AndyO Blog

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

President Obama: Budget and deficit facts (not fiction)

Updated:

4/1/13

  • Corrected and simplified charts that use trillions of dollars

8/25/12

  • Corrected some errors in data
  • Added chart captions and alt-text
  • Edited and added text

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

Every day across the web I see people spouting off about how bad President Obama is for the United States, how he's a socialist, how he's on a spending spree unlike anything we've ever seen, and how he needs to be voted out of office in November. "Anybody but Obama!" they cry.

As some friends on Facebook keep posting about how Obama is one of the worst presidents of all time, I decided to take a look at the facts. I'm just an average citizen, with no Economics degree. But after spending some time with the reports, it became quite clear how untrue the the Republican accusations really are (which I always suspected).

It would be great if we could have an honest conversation about the economy, the deficit, and what each party plans to do if they win in November.

This is my attempt to have that conversation.

Obama's spending record during an historic time

We're living through the second worst economic downturn in the history of the United States. Things are getting better, but many people are still hurting. The scary thing is, it could have been much, much worse. If anything's clear now, it's that Obama (and Congress) didn't spend enough on the stimulus package. But that's a different story.

But is he really the big spender that the conservatives says he is? Let's take a look at his spending in this chart (from an article by Marketwatch, which, by the way, you can check at the Office of Management and Budget):

Chart: Marketwatch based on CBO, OMB, Haver Analystics data: Federal spending slowest in decades

Chart: Marketwatch based on CBO, OMB, Haver Analytics data: Federal spending slowest in decades

Yes, it's true; Obama's spending has increased the slowest amount in nearly 60 years. The sad thing is, this isn't necessarily a good thing -- and is one of the big reasons the country hasn't recovered from the latest Depression (yes, I wrote Depression). What's more, spending has actually leveled off under Obama, as you can see in this chart from the same Marketwatch article:

Chart: Marketwatch based on CBO data: Federal spending in trillions of dollars from 2002 - 2013

Chart: Marketwatch based on CBO data: Federal spending in trillions of dollars from 2002 - 2013

According to the same article: "What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year."

The deficit: Who's really to blame?

The deficit of the United States, at first glance, is something that seems pretty bad. But it's also not something that can be understood in a sound bite.

Since Obama took office in 2008, the federal deficit has gone up 50% (or $5.3 trillion). No matter which way you look at it, $5.3 trillion is a hell of a lot of money. But the thing you have to remember is that Obama started at the level that Bush had set ($4.9 trillion) -- and that the United States' economy produces $15 billion trillion in goods and services each year.

Chart: Increase in deficit (in trillions of dollars)

Chart: Increase in deficit (in trillions of dollars)

Now let's look at this same data as a percentage increase of the total debt from the time a president started his term until the end:

Chart: Percentage increase in deficit by each president

Chart: Percentage increase in deficit by each president

As you can see, debt under GW Bush (#44 as some call him) went up 86% in 8 years. When Obama started his term, GW had increased the debt by $4.9 trillion in those 8 years -- and we were just entering some of the worst of the economic downturn. It's difficult to undo the momentum of that kind of spending. Even more difficult to cut back on spending when that's what actually needs to happen.

But what's really revealing is the percentage increase that Reagan was responsible for: 190%! In the Republican revisionist history, Reagan has been anointed as the greatest fiscal conservative of all time. No, it's not as much total debt as Obama is responsible for -- but Reagan definitely turned the ship in the wrong direction.

As quoted earlier, a president inherits his predecessor's budget during his first year. Let's look at the deficit and spending for each of a president's full fiscal years by each of his terms (and showing all three of Obama's fiscal years, including the estimate for 2012). To be clear, Obama's first full fiscal year didn't start until 2010, even though he took office in 2009.

image

Gross deficit in trillions of dollars

What we see is that Bush was responsible for the huge increase in 2009 (with the bank bailouts--which needed to happen by the way). So instead of Obama being responsible for $5.3 trillion, he was actually responsible for $2.8 trillion -- and Bush was responsible for around $4 trillion.

Since presidents hold office during different times in history with different demands on the country, let's look at the deficit, GDP (Gross Domestic Product, a measurement of economic output), and the percent of the surplus or deficit of GDP (adjusted for 2005 dollars):

image

Chart: Deficit compared to GDP (in trillions of dollars); deficit shown as a percentage of GDP

While this chart is pretty complicated, it shows some interesting things:

  1. GDP was much bigger than the gross deficit during Reagan's time, and has increased with each president.  
  2. Reagan actually moved the deficit in the right direction during his first term -- toward a surplus, which is what that red line is at 0% -- but then took it the other direction in his second term. 
  3. Bush 41 raised taxes ("Read my lips"), which actually moved the country closer to a surplus, which then happened under Clinton.
  4. Soon after Bush 44 took office, 9/11 happened. But then he also cut taxes and gave a refund to tax payers with the surplus money that had been built up. Once the Depression hit in 2008 and revenues (receipts) disappeared, the increase in the deficit accelerated.
  5. The change in the deficit since Obama's first full budget is flat.

One last chart shows how much the country took in (receipts), spent (outlays), and the deficit as a percentage of GDP:

Chart: Receipts, outlays (spending), and surplus or deficit as a percentage of GDP

Chart: Receipts, outlays (spending), and surplus or deficit as a percentage of GDP

As you can see, spending shot up under GW Bush (44) during the economic crisis and has remained at around the same level since 2010.

Hopefully, this helps you see that Obama isn't the biggest spender in the history of the United States. Far from it. I think if anything's clear, it's that every administration has a hand in shaping the direction of the federal deficit in the short and long-term. Deficits don't necessarily create problems in the short term. As Paul Krugman writes in his new book End This Depression Now!:

There has been a rapid increase in U.S. debt since 1980, but that rapid rise in debt didn't put us deeply in hock to the rest of the world. It did, however, make us vulnerable to the kind of crisis that struck in 2008.

Krugman, Paul (2012-04-30). End This Depression Now! (p. 44). Norton. Kindle Edition.

What I find incredibly hypocritical is the Republican Party's stance on spending and debt. Note that they didn't have a problem with GW Bush spending away -- but when Obama's trying to help pull us out of a Depression, they cry bloody murder. They want Obama out of office, regardless of whether it's their party that's to blame for the fiscal mess.

What happens next?

This depends on who gets elected in November -- because if Romney/Ryan get in, they're going to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Here's why we don't want to do this (from the http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/OutlookSlides.pdf report):

Chart from CBO: Deficits - Projected in CBO's baseline and under an alternative fiscal scenario

Chart from CBO: Deficits - Projected in CBO's baseline and under an alternative fiscal scenario

Take a look at the baseline in this chart compared to what happens if the Bush Tax Cuts continue. That alternative fiscal scenario is what will happen under Romney/Ryan (if they do what they say they'll do).

So, there you have it. The past, the present, and the future. Where we go next is up to the voters. I for one hope that Obama wins, as it appears he's on the right track with the economy.

Labels: , ,

posted by AndyO @ 9:09 PM   0 comments

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Epic Fail: Harold Camping's end of the world prediction

Update 5/23/11 - 6:45 p.m.

Just saw this on the Huffington Post about Camping's broadcast about what happened on May 21:

Today 6:14 PM Camping says again that Judgment Day Came, "It Was Just Spiritual."

"The timing, the structures, the proofs, none of that has changed at all," says Camping.

He is sticking to the numerology he used to determine the May 21 and Oct. 21 dates.

"All I am is a humble teacher. I search the Bible. I search the Bible," he says.

Update: 5/23/11

Some people don't know when to quit. Looks like my prediction #2 has come true. According to AP:

California preacher Howard Camping says his prophecy that the world would end was off by five months because Judgment Day actually will come on Oct. 21.

Do you think God has a three-strikes policy?

Update: 5/22/11

Harold Camping is "flabbergasted" that the world didn't end, according to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

"I'm looking for answers," Camping said to reporters outside his home.

Well, though one of my predictions was that Camping would disappear -- I'm glad he didn't. He needs to answer for his false prophecy. Just look for a revised third date for the Rapture soon.

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

OK, it's 12:02 a.m. The world didn't end, even though Harold Camping said "The Bible guarantees it!"

image

I'm not sure what's worse: Harold Camping's fear-mongering blasting out over billboards, the Internet, and airwaves -- or the media reporting on it. Why would they give this guy more free advertising when he was wrong once before?

Oh, right -- these are the same guys who gave Donald Trump a platform to talk about President Obama not being born in the United States.

Harold Camping - Civil Engineer for God

I don't know much about Harold Camping, except that he was a civil engineer (as if that makes his calculations for the rapture more precise) and he's president of Family Radio. But if you're wondering what the apocalypse is really about for Camping, check out Family Radio's $121 million in assets (2007). End of the world prophesies sure beat the hell out of civil engineering! Well, wait a minute. I guess he's never taken a penny of that $121 million dollars according to the Family Radio website:

Mr. Camping has been a full-time volunteer since Family Radio's infancy and has never received compensation for his service.

I wonder how he puts bread on the table? Oh, I forgot! He's a civil engineer.

If you're like me, you're probably wondering why Harold Camping is in a unique position to make this bold prediction about the end of the world. Here's what the Family Radio website says:

What Qualifies Mr. Camping to make the pronouncement of May 21, 2011?

Mr. Camping has been a tireless student of the Bible for over five decades. The tens of thousands of hours he has spent analyzing the Bible has given him a unique perspective of the entirety of Scripture. He has dedicated his life to prepare himself to answer questions raised concerning God's Word to man.

I hope Camping realizes now that those "tens of thousands of hours" were a complete waste. Think about what you can do in 10,000 hours.

Media anxiety

I have to wonder, when are we going to stop giving people like Camping a platform? I know for many people, it's obvious that this guy is a nut. But, unfortunately, there are a lot of gullible people out there. (And, yes, I realize I'm giving him more attention here in this small blog.)

I think the greater damage (as far as the media is concerned) is how reporting on this story helps spread or amplify anxiety. Take a look at Orson Wells's "War of the Worlds" 1938 radio broadcast to see how the media can amplify anxiety (even when it's in the name of entertainment). Take a look at the Bush administration's use of Terror Alerts to see another example.

So, what happens now?

According to Family Radio:

What if May 21 ends and nothing occurs?

The Biblical evidence is too overwhelming and specific to be wrong. Christ's people can look with great confidence to this date because God promises His "beloved" He will not come upon them as a thief in the night.

God in His mercy has revealed the vital information needed to know the day. Judgment Day on May 21, 2011 will occur because the bible declares it. Anyone whom God has not saved will arrive at that day with no hope for salvation. God warns simply the "door will be shut."

Here are my predictions:

  1. Camping disappears (yes, I'm leaving that intentionally ambiguous)
  2. Camping will explain that his calculations were off (again), and now he's sure of the date. (Spread the word! Send in your money!)

I'd love to see some good investigative journalism about Camping to find out what's really going on at Family Radio.

Labels: ,

posted by AndyO @ 1:49 AM   1 comments

Saturday, January 23, 2010

ARCO's ATM is anything but convenient

On Thursday, on my way to get car tabs, I stopped at an ARCO gas station to get gas and cash. I pulled up to the pump and inserted my debit card into the ATM. Of course, there was a 45-cent convenience fee (actually not bad for a cash machine).

phone 033

After I started pumping gas, I examined the ATM a little more; it soon became clear that there wasn't an option to get any cash from this machine. I was paying 45-cents for the convenience of using ARCO's gas pump, which is odd because Shell and Chevron don't charge extra fees for using their gas pump. 

I felt a little swindled by ARCO. I think most people would agree that an ATM should include the ability to spit out some cash. Even if you pay with a debit card at Safeway or 7-11, there's usually an option to get back some cash. And they don't charge you a convenience fee.

What does ARCO have to say about this? Here's their website, which says this about how convenient their gas stations are:

Straight up convenience.

You can pay on the gas island with cash or your ATM card using PayQuick, It�s an easy way to purchase at the pump to get in, out and on your way quickly.

To avoid the 45-cent convenience fee, use your ARCO Debit MasterCard. Plus you can earn reward points when you use it!

Because I was in a hurry (and I needed cash for the emissions test you have to get in Washington state), I went inside to see if they had a real ATM. They did, but now they wanted $2.00 for the convenience of withdrawing cash.

I don't know about you, but I don't find $2.00 in fees very convenient. Which is why I won't be visiting ARCO again anytime soon. I also recommend that ARCO change the language on their pumps to be more accurate. For example:

Pay with cash or debit card

The worst part was that I did pay the $2.00 convenience fee at the real ATM, because I was in a hurry. I know that ARCO was counting on this, but you would think they'd be interested in forming a long-term relationship with me so I'd be willing to return to their store and buy snacks -- because that's where the real profit is.

Labels: ,

posted by AndyO @ 4:49 PM   4 comments