Toro
Diamond Member
There are several sources who make this argument. First,
Getting the Facts Straight — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
In fairness to Bush and the Republicans, the tax cuts were supposed to expire over the next few years, so one could argue extrapolating tax cuts that were supposed to expire should not be attributed to Bush.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a left-leaning institution. However, there are others who are not left-leaning who have made this same argument. First is David Walker, who was Comptroller under Bush, and who has been warning Americans of the dire fiscal straights the country will be in if it does not deal with the entitlements from social security and Medicare.
In a recent interview, he said that Bush cut taxes three times. The first tax cut may have been okay, but the second and third tax cuts were reckless. He also called Bush the "biggest spending President in the history of the republic." You can hear this interview here.
After Financial Ruin, Plotting America's 'Comeback' : NPR
Paul Kasriel is a noted economist with Northern Trust, one of the few who warned about the dangers of the housing bubble when most economists had their heads buried in the sand. Kasriel confirms what Walker states regarding spending. Kasriel notes that when comparing Bush with Obama before any new initiatives
Welcome to Welling@Weeden
Now this is before any new Obama programs. Including the new Obama programs, the deficit will be higher than it otherwise would be.
Greg Mankiw's Blog: CBO on the President's Budget
For certain, Obama's program will exacerbate the deficit, and all new programs should be paid for. But as for the responsibility of where we are now, that lies with the prior administration.
When President Bush took office in January 2001, the federal budget was on a more promising course than any President had inherited in decades. The budget had run surpluses for three straight fiscal years (after running deficits for nearly 30 years in a row) and was on course for a surplus in fiscal year 2001. More importantly, both President Bushs Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if the policies in place when President Bush took office remained unchanged, the budget would generate surpluses that would total $5.6 trillion over the next ten years[2] more than enough to pay off the entire outstanding federal debt held by the public.
But President Bush and Congresses changed those policies sharply (and the economy did not perform as well as anticipated), and, as a result, large projected surpluses turned to large deficits. For fiscal years 2001 through 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Bush left office, the $3.5 trillion of surpluses that CBO had projected for these years turned into deficits of $2 trillion. ...
To be sure, the fiscal deterioration was partly due to a weaker-than-expected economy, along with other technical factors that are largely beyond policymakers direct control. But the economy was not the biggest factor. Far from it. Even with the somewhat disappointing economic performance from 2001 through 2008, the federal government would have run large budget surpluses in every year through 2008 with a total surplus of $2 trillion over that period if policymakers had not enacted tax cuts and program increases after January 2001 without paying for them.
Nor was this fiscal deterioration due largely to increases in domestic programs, although the new prescription drug benefit in Medicare contributed to deficits starting in 2006, when that benefit took effect.
The biggest factors were very large tax cuts and increases in security-related programs (primarily for two wars that were not paid for). The tax cuts and security spending increases cost nearly $3.4 trillion over those eight years and accounted for more than four-fifths of the fiscal deterioration that policy changes caused during that period. ...
In short, President Bush came into office with the budget projected to produce surpluses of $5.6 trillion over ten years (2002-2011) if he simply maintained its course. But he changed course dramatically, and when President Obama took office, that course had the budget headed toward deficits of $10.6 trillion over ten years (2010-2019). ...
[T]he deficits now projected through 2016 are largely the result of policies and economic conditions that President Obama inherited when he took office. The economic downturn, financial rescues, and the Bush-era policies drive the large deficits.a Of particular note, the major Bush-era policies will have a much larger effect on deficits in 2009 through 2016 than they did in 2001 through 2008. ...
In addition, many of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 were phased in, with some taking full effect for the first time only in 2010;b these tax cuts will cost more, and have a more pronounced effect on deficits and debt, in 2009 through 2016 than they did in 2001 through 2008. Based on CBO data, we estimate that the Bush-era tax cuts (including relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax) increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion in 2001 through 2008, not counting the costs of the interest payments on the additional debt incurred (see below). Assuming these tax cuts are continued, they will add an estimated $2.3 trillion to deficits and debt in 2009 through 2016 (not including interest costs).
Getting the Facts Straight — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
In fairness to Bush and the Republicans, the tax cuts were supposed to expire over the next few years, so one could argue extrapolating tax cuts that were supposed to expire should not be attributed to Bush.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a left-leaning institution. However, there are others who are not left-leaning who have made this same argument. First is David Walker, who was Comptroller under Bush, and who has been warning Americans of the dire fiscal straights the country will be in if it does not deal with the entitlements from social security and Medicare.
In a recent interview, he said that Bush cut taxes three times. The first tax cut may have been okay, but the second and third tax cuts were reckless. He also called Bush the "biggest spending President in the history of the republic." You can hear this interview here.
After Financial Ruin, Plotting America's 'Comeback' : NPR
Paul Kasriel is a noted economist with Northern Trust, one of the few who warned about the dangers of the housing bubble when most economists had their heads buried in the sand. Kasriel confirms what Walker states regarding spending. Kasriel notes that when comparing Bush with Obama before any new initiatives
Now, to determine who the big spender is, or more accurately, was. Table 1 says it was President Bush #43. In only one category, net interest payments on the federal debt, was the compound annual rate of growth less than it was in the Clinton administration or projected to be over the next eight years by the CBO and the Obama administration. Over the next eight years compared with the previous eight years, the CBO and the Obama administration project a significant slowdown in the rate of growth in all major categories of federal spending except for net interest. The reason net interest outlays are projected to increase so rapidly over the next eight years is because of the significant acceleration in federal spending in the previous eight years that was funded by increased debt. Compound interest is catching up with us.
Welcome to Welling@Weeden
Now this is before any new Obama programs. Including the new Obama programs, the deficit will be higher than it otherwise would be.
Greg Mankiw's Blog: CBO on the President's Budget
For certain, Obama's program will exacerbate the deficit, and all new programs should be paid for. But as for the responsibility of where we are now, that lies with the prior administration.