, corporations, bureaucracies, and politics are all alike. Specialists in management, finance, and statism rule all roosts, American engineers are too few and far between, and innovation typically is more threatening than compelling.

    “Lean” means all hands to maximum possible extent, Toyota, of course, being built on it. Now, as factories throughout Asia-Pacific follow suit, U.S. education, production and “customers” spiral downward.

    When people are educated, responsible and involved, economies prosper — even bottom fish can start coming back! But, efficiency and effectiveness of organizations – i.e., Wall Street-, junk bond- and government-funded, in our case – must pre-empt cash infusions and minimum wage, entitlement, and hidden assessment/control legislation.

    Bottom line: “jobs back” requires: (1) “education, big business, factories, and environment” in Republican arguments, (2) term limits and “appointed” U.S. Senators sucking business people into state politics, and (3) civil service efficiency incentives inducing population reductions in the counties surrounding Washington, D.C.

  4. Our you kidding Swinney, when does the kool-aid run out its Obama’s policies that are the problem, my third-grade neighbor kid even knows that.

  5. Maybe you mean alcoholic. I would disagree it’s psychotic delusions of omnipotence. Trying to get real with some academics is a loosing argument, as they have already made up their decisions and that’s it.

Leave a Comment

Twitter Facebook Youtube RSS

Search


By linking to Amazon.com from this page, The Independent Institute earns referral fees of 4% to 15% from whatever you buy. Bookmark the above link and you can support the Institute when you do your normal shopping!

FF
Seminars
TIR

Categories

October 2010
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31