About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

FoxNews.com misleads on FY09 spending to attack Obama as "Spender in Chief"

November 25, 2009 9:13 am ET — 14 Comments

A graphic posted on FoxNews.com suggested that President Obama is responsible for all of the $3.5 trillion in federal outlays for Fiscal Year 2009. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that "much" of the 2009 increase in spending "results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008 in response to turmoil in the housing and financial markets-in particular, $133 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $291 billion for the estimated costs of placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship."

FoxNews.com graphic attributes all FY09 spending to "Spender in Chief" Obama

From FoxNews.com on November 25:

FoxNews.com Obama big

But spending came in response to severe recession and much of FY09 spending was enacted by Bush

FoxNews.com: Fiscal Year 2009 includes "the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term." The FoxNews.com article to which the graphic linked noted that "[i]n fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's." However, the article obscured the magnitude of the actions taken by Bush in those final months and stated that the FY 2009 budget "was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office. That's a big increase."

FY 2009 budget changes largely "the result of the severe economic downturn" and the government's response. CBO stated in its August 25 Budget Update that "[t]he dramatic expansion of the deficit in 2009 (up from 3.2 percent of GDP in 2008) results from a projected rise in outlays of 24 percent (the largest percentage increase since 1952) and a drop in revenues of 17 percent from last year's levels (the largest percentage drop since 1932). Those changes have largely been the result of the severe economic downturn and the fiscal impact of federal policies enacted in response." By contrast, Bush and Clinton did not assume the presidency in the midst of a severe recession.

 CBO: "Much of" increase in spending from FY2008 "results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008." CBO stated in its August 25 Budget Update that "[t]he deterioration in the fiscal picture results from both increased outlays and decreased revenues. Relative to what they were last year, outlays will rise dramatically-by 19 percent according to CBO's estimates. Much of that increase is a result of policy responses to the turmoil in the housing and financial markets-particularly spending for the TARP and the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." More specifically, CBO stated:

Outlays will rise by about $700 billion this year, in CBO's estimation. Much of that increase results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008 in response to turmoil in the housing and financial markets-in particular, $133 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $291 billion for the estimated costs of placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. CBO expects that total spending in 2009 from funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, Public Law 111-5) will reach about $115 billion.

November 2009 CBO budget review shows impact of policies enacted under Bush. CBO's November 2009 Monthly Budget Review states that the total outlays include $154 billion in funds for TARP, which Bush passed in October 2008, and $91 billion in payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed into conservatorship by the Bush Administration in September 2008. The Budget Review also showed that $202 billion was spent in FY2009 to service the Public Debt amassed by previous administrations over decades. CBO noted that "[s]timulus spending from ARRA totaled $108 billion in 2009--$32 billion for Medicaid, $22 billion for unemployment benefits, and $54 billion for other programs and activities."

CBO chart

CBO projected outlays of $3.5 trillion for FY 2009 before Obama took office. On January 7, CBO stated in its Budget and Economic Outlook that "[w]ithout changes in current laws and policies, CBO estimates, outlays will rise from $3.0 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by terrapin53 (November 25, 2009 9:20 am ET)
      6 1
      FY2010 will be Obama's first year. that is his first budget. FY2009 was Bush's budget mainly passed in that Omnibus bill late last winter. Even a 5th grader can see that revenues will go down with fewer tax payers due to the recession, so deficit spending almost has to take place during these times. Yetsterday in some chat room some guy said Obama has spent more than all the president;s combined. After the appropriate LMFAO response from me, I tried to set him straight, Might as well have been talking to my cat.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pilotshark (November 25, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
        3 1
        Well you would get a better responds from your cat i think. They do have a scene of things around them.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by lonewolf333 (November 26, 2009 1:10 am ET)
           
        The problem with your thinking is that since fewer taxes are coming in, deficit spending has to take place. How does cutting spending sound to you? If you got a pay cut at your job, do you "deficit spend" to maintain your current lifestyle, or do you cut your spending? The problem with Democrat politicians is that they see taxes as the answer to all deficit problems, instead of cutting spending. Don't get me wrong, Republicans have been the same or worse, but at least 1 or 2 of them are screaming about fiscal responsibility instead of raising taxes.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (November 25, 2009 9:20 am ET)
      2 1
      FY2010 will be Obama's first year. That is his first budget. FY2009 was Bush's budget mainly passed in that Omnibus bill late last winter. Even a 5th grader can see that revenues will go down with fewer tax payers due to the recession, so deficit spending almost has to take place during these times. Yetsterday in some chat room some guy said Obama has spent more than all the president;s combined. After the appropriate LMFAO response from me, I tried to set him straight, Might as well have been talking to my cat.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RightWingPsycho (November 25, 2009 9:25 am ET)
      2 5
      results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008
      Bush did not enact spending bills on his own. Spending is the responsibility of the legislators. Was Obama not a legislator? While he may not have been the president, he most certainly bears responsibility for every vote he cast in the Senate and every spending bill he subsequently signed into law. Deal with it. :)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Publius39 (November 25, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
      1  
      I still don't understand why people don't understand the difference between a calander year and a fiscal year. It makes it so easy for people to blame others for things that they didn't do when it comes to budgetary matters.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by PigFox (November 25, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
      3 4
      Obama did not have to spend the money as response to "turmoil". Many of us said the business that were going down should be allowed to go down. We also believe there should never be another stimulus spending spree. The first one was wrong and has produced very little stimulus for the outrageous amount wasted so far.

      It's ridiculous to spend money you don't have. That's what this whole spending spree had been, ridiculous. STOP IT!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (November 25, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
        1  
        Ummm, are you a Nobel winning economist?

        Cause I'll take one of them any day.

        And he disagrees with many of you.

        The good news is that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a k a the Obama stimulus plan, is working just about the way textbook macroeconomics said it would. But that’s also the bad news — because the same textbook analysis says that the stimulus was far too small given the scale of our economic problems. Unless something changes drastically, we’re looking at many years of high unemployment.


        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1

        Nice to get the opinions of the "no" crowd though.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by caels (November 25, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
          2  
          Well, you can actually get Nobel economists against the stimulus bill also. Although, I find the arguments of Robert Lucas and Gary Becker ludicrous and clearly reflecting political ideology rather than solid economic thinking; not to mention a basic disrespect for history.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by am19228 (November 26, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
               
            But every economist agrees that attempting to balance the budget during a deep recession is foolish. Which makes the previous poster's statement:

            "It's ridiculous to spend money you don't have. That's what this whole spending spree had been, ridiculous. STOP IT!"

            Silly.

            Anyone who thinks that we'd have a balanced budget if the Republicans were still in charge has been living in a bubble for the last 8 years, and I say to them, "Too bad Bill Clinton isn't still president, right?"
            Report Abuse
        • Author by RightWingPsycho (November 26, 2009 3:11 am ET)
             
          Nobel prize? That may have meant something at one time...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by boulderhippy (November 27, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
            1
          The report you cite as fact is an opinion piece. Isn't that just like citing Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh as fact?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by sang (November 26, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
         
      your math leaves out a few little facts. one small one would be Cash for clunkers. what is this Media half truths .com
      you seem to be a censorship advocate here at Media matters.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Aerows (November 27, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
         
      I heard that Obama isn't an American, and even worse, he is aDemocrat. I'm going to go down to the next Town Hall meeting and scream because Democrats have a majority. That isn't supposed to happen, Republicans are supposed to have the majority because they accurately reflect the opinions of most Americans.

      :snort: ahem :wheeze with laughter:
      Report Abuse