Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Deficits over time
Via Glenn Reynolds, this snarky little graph is making the rounds:
There is useful commentary here, but the graph is unfair to President Obama in at least one respect. The federal fiscal year runs through October, so the last "Bush" year, 2008, does not include most of the massive spending that came in the fall to manage the financial crisis that Barack Obama indeed "inherited" (recognizing that there is a good argument he "inherited" a part of it from the Clinton administration). If the 2008 budget year ran through December (or January 20, 2009), I suspect that the ramp from 2008 to 2009 would not look nearly so dramatic.
Still, the graph and accompanying factoids do discredit the present administration's argument that the Republicans are in no position to complain about deficit spending. As bad as it was under George W. Bush's wartime economy, it will be infinitely worse over the next decade. Our children will pay it back with massively higher actual taxes or the hidden tax of inflation, both of which will crush their standard of living.
16 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Mar 25, 10:26:00 AM:
Does the chart for the Bush years include the cost of the Iraq war, which was largely being paid for off the books, with emergency and supplemental spending rather than from the Pentagon’s operating budget?
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 10:44:00 AM:
Check out the Heritage Foundation thread on the graph. At least one poster suggested that it did, as this was actual expenditures and not a budget. It has also been suggested the the projections may not take into account the looming SSI and Medicare issues. If someone has better info. on this, we will see it eventually.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 12:17:00 PM:
Iraq was was not "off the books", it was largely not in the budget for each year, but in separate bills, but that isn't "off the books". The spending is still authorized by congress, and counted in the deficit numbers.
- Tim
By 
Georg Felis, at
Wed Mar 25, 02:03:00 PM:
So the worst year of Bush with Iraq war spending included is *better* than the predicted optimistic *best* year of the Obama administration with anticipated military savings.
Hm... I think I need to buy more canned goods.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 03:01:00 PM:
I'm not nearly as worried as everyone else about America's future growth and deficits. The overwhelming impression I get is nearly everyone over the age of 50, which includes 95% of company managers everywhere, are profoundly disinterested in information technology (more precisely, the culture it has spawned) for the obvious reason they stand to lose a great deal of influence, if not their jobs, by instituting IT properly. But as the geezers retire and die off from their positions and perks, the geeks will finally have their day and push productivity through the roof.
American productivity has soared over the last several years, and I would suggest we've only seen the beginning of a trend that this country is uniquely equipped to take advantage of.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Mar 25, 03:58:00 PM:
The overwhelming impression I get is nearly everyone over the age of 50, which includes 95% of company managers everywhere, are profoundly disinterested in information technology (more precisely, the culture it has spawned) for the obvious reason they stand to lose a great deal of influence, if not their jobs, by instituting IT properly.
I have seen no evidence of either proposition (that people over 50 are 95% of company managers, or that they are "profoundly disinterested" in information technology. Squealer, you must move in wildly different circles.
I will say this, however. I have never seen an IT project come in on time and under budget (sometimes one but not the other), so I am deeply skeptical of the numbers used by people who propose such projects. But that does not mean I do not advocate for them.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 04:02:00 PM:
The obama budget is oinking becuase its so full of pork
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 04:59:00 PM:
If the Navy nails cold fusion, do they get to keep the ships and the missile defense that protect us? Can their budget stay at the current level?
By the way, and this is off-topic, but did anyone see that Obama the first (ie, Jimmy Carter) actually had the gall to publish a note criticizing Lincoln for the Civil War? He described the war as "unnecessary", based on his assumption that slavery would have ended sooner or later. Can you believe that man? He ought to be frogmarched out of the country, and sent to live permenantly in Venzuala or some such other congenial spot.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 05:03:00 PM:
Snarky or not, I can't get over the disingenuousness of Obama's promise to reduce the deficit by half at the end of his first term, after running it up by a multiple of I'm not keeping track any more during his first two months in office. As this chart makes clear, even if he meets his projected goal, the deficit will still be dramatically higher than it was during '08.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 05:06:00 PM:
From Link:
This is insanity. No wonder the Chinese are panicked, the Europeans too.
This graph shows a business plan for how Obama wants to spend a lot to goose the economy so the Democrats can keep control in 2010 and so Obama can win again in 2012 ... by buying votes ... the bill for this to come due much later.
Obama says the difference between his projections and CBO's is a trivial 0.4% difference in assumed growth rates ... but look at the effect on the out years ... where CBO has deficits steadily climbing to over $1 trillion per year. But even Obama's projections show sustained $500B - $600B deficits ... that's his best case! Yet he makes a big deal about how he'll "cut the deficit in half."
Obama keeps talking about "investing," but investing is not the same as spending. When you invest you intend to create an asset that gives you future returns you wouldn't have had but for the investment.
Obama's plans area all about spending. There's very little in his plans that can be characterized as investment. When it is "investment" it's often a bad investment from the get-go -- a lot of his energy plans for example will put money in boondoggles.
Obama identifies health care costs as the big problem, but other than to propose more than $600B in new spending we haven't heard a single detail about a single cut in healthcare. Electronic records aren't a miracle cure ... I know this too well from personal experience.
So I'm back to my standard rant: is Obama a deluded sh*thead, or a Machiavellian agent of Alinksy that wants to kill the America we know ... or both.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 05:54:00 PM:
Kind of torn about this. Deficit numbers are usually more meaningful when expressed as a percentage of GDP. But that would mean introducing Rosy Scenario into the denominator when she's already present in the numerator.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 06:44:00 PM:
"Our children will pay it back..."
Don't be so certain. We might just say screw it. Is there really a meaningful difference, in the standard of living we will enjoy, between paying massive taxes and the damage that will be done to our economy not honoring our debts to China, et al?
I am angered by the budget deficit. I think it is supremely unfair for my generation to inherit such a large debt. (And yes, I am aware the world is an unfair place.) I wish people would be more aware that there is a non-zero chance that we will refuse, and the consequences be damned. The consequences won't hurt us nearly as bad as they will the retired and soon to be retired.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 06:47:00 PM:
Instead of fiddling while Rome burns, how about picking up the phone and calling to say no to all this red ink? Call now, because the budget proposal is in trouble. Your call is meaningful, even important. Please call right now, especially if you live in a district with a centrist or blue dog Democrat who hasn't decided which way to vote.
(202) 224-3121
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 08:24:00 PM:
T.A.R.
Hopefully more of the younger generation will come to the conclusion that voting for the 'hip' black dude and the Democrat agenda costs them. In the end, the government only owes you the framework, not the free lunch.
You will pay for this, as everyone else will be as well.
By , at
Wed Mar 25, 10:19:00 PM:
From Link:
We have a two-headed beast in DC ... it keeps sucking in more and more money and power from the rest of the country ... and it's become almost unaccountable. Just look at the graph above to see how this will accelerate.
Most of the members of the House represent their party and connected special interests ... they don't represent the people of their district in any meaningful way. The Senate isn't much better. That's why pork spending is so bad ... we get bought off with trinkets. The underlying cause is outrageous gerrymandering of Congressional districts. The Supreme Court could have curtailed this, but failed us. Once again, I hope that sanctimonious scumbag Antonin spends eternity sucking Satan's cock in hell.
To Anon 6:47, I wrote my Congresswomen several times. expecting it to be futile. Even as a Democrat, she should be aware that Obama is systematically destroying the tax base of Westchester County, New York ... but there's nary a peep out of the local MSM to amplify what to me is so obvious. Nita Lowey is going with the Democrat crowd in the House ... and doesn't give a rat's ass about how it will affect the people she's supposed to represent ... or she's just too f*cking stupid.
I'm 51, but never expect to get a dime from Social Security / Medicare. Our federal government makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker ... not an original observation by me, but still quite true.
By , at
Thu Mar 26, 10:51:00 AM:
I have seen no evidence of either proposition (that people over 50 are 95% of company managers)
Maybe I am prone to a bit of hyperbole from time to time. :-)
Replace company "managers" with "board members" to get what I really meant. A study done in 2001, found that 60 percent of board members were over the age of 60, a big drop from the 75 percent seen in 1990. Another study in Denmark (whether it's applicable is of course an open question) found
It is shown that board size, proportion of insiders and positions held by board members in other firms do not significantly impact performance. Only the average age of the board has a significantly negative impact on performance.
My experience (admittedly limited) perhaps agrees with yours, that if a board member or upper-management person has significant influence over an IT project, it will not come in on time or budget, (or if there are more than 3 persons involved).
