Quick Fact: Beck falsely attributes entire 2009 debt to Obama
Glenn Beck attributed the entire deficit for the fiscal year 2009 to President Obama, stating that the federal debt was "$10.6 trillion in 2008," and that since Obama "comes in," "we've gone in the one year, we've gone to... $12.3 trillion on the debt." In fact, only a small portion of the fiscal year 2009 deficit is due to Obama's policies; in January, before he took office or signed any legislation, CBO projected that, based on policies set under President Bush and economic conditions at the time, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 would reach $1.2 trillion.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the January 21 edition of Glenn Beck:
BECK: In 2001 the debt was $5.7 trillion. Ok, 2001. By the end, [President Bush] was spending far too much money: $10.6 trillion in 2008. Got it? Barack Obama. We start at 2008. 2009. Here he is. Comes in. Here is the latest. We've gone in the one year, we've gone to, what is it? $12.3 trillion on the debt. Okay? Now they want to spend - they've already spent it, they're just gonna add it to the debt ceiling, so we can just borrow it -- another 1.9., which brings us to 14.2 trillion. Notice, end of George W. Bush, first year of Barack Obama. Uh, kind of scary. Even the Neanderthal conservatives know that 1.9 trillion, lots of money. Fire, good. Spending, bad.
FACT: Majority of FY 2009 deficit attributed to Bush policies
$1.2 trillion of deficit is based on legislation passed under Bush before Obama's inauguration. CBO projected on January 7 that, including spending authorized under the Bush administration for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and government takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the deficit would total $1.2 trillion. From CBO's January 2009 budget report, released on January 7:
The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. That total, however, does not include the effects of any future legislation. Enactment of an economic stimulus package, for example, would add to the 2009 deficit. In any event, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983.
A drop in tax revenues and increased federal spending (much of it related to the government's actions to address the crisis in the housing and financial markets) both contribute to the robust growth in this year's deficit. Compared with receipts last year, collections from corporate income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic conditions, they would both grow by several percentage points. In addition, the estimated deficit includes outlays of more than $180 billion to reflect the cost of transactions of the TARP.
The projected deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO's estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing the cost of the takeover adds about $200 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year, reflecting the long-term net cost of the more than $5 trillion in credit guarantees issued and loans held by those entities at the start of the fiscal year. In addition, the cost of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's new credit activity in 2009 will total $38 billion, CBO estimates.
New York Times: Obama policies are "responsible for only a sliver of the deficits." According to a budget analysis done by the New York Times, "Mr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies -- together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama -- account for 20 percent" of the increase between the FY2008 and FY2009 budget deficit estimates. The New York Times wrote that 70 percent of the increase is attributed to a combination of economic hardships, including "the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists' assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years" and "new legislation signed by Mr. Bush ... like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit."
There's no defending EITHER party. They are both spending us into oblivion. So instead of blaming R or D, speak up and tell them both the KNOCK IT OFF. That's what Mr. Browns message was, and that's how he won in a big D district.
Meanwhile Obama gets Bush’s nasty revenue depleting economy dumped on him and, moderate that he is, continues many of Bush’s big spending corporate bailout and military programs. Strange how all of the sudden protesting is cool and deficits are downright evil.
As a thought experiment, imagine if Obama balanced the budget tomorrow (just as Beck thinks he should have on day one). Furthermore imagine he does this by cutting all of the conservative sacred cows. Troop withdrawals and drastic military cuts, no more corporate subsidies, no more tax breaks for higher income people. He justifies this by pointing out that conservative republicans have not been cooperative with him, preferring death panel hysteria instead. I seriously doubt Beck would worry about deficits anymore.
Two more? He doesn't give us adjusted dollar amounts - it's unfair to compare without those adjustments. Second, he says that he WON'T attempt to decide which part of the 2010 fiscal budget overspending belongs to Bush, so he assigns NONE of it to Bush and all of it to Obama!
Your chart has major issues. FAIL.
That is funny!!!! Did Beck and Rove and all those tea baggers even wait that long to sharpen the knives? Obviously there is no need to wait until it actually might be his fault.
Obama just finished his first year and its ALL his fault. Bush, as I recall, was somewhat hostile to the idea of a surplus when he started. The priority was his agenda which was cutting taxes in an irresponsible way (wealthy a la trickle down). Obama, is wrestling with falling revenues from the recesion and pressure to continue Bush's bailouts. Obama at least has admitted that the deficit needs to be addressed. Bush's idea was to cut as you go, not pay as you go. Bush's numbers are clear.
It's ALL his fault and poor Obama has to clean up the mess. Which he does nicely with his own form of dirt!
This does not even take into account Medicare part B. Everything was borrow and spend for the Resnoblicans.
Oh, and the majority of the FY09 deficit problems ARE Bush's. The fiscal year began in October 2008 . . . who was president until January 20, 2009? Who was president when TARP was passed? If you were truly a conservative, you'd be ticked as all get out at the MESS GWB created and left. I am. I was ticked while it was happening--for 8 years.
The amount of debt O is planning to deliver is obscene. He should be ashamed of himself. We can only pray the R's regain the House and submit only bills with reduced government spending in all areas.
SUMMARY: FORGET BUSH. O IS SPENDING THE COUNTRY INTO A DUNGEON.
The Republican led government of California? Oh yeah, that's a winner. No new taxes, that was a promise kept, sure, but the state ended up handing out IOU's to cover debt.
Bush's two term presidency? Yeah, that was a real winner. No new taxes for the rich guys. Oh, the transition from surplus to deficit? "Don't worry about that, next time the Repubs will do much better than we predict that Obama will do."
What a crock. The Goppers have failed consistently. They have failed to govern with anything but lies, greed and/or inept bumbling, yet regressives continue to shout about how lousy the Dems are and how the only salvation for the country is to install a bunch of Republicans who will somehow do a better job than all the past bunch of clowns in Elephant suits. There hasn't been a GOOD Republican president since maybe Eisenhower. And don't give me the standard Gopper line about Reagan--who tripled the national debt--while you are whining about the Obama deficits out of the other side of your mouth.
Wasn't a lot of money wasted on Bush's presidency when he instigated expensive and amoral wars? What about the tax cuts he gave, that further crippled the treasury? Bush raised spending and decreased taxes, and it's all Obama's fault since he starts the year when some of these costs occurred?