Health care talk, deficit talk, and more educational goodies.
Let the numbers speak for themselves. Here is my version of the CBO’s Federal Budget chart. I’ve added the year and colors for those that comprehend better visually. Redish hues stand for Republican numbers, blue for Democrat, and purple for the hybrid government of a Republican president with a Democratically controlled congress.
I would like to point out a few trends in the chart above.
- Yes, GWB inherited a surplus. Any president would have had a surplus after serving during the biggest economic and technological boom of the century. The internet boom was a wonderful thing. The bust, not so much.
- Notice that despite 9/11 and its obvious financial impact, the deficit was steadily decreasing beginning in 2004. Republican economic policies were working. We were on our way back toward budget surplus. PResident Bush decreased the budget every year starting in 2004,with the exception of 2008.
- What happened in 2008? A $300B tax credit has a way of skewing your averages. So does a Democratically controlled congress.
- What happened in 2009? Well, Obama took over and quickly embraced Rahm Emmanuel’s “take advantage of a crisis” mindset. Sadly, many of the proposed budget requests won’t impact us for several years. It was designed that way. Sure, the CBO projects that the deficit will decrease through 2012, but it will never “improve” to even the worst levels of the prior administration
Let’s look at another chart:
Do you see what I see? At the peak of the internet boom we were at virtual unemployment, a rate around 4%. Terrorists helped change that in 2001, but again — despite 9/11 — employment figures continually decreased under Republican leadership. Then the Democrats took over. The housing bubble, a bubble created by liberal policies, finally burst. Hank Paulson scared Congress into giving him $700 billion dollars, and to this day we still have no idea where all of that money went or whether or not it actually made a difference. Sure, we are told that it did, but there is zero data to back it up. Show me direct correlation between the bailout and any improvement in our financial markets.
How high will unemployment go? How low will our deficits drop? At what point does China say “No credit for you!” What will it take to teach people that you cannot help the unemployed by punishing the employer? The 2010 mid-term election could be the most important election America has ever faced. Our financial future depends on it. The scale of these problems is something America has never experienced. In one single year “trillion” has become the new “billion.” Once upon a time “trillion” was a massive number used to describe stars or micro-organisms. Now it is sadly a standard term of reference in the Obama administration.
UPDATE: The purpose of my post is to provide a comparison of the Bush and Obama administrations. I can (and probably will) provide additional charts with a longer time frame for those that feel it is important. But my point is to provide data to liberals that shows how much worse Obama is making things. Yes, GWB spent too much, but does that give Obama carte blanche to take it to an entirely new and previously unforeseen level? I don’t think so.
UPDATE 2: Here is the chart for US unemployment statistics back to 1948. The highest ever was under Reagan’s first term.The largest ever decrease in the unemployment rate was under Reagan’s presidency. However, it should be noted that he took measures to reduce the unemployment rate by lowering taxes and stimulating the economy. Obama is doing the exact opposite. Therefore I think it would be foolish to think that Obama can repeat Reagan’s legacy.
Here’s what the CBO Director said earlier this year:
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.
So, a net increase of 17 million newly insured people. Let’s run with the lie that the entire package will cost $900B over ten years. This equates to a taxpayer cost of $52,941 per newly insured American. If we use a more realistic $1.5T estimate the per person cost jumps to $88,235. Of course, we all know that the government always comes in at or under budget for massive projects, right?
