itfitzme
VIP Member
I have to wonder about the education of America when I read about the U.S. budget. It is, by the Constitution, that the Congress has the authority to levy taxes and authorizes funding. As they say, the Congress holds the purse strings. And yet, I often read about how Bush or Obama increased the budget, debt or deficit.
I have to wonder how they get there. I suppose if you take the TARP program, signed by Bush, and stick it under the Obama administration, they you can get there. But, realistically, you have to look at who signed the budget, the legislature, and when it was effective.
Agreed, that the Office of the President submits a budget and adds the final signature. It is, after all, the Executive Branch that is in charge of enforcing the law. So, it makes little sense to pass something that will not get enforced. The Congress needs his signature as a testament to his agreement that he accepts it and will enforce it.
Still, people are constantly putting the responsibility on the Office of the President, so I decided to look at what the actual outlays have been.
I have this sort of bias where I look at what did happen rather than what someone says will happen or would have happened. Maybe it's my training in physics and engineering, I suppose.
The first thing that is important is to note that the budget is signed for the next year. So, in 2008, Bush submits then signs a budget for 2009 (that is why it is called a budget). It goes into affect in 2009, then at the end it is updated to see how will it came out.
So, here are the numbers in terms of actual outlays.
Budget..Budget.........Budget...Actual.........Change Actual.....Outlays CPI...Change CPI
Passed..Signed By....Year.......Outlays.......Outlays (mill)......Adjusted........Adj (mill)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.....Bush...........2008......$2,982,544.....$253,858.........$2,982,544....$253,858
2008.....Bush...........2009......$3,517,677.....$535,133.........$3,530,237....$537,044
2009.....Obama.......2010......$3,456,213.....$(61,464).........$3,412,578....$(60,688)
2010.....Obama.......2011......$3,818,819.....$362,606..........$3,655,374....$347,086
I added the CPI adjusted (real dollars) number as it is the only realistic way to compare them. The adjustment isn't really substantial though.
So, under the Bush budgets, the increase in actual outlays was $253 billion then $535 billion. Under the Obama budgets, the outlays went down by $60 billion then back up by $347 billion
In all fairness, though, the recovery efforts added to the outlays. These were unusual events and it should be adjusted accordingly, to get a baseline.
Bush.....2008..TARP.......$700 billion
Obaha..2009..ARRA.......$787 billion
We would have to look at what the actual outlays were, when they went into effect, and what got paid back. Then subtract these unusual, recession related expenditures and the following receipts from the actual outlays. Someone else can do this.
If we go all the way back to 2000, we find that the year to year increase, in real dollars, has been an average of $103 billion per year. The table below is in millions
Year....Outlays..........Adjusted....%Chg...Signed By
2000....$1,788,950....$1788950....1.7%...Clinton
2001....$1,862,846....$1811305....1.2%...Clinton
2002....$2,010,894....$1924825....6.3%...Bush
2003....$2,159,899....$2021384....5.0%...Bush
2004....$2,292,841....$2090139....3.4%...Bush
2005....$2,471,957....$2179575....4.3%...Bush
2006....$2,655,050....$2267855....4.1%...Bush
2007....$2,728,686....$2266206...-0.1%...Bush
2008....$2,982,544....$2385448....5.3%...Bush
2009....$3,517,677....$2823494...18.4%...Bush
2010....$3,456,213....$2729390...-3.3%...Obama
2011....$3,818,819....$2923579....7.1%...Obama
Realistically, it would be nice to know how the level per population should effect the budget. Obviously, Medicare, Food Stamps, SSI is a per person thing. More people paying taxes means more IRS, but by how much is a question. We would expect highway usage and maintenance to increase. But, does the military need to increase on a per person basis?
Then, of course, there is mandatory spending that is written into law that carries forward for years. If Congress passes legislation for a program of ten years in length, it is fixed and cannot be changed. And, there are automatic stabilizers that are out of control of current congress. All in all, it's a bit more complicated then most comments like to make it.
Interestingly, Bush had a really good year, in 2007. Then the economy tanked at the end of the year. Sure makes you wonder if reducing gov't expenditures was enough to kick start the recession.
And, I keep reading that Obama has increased government spending. Comparing the year to year increases, the numbers show that the increases in actual outlays under the budgets he signed were less than Bush.
itfitzme.wordpress.com
I have to wonder how they get there. I suppose if you take the TARP program, signed by Bush, and stick it under the Obama administration, they you can get there. But, realistically, you have to look at who signed the budget, the legislature, and when it was effective.
Agreed, that the Office of the President submits a budget and adds the final signature. It is, after all, the Executive Branch that is in charge of enforcing the law. So, it makes little sense to pass something that will not get enforced. The Congress needs his signature as a testament to his agreement that he accepts it and will enforce it.
Still, people are constantly putting the responsibility on the Office of the President, so I decided to look at what the actual outlays have been.
I have this sort of bias where I look at what did happen rather than what someone says will happen or would have happened. Maybe it's my training in physics and engineering, I suppose.
The first thing that is important is to note that the budget is signed for the next year. So, in 2008, Bush submits then signs a budget for 2009 (that is why it is called a budget). It goes into affect in 2009, then at the end it is updated to see how will it came out.
So, here are the numbers in terms of actual outlays.
Budget..Budget.........Budget...Actual.........Change Actual.....Outlays CPI...Change CPI
Passed..Signed By....Year.......Outlays.......Outlays (mill)......Adjusted........Adj (mill)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.....Bush...........2008......$2,982,544.....$253,858.........$2,982,544....$253,858
2008.....Bush...........2009......$3,517,677.....$535,133.........$3,530,237....$537,044
2009.....Obama.......2010......$3,456,213.....$(61,464).........$3,412,578....$(60,688)
2010.....Obama.......2011......$3,818,819.....$362,606..........$3,655,374....$347,086
I added the CPI adjusted (real dollars) number as it is the only realistic way to compare them. The adjustment isn't really substantial though.
So, under the Bush budgets, the increase in actual outlays was $253 billion then $535 billion. Under the Obama budgets, the outlays went down by $60 billion then back up by $347 billion
In all fairness, though, the recovery efforts added to the outlays. These were unusual events and it should be adjusted accordingly, to get a baseline.
Bush.....2008..TARP.......$700 billion
Obaha..2009..ARRA.......$787 billion
We would have to look at what the actual outlays were, when they went into effect, and what got paid back. Then subtract these unusual, recession related expenditures and the following receipts from the actual outlays. Someone else can do this.
If we go all the way back to 2000, we find that the year to year increase, in real dollars, has been an average of $103 billion per year. The table below is in millions
Year....Outlays..........Adjusted....%Chg...Signed By
2000....$1,788,950....$1788950....1.7%...Clinton
2001....$1,862,846....$1811305....1.2%...Clinton
2002....$2,010,894....$1924825....6.3%...Bush
2003....$2,159,899....$2021384....5.0%...Bush
2004....$2,292,841....$2090139....3.4%...Bush
2005....$2,471,957....$2179575....4.3%...Bush
2006....$2,655,050....$2267855....4.1%...Bush
2007....$2,728,686....$2266206...-0.1%...Bush
2008....$2,982,544....$2385448....5.3%...Bush
2009....$3,517,677....$2823494...18.4%...Bush
2010....$3,456,213....$2729390...-3.3%...Obama
2011....$3,818,819....$2923579....7.1%...Obama
Realistically, it would be nice to know how the level per population should effect the budget. Obviously, Medicare, Food Stamps, SSI is a per person thing. More people paying taxes means more IRS, but by how much is a question. We would expect highway usage and maintenance to increase. But, does the military need to increase on a per person basis?
Then, of course, there is mandatory spending that is written into law that carries forward for years. If Congress passes legislation for a program of ten years in length, it is fixed and cannot be changed. And, there are automatic stabilizers that are out of control of current congress. All in all, it's a bit more complicated then most comments like to make it.
Interestingly, Bush had a really good year, in 2007. Then the economy tanked at the end of the year. Sure makes you wonder if reducing gov't expenditures was enough to kick start the recession.
And, I keep reading that Obama has increased government spending. Comparing the year to year increases, the numbers show that the increases in actual outlays under the budgets he signed were less than Bush.
itfitzme.wordpress.com
