MarketWatch rebuttal infographic: How to make Obama’s spending look small

Hotair ^ | 05/25/2012 | Political Math

[SeekAndFind]

It's been going around Facebook and the Twitters.

It's been rated “mostly true” by Politifact.

It is the MarketWatch piece on how Obama hasn't really increased spending all that much.

And I'm damn tired of picking it apart 140 characters at a time, so I put together this sarcastic infographic showing exactly how sloppy this piece really is.

There are two things in this infographic that should be called out more explicitly.

First, much of the debate here centers around who exactly should catch the blame for FY 2009 spending. This is actually a very tricky question and I think compelling cases can be made for both sides of this debate.

My personal position is that it's really complicated. But one thing is for certain: in hindsight the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.

The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a "best estimate of what Obama inherited", but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.

But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).

Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased ass who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.

Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don’t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job.

References:

Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.

For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file. Easy to work with.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013 budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget which pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717 trillion.

[Boomer One]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your effort.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Too confusing for me.

A liberal tells me Obama has the lowest rate of spending.

In 5 lines or less, how do you refute that?

[ilgipper]

Don’t need 5 lines, just one word: Bullshit.

But seriously, my response would be this?

1. Laugh
2. Ask ‘How can you possibly justify that?’ wait for BS response
3. Response: ‘This is a blatant manipulation of numbers’. Cherry picking different figures from different sources. Show them the graphic in Rule #5 of the image above. Say ‘they are saying all spending in 2009 is Bush’s responsibility. Ask if the Obama stimulus spending is Bush’s responsibility. Ask if appropriations that the Democrat congress passed and Obama signed are Bush’s responsibility. If they say yes, tell them they are fooling themselves, and need to start thinking independently. Say you can have your political opinions, you are not entitled to make up new facts. If they say no, you have debunked their argument.

[Zeppo]

In 5 lines or less, how do you refute that?

I can do it in 2 lines. How about this:

1) Obama is "lying with statistics" to hide his failures

2) Anyone who supports Obama's lies is either a liar or a dupe.

[Sudetenland]

Seems to miss the point Rush was making yesterday. Nutting attributes the "Stimulus" Package ($825 Bn), the discretionary portion of TARP ($200 Bn) and the later and $410 Bn Omnibus spending bill to Bush, because they occurred in 2009, but all were spent by and authorized under the direction of Obama (the $200 Bn discrectionary money was "authorized" by Bush at Obama's request, but the choice to spend it was entirely Obama's).

Barrack Obama: The Spending King

[ecomcon]

Too confusing for me.

A liberal tells me Obama has the lowest rate of spending.

In 5 lines or less, how do you refute that?

------------------------------

Say this: Are you saying low rates of spending are good?

[stylin19a]

Pure an simple, Congress - to include Senator Obama - had a RAT majority beginning 2007.

(A fill-in the blanks question) when did the recession start ? 2_ _7.

[USNA74]

bump

[Sudetenland]

I meant to say the point missed is that, with baseline budgeting, all “off budget” spending (Stimulus, omnibus, TARP) is automatically part of the next year’s budget and that is why Obama’s increases in annual budget appear to be so small.

[rigelkentaurus]

I learned a long time ago, that reading anything from MarketValue leaves the reader worse off than reading nothing. Any topic they write about. Period.

There once was News which informed. Propaganda which disinformed. I haven’t see “News” in so long that I’m come to wonder if the concept is just a myth - like Zeus. Watching or listening to **nothing** leaves one more informed than the person following state run propaganda.

[TurboZamboni]

The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth —

Runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues, is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come.

With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which policies “caused” the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion), net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion), or nondefense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion).

There’s no legitimate reason to single out the $4.7 trillion in tax cuts, war funding and the Medicare drug entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which programs are expanding and pushing the next decade’s deficit up.

Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704738404575347302831199046.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The stunning chart that shows the Obama spending binge really happened (Up 25.3%)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2887662/posts