Broken promise, broken budget
[Posted by Karl]
Kudos to Jake Tapper for reporting the obvious, as so many of his colleagues downplayed it:
“This is big,” wrote White House director of new media Macon Phillips in a February 23, 2009 blog post, ”the President today promised that by the end of his first term, he will cut in half the massive federal deficit we’ve inherited. And we’ll do it in a new way: honestly and candidly.”
Indeed, President Obama did make that promise that day, saying, “today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
The 2013 budget the president submitted today does not come close to meeting this promise of being reduced to $650 billion for fiscal year 2013.
White House flack Jay Carney rationalized:
It was a promise based on what we knew about the economy at the time as has been well established in this briefing and many other places. The economy turns out to have been far worse and in far greater distress when the president was running for office and then took office than we knew at the time.
Really? Obama’s own transition website earlier carried this message:
“Our country faces its most serious economic crisis since the great depression. Working families, who saw their incomes decline by $2,000 in the economic ‘expansion’ from 2000 to 2007, now face even deeper income losses. Retirement savings accounts have lost $2 trillion. Markets have fallen 40% in less than a year. Millions of homeowners who played by the rules can’t meet their mortgage payments and face foreclosure as the value of their homes have plummeted. With credit markets nearly frozen, businesses large and small cannot access the credit they need to meet payroll and create jobs.”
However, if you buy the idea they didn’t know how bad things were at the time, what faith should anyone put in their pronouncements of how we are doing now?
Anyone mistakenly believing Obama has any interest in the budget beyond election-year rhetoric should note that the budget proposed yesterday adds $6.7 trillion in new debt from 2013-22 and projects debt as a share of GDP rising from 74.2 percent this year to 76.5 percent in 2022 (the actual results would almost certainly be much worse, given the Obama budget’s improbable growth estimates). Also, this nifty NYT interactive gadget graphically shows how quickly we’re turning into a HMO with a military, but with much less military.
–Karl
Racist
JD (59fe1b) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:09 pmThis is one of those things where all candidates say false things (except those that don’t say they will balance the budget) so in this respect is no better or worse (or should I say no worse or better) than other politicians. This was always a magic asterisk.
I think it is fair to say that even candidates who pretend they don’t use magic asterisks, really do. (And the biggest magic asterisk of all, of course, is a balanced budget amendment)
And then the projections are all wrong and can’t be right, as David Stockman told Ronald Reagan in 1981 when he was trying to get out of trouble.
In 1992 Ross Perot had some kind of plan to balance the budget:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/26/us/1992-campaign-economy-perot-s-bitter-budget-pill-higher-taxes-cure-deficit.html?scp=1&sq=perot+budget+balance&st=cse&pagewanted=all
None of this was ever implemented, and yet the budget was balanced (per the usual accounting)
The reason was economic growth. (Bill Clinton by the way contrived to have his budget pass by one vote in both houses and then attributed anything good to his plan – which, by the way, was completely different than the “economic plan” he ran on in 1992, which had been approved by Goldman Sachs. That’s how I knew Goldman Sachs was a dishonest company.)
Maybe Obama had some explanation at the time as to exactly how this was going to be accomplished, most likely involving a strong economic recovery,
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:19 pm(which however in these sorts of things is only mentioned in footnotes) but even if so, that explanation and some other parts of his website were maybe somewhat disconnected.
President Obama – I do not want my daughters punished with humongous government debt burdens and out of control entitlement spending.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:19 pmI think I ad libbed a little on that.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:20 pmAccording to Patterico, I left my reply before you posted your post! I replied at 12:19, but the post was done at 12:23.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:27 pmSammy,
It’s a weird thing that crops up when I schedule a post from a different time zone than Pat.
Karl (f07e38) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:30 pmBill Clinton (and Gingrich) never balanced the budget. Like all the other dishonest politicians, they used the then Social Security surplus to pad the numbers. The national debt did not slow down very much. Now Social Security is running a deficit and the numbers can’t lie anymore.
Mike K (326cba) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:30 pmObama is a Marxist. Lying is what he does.
Gus (36e9a7) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:38 pmThe Scorpion stings, The Marxist lies.
Both the Scorpion and the Marxist end up bringing death an misery. Obama IS a Marxist. He was a red diaper baby.
You’re right. Good point.
In fact, it’s galling that those who left a constantly increasing debt and unfunded liabilities think of these liabilities as “entitlements”… that is, something they are entitled to. Why should they be entitled to something they have forced those with no consent (our kids and grandkids) to pay for?
The ballooning entitlements, the politicians who promise more, the politicians who fight to preserve the problem by kicking the can down the road… they are one of the biggest problems with this country.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:39 pmEverybody needs to just eat their peas.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/14/2012 @ 12:58 pmIt’s just so laughable that the Obamabots were telling us in the run-up to the 2008 election that the economic circumstances were dire and the worst that existed since the great depression, then they have the nerve to say, “Yeah, we underestimated how bad it was.”
The real story, of course, is that they actually believed that their silly stimulus package would get the economy back on track and that by this point we would have unemployment down to 6% and the economy would be growing by 5% annually. Had all that come to pass then yes, the deficit would probably be about half of what it is today. The reality is that the Obama Administration has codified permanent trillion dollar annual deficits unless we reverse course immediately.
JVW (861862) — 2/14/2012 @ 1:09 pmObambi’s “best” deficit is still twice as bad as Bush’s worst.
JD (59fe1b) — 2/14/2012 @ 1:21 pmNo one seems to care wheather we even have a budget.
I think I can finally see the twilight’s last gleaming.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 2/14/2012 @ 1:23 pmRacist
Comment by JD — 2/14/2012 @ 12:09 pm
— I think you meant to write “Ding!”
Icy (d609fb) — 2/14/2012 @ 1:45 pmJVW:
I agree with you regarding most of Obama’s advisers, but I’m not convinced the Obamas understand the mechanics of what makes the American economy work. I wonder if they ever dreamed things wouldn’t work out given how they’ve always been bailed out by scholarships, book deals, government, political cronies and/or “friends.”
I’m not saying they’re naive — far from it — but I think they believe the American economy is an endless source of wealth waiting to be plundered, and now it’s finally their turn.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/14/2012 @ 1:46 pmObama’s goal is to point to his budget and tell voters that “I will give you X,” where “X” is any goodie that makes him look like a caring, generous, fatherly figure. He doesn’t care whether the budget works because he knows it won’t get passed. All he cares about is assuring voters he tried to deliver goodies to everyone but Republicans prevented it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/14/2012 @ 1:59 pmExcellent point, DRJ. I recall the story of the early days of the JFK Administration when he was bringing in all these Ivy League academics and liberal do-gooders to serve in administration posts. It’s said that when a reporter remarked to Lyndon Johnson how impressive was all the intellectual talent that JFK had brought in, he replied, “Maybe. But I sure wish one of them had run for sheriff.” He understood that there was a huge difference between being self-appointed policy experts and having an understanding of how to get things done in politics.
In a similar way, Obama has brought in all those folks with their Ivy League pedigrees who are vouchsafed by the entire liberal intelligentsia as being the Right People for the Job. As you point out, however, the administration has very little real-world experience or understanding of how the private sector works. To update LBJ’s quip, I sure wish there was someone in the Obama Administration who had run a hardware store.
JVW (861862) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:08 pmIt’s a shame to see Tapper drinking the Koolaid. He has been pretty good on balance. I wondered why ABC took him off This Week. He had probably doubled the audience but then, of course he wasn’t on the “team.”
Mike K (326cba) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:10 pmI liked Sen Sessions calling that budget clown a liar.
JD (59fe1b) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:16 pm17. I think it was House Speaker Sam Rayburn who made the comment abouyt having run for sheriff.
http://frohnmayer.uoregon.edu/speeches/whatgoesaround/
Forty-eight years ago, [sic – should be 47, this was posted Feb 12, 2008] the legendary Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Sam Rayburn, spoke those 15 words to his protégé Lyndon Johnson, then just elected vice president of the United States.
Johnson seemed overwhelmed by the intellectual and academic credentials of President John Kennedy’s aides. Johnson spoke of them in glowing, if somewhat awed, terms.
Rayburn was Johnson’s fellow Texan, a man who had been in the midst of every major congressional battle since the Great Depression (he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1912 and never faced a Republican opponent for the next 48 years – something many of us, Republican or Democrat, would undergo the removal of teeth without anesthesia to experience).
Rayburn listened to Johnson’s thoughts on Kennedy’s brilliant New Frontier aides and then is reported to have replied:
“I’d feel a lot better if some of them had run for sheriff just once.”2
2 The accuracy of the quote was verified by a call from my assistant, Jim McChesney, in August, 2005 to a librarian in the Sam Rayburn Library Museum in Bonham, Texas.
The post goes on to speculate just what Sam Rayburn meant by these words.
I think it means that their intellect should show some connection to reality.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:22 pmGood to know, Sammy Finkelman. Thanks for correcting that. I’ll be sure to properly attribute it in the future.
JVW (861862) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:34 pmI think it would also be good if they had filed accurate tax returns.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:42 pmObama’s priorities (not necessarily in order):
– make sure the US doesn’t push other countries around anymore
– make sure things are “more fair” in regards to domestic policy, where “more fair” means “more equal”, even if the overall situation is worse, as in who cares if tax receipts are down overall as long as we take more from the rich
In those regards, I think his budgets, or lack thereof, have done quite well.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:47 pmCan anyone really be that gullible?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577220991267017900.html
narciso (87e966) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:51 pmDamn… they keep spending so much money and the economy keeps getting worse so they need to keep spending more money, and the economy keeps getting worse! It’s so crazy! It’s almost like inflation and an unstable currency are bad for the economy.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/14/2012 @ 2:56 pmAnd now Obama has asked the Pentagon to reduce the number of our nuclear warheads to less than what China has…
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Colonel Haiku (b48130) — 2/14/2012 @ 3:05 pmYes all of what ALL OF YOU SAY, is true.
However, that CREASE in his PANTS!!!
I have the vapors.
Gus (36e9a7) — 2/14/2012 @ 3:17 pmDamn… they keep spending so much money and the economy keeps getting worse so they need to keep spending more money, and the economy keeps getting worse! It’s so crazy! It’s almost like inflation and an unstable currency are bad for the economy.
The only way that post could be better is if you had posted it in lisp and sockpuppeted it with Barney Frank’s name.
Kaisersoze (298188) — 2/14/2012 @ 3:17 pm24. “The first [change] is a steadily improving economy.”
We have McBain who seemingly believes this idiocy, that the economy is growing, that an EU meltdown is hypothetical, that China is a cheating economic Borg, that SS can be saved with more of the same, business cycles uber alles.
Look at the people on the street, walking or bicycling to wherever. The homeless look as good.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/14/2012 @ 3:27 pmComment by Mike K — 2/14/2012 @ 12:30 pm
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here Doc, in that they did balance the “budget”, they just never balanced the “spending”!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/14/2012 @ 3:41 pmbut I’m not convinced the Obamas understand the mechanics of what makes the American economy work. I wonder if they ever dreamed things wouldn’t work out given how they’ve always been bailed out by scholarships, book deals, government, political cronies and/or “friends.”
I agree, however, they are indeed smart enough to realize it doesn’t matter that they understand how the American economy works. And that to me is stunning – one can become POTUS and not have a full working knowledge of the machinations, ins and outs and processes of the economy and how to balance a budget.
Who would have thought that wasn’t part of the job requirements?
Dana (6fcea1) — 2/14/2012 @ 3:43 pm“…we inheirited a worse mess than what we believed…” (sic)
IIRC, there have been an entire host of emails released from the early days of The Won’s administration that showed that this is a canard, that they knew exactly how bad the economy was, and that their $800B Stimulus was not ever going to dent it; but was, in fact, just a payout to the usual suspects for their support in the ’08 campaign.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/14/2012 @ 3:46 pmI just keep thinking of how much worse this budget could have been without the savings Obama has already agreed to out of the kindness of his heart and concern for the fiscal condition of the country.
Not building the Death Star, what is that, a $750 billion savings a year?
Pushing out the start of the intercontinental railroad by 15 years saves $175 billion annually.
Deferring the illegal immigrant free housing and college tuition program to ensure democrat majorities clocks in at a cool $100 billion savings per.
Canceling the bribes/bonuses for teachers/fireman/police program saves around $85 billion annually.
So instead of focusing only on the largesse Obama is handing out this election year, we owe him a debt of gratitude for the phantom programs he has booked as savings in his proposed budget.
What a guy!
The
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/14/2012 @ 3:52 pmdaleyrocks, don’t forget about Obama postponing the scheduled wars with Iran, North Korea, China, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Malta. Those must be saving us nearly $100 billion this year and every year thereafter. A cool $1 trillion off of the “projected” deficit the next decade.
JVW (861862) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:04 pmthat showed that this is a canard
Comment by AD-RtR/OS!
“showed”? are you resorting to using evidence and facts??
26.And now Obama has asked the Pentagon to reduce the number of our nuclear warheads to less than what China has…
Comment by Colonel Haiku
If we are fortunate, at some point in time historians will discuss how much a president can govern against the welfare of the republic and not be impeached.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:04 pm“daleyrocks, don’t forget about Obama postponing the scheduled wars with Iran, North Korea, China, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Malta. Those must be saving us nearly $100 billion this year and every year thereafter. A cool $1 trillion off of the “projected” deficit the next decade.”
JVW – My bad. The man is doing so much for us I have a hard time remembering everything.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:10 pmClinton left it at one intern, Obama is doing us all… up to 80% cut in nukes…
“President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as low as 300 deployed warheads—below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic warhead stocks.
Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads; a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads; and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.
A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.
“In the past, the way it worked was, ‘tell me what the world is like and then tell me what the force should be,’” the official said. “That is not happening in this review.”
The plan for a radical cut in warheads is contained in a review of nuclear weapons ordered by the president in an August directive. The review called the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study is nearing completion and could be presented to the president as early as next month.
The plan has come under fire from senior military officers in charge of maintaining nuclear deterrence against Russia, China, and future nuclear rogue states.”
http://freebeacon.com/nuking-our-nukes/
Colonel Haiku (b48130) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:19 pmif I remember right the “massive federal deficit we’ve inherited” was TARP-bloated to the tune of between $700 billion and a trillion… but that most of that money has been paid back except for some AIG monies and the part what got sucked into the piggy piggy autoworker black hole
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:35 pmYes, except it didn’t solve the problem, ofthe ‘toxic assets’ it just embiggened it, but we bought
narciso (87e966) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:38 pmtwo slightly used car companies with it, shafted the bond holders, closed down politically troublesome car dealerships so it’s all for the good.
right but in other words our rapist president didn’t really “inherit” anything remotely near the actual deficits he just can’t stop running
unlike the majority of the deficit Bush left him with, not a dime of the money Obama’s squandered through year after year of trillion dollar deficits will ever be paid back
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:41 pmNo of course not, he just ‘dialed it up to eleven’ with schemes like Solyndra and ‘Cash for Clunkers’ the last an economic scheme, only invisioned by the band ‘the Art of Noise’
narciso (87e966) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:45 pmit’s just so unbelievably sad
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:46 pmAre those people watching the warheads getting free contraception?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:50 pmWow!
Socialism really works.
Not.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/14/2012 @ 5:01 pm“Imagine there’s no country…”
– Barack Onobama
Colonel Haiku (43527a) — 2/14/2012 @ 5:14 pmBarack Hussein Obama is a traitor.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/14/2012 @ 5:22 pmObama Ups Subsidy For Chevy Volt to $10,000 While Cancelling $8000 DC Voucher Program
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/326688.php
Colonel Haiku (43527a) — 2/14/2012 @ 5:31 pmHow many times has he spent the imaginary savings from Iraq, after projecting surge level spending over the next decade?
JD (59fe1b) — 2/14/2012 @ 6:38 pmHas anyone in the MFM ever reported that the one time “stimulus” has since been built in to the baseline budgeting?
JD (59fe1b) — 2/14/2012 @ 6:42 pmI remember a number of months/years ago where the big item in the news was how various municipal and state retirement funds were terribly under funded….
Been awhile since I heard a story about that…
I’m looking for a few Pentagon folk to resign/retire and turn informant.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/14/2012 @ 7:36 pmI’m not saying they’re naive — far from it — but I think they believe the American economy is an endless source of wealth waiting to be plundered, and now it’s finally their turn.
Comment by DRJ — 2/14/2012 @ 1:46 pm
Genius.
MayBee (081489) — 2/14/2012 @ 10:57 pmLet’s not forget how all of the spending has kept the UE rate down well below even the worse case projections of the early Obama months…
AD-RtR/OS! (7f57d2) — 2/14/2012 @ 11:45 pmChristina Romer must be so proud!