Obama Reframes His Frugal Spending Claim
Now let's undo the adjustments the administration booked which have conveniently served to conceal true spending growth under Obama. As I explained in my column on Saturday:
In fiscal 2009, Obama’s Treasury Department effectively added at least $157 billion to that year’s “outlays.” That amount represents estimated losses on TARP investments which ultimately never materialized. ... in March 2010 and May 2011, Treasury reduced reported outlays by $115 billion and $42 billion, respectively, both of which were “attributable to a reduction in the estimated cost of the TARP.”
... these accounting entries don’t represent “spending” as any normal person would define it. Therefore, to get a handle on true spending from 2009 through 2012, the impact of these non-cash entries must be reversed.
Effecting those reversals in the fiscal years involved leads to the following actual spending results for the past three years and seven months:
With the fog cleared, we see that average spending under Obama took a quantum leap during his first eight months (up by 9.4% over Bush's $256 billion monthly average during his final 16 months) and kept going in fiscal 2010 (up by another 6.4%) before reaching and essentially remaining at today's completely unsustainable level of $300 billion per month. If Democrats and Obama, whose last two "president's b-b-b-budgets" (it's hard for Democrats to say that word, as they are responsible for the government not having a budget for over three years) have fantasized about spending $3.8 trillion per year, had the kind of free pass they had in 2009 and 2010, the government would be spending at least an additional 5.6% more every month.
Even Democrats should be able to see through Obama's "since I've been in charge" fable. But the vast majority probably won't publicly do so. Perhaps in the privacy of the voting booth, enough of them will vote with reality to create the kind of electoral repudiation the nation's incumbent president so completely deserves.