Tuesday, May 22, 2012
In the early days of the Obama administration, a lot of
people, including some Republicans, weren't much bothered by the new
president's tendency to blame his predecessor for the nation's problems. After
all, Barack Obama did inherit a mess from George W. Bush. The voters were
inclined to give Obama time to turn things around.
But how much time? Certainly a year was reasonable. And
so, as Obama's one-year mark approached in 2010, many political analysts
assumed he would stop blaming Bush for the nation's woes. The conversation
would change from the problems Obama inherited to the effectiveness of his
efforts to fix them.
But a year passed, and Obama and his supporters continued
to point the finger at Bush. At that point, nearly everyone assumed that when Obama's
two-year mark came, he would certainly have to stop blaming his predecessor.
But no -- Obama kept at it, all the way through the
three-year mark. And now, in the president's fourth year in office, with his
re-election campaign under way, some of the president's defenders have come up
with something new entirely. They're not only still blaming Bush for the
problems of the Obama administration -- they're blaming Bush for anticipated
problems in Obama's second term, should he win one.
Specifically, a number of commentators on the left have
come up with a scenario in which they blame Bush for nearly all future federal
budget deficits until at least 2019.
"The economic downturn, President Bush's tax cuts
and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over
the next 10 years," writes the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities in a newly released report. The major drivers of deficits through
2019, the Center says, are "not of President Obama's making."
The argument, which is popping up in liberal
publications, has conveniently appeared at a time when Mitt Romney is blaming
Obama for out-of-control spending. "If you want to pin blame for deficits
on a president, a much more plausible candidate would be the guy who had the
job before Obama," writes Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic. Asks Sahil
Kapur of the widely read lefty website Talking Points Memo: "To what
extent are (Obama's) decisions while in office to blame? The answer: very
little."
Is that really the case? Is the war in Iraq, which ran
from 2003 to 2011, really going to drive the deficit in 2019? And what about
Afghanistan, with American forces on schedule to leave? "It's
ludicrous," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas
Holtz-Eakin. "We are out of Iraq and nearly out of Afghanistan. And under
current law we are scheduled to take another $500 billion out of defense."
Holtz-Eakin also notes that the center blames the 2009
deficit on Bush even though that year includes the $821 billion stimulus bill.
"There was a LOT of activity in the final nine months (of fiscal 2009)
that had nothing to do with Bush," he says. In addition, the 2009 deficit
included two massive one-time-only expenditures: the Troubled Asset Relief
Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But spending did not
plunge after that. "The fact that spending remains as high as (2009's)
means that Obama has replaced temporary spending with persistent
spending," says Holtz-Eakin.
The center also insists Obama's signature achievement,
national health care, will reduce the deficit in coming years, despite new
estimates it will cost far more than originally claimed.
And then there are the Bush tax cuts, under which
deficits actually shrank in the 2000s. With those cuts fully in place, the
federal budget deficit went from $413 billion in 2004 to $318 billion in 2005
to $248 billion in 2006 to $162 billion in 2007. (The deficit climbed in 2008,
to $410 billion, but that was caused by the economic downturn.) Why is the
center so confident that those cuts, if they remain in place, will blow up the
deficit in 2019?
And by the way, President Obama himself supports making
the Bush tax cuts permanent, with the exception of lower rates for individuals
making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000. If
Obama gets his way, and the tax cuts remain in place except for those in the
upper bracket, will George W. Bush still be driving the deficit in 2019?
The new blame-Bush-forever argument shows once and for
all that the Democrats' Bush obsession has raced completely out of control.
Barack Obama has been president nearly four years and is asking for four more.
The election is about him.
No comments:
Post a Comment