Friday, June 12, 2009

Tying Obama to Bush's Budget Mess

.....

Some people say that George W. Bush didn't solve any national problems during his eight years in office, but that's not exactly right.

Robert Parry
June 10, 2009 - Consortium News

.....

In 2001, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the Fed might have trouble influencing interest rates if the entire federal debt were paid off – an event that budget projections then forecast. Nailed that one, ex-President Bush can declare.

Indeed, no one will have to worry about the "problem" of a completely repaid federal debt anytime soon, if ever.  Before leaving office, Bush had transformed what was projected in 2001 to be a $848 billion surplus for fiscal 2009 into a $1 trillion deficit, nearly a $2 trillion swing from deep black to bright red, according to Congressional Budget Office figures.

But one of the ironies of the early Obama administration is that the Republicans and their many allies in the U.S. news media have succeeded in shifting much of the blame for the ocean of red ink onto Barack Obama, leading the new President to scale back programs and to scramble politically. A recent Gallup poll found 51 percent disapproving of Obama's handling of federal spending.

That GOP success is a reflection of the Right's massive investment in media over the past several decades and the audacity of Republicans to tick off talking points regardless of reality. A steady propaganda barrage, especially when it's ineffectively countered, can create perceptions that influence the electorate and thus constrain political options.

If Americans think Obama is responsible for the massive deficits, they will be less willing to support his recommendations for addressing a host of pressing problems, from the environment to health care to the economy.

And to the degree they forget or don't know about Bush's role in the deficit problem, they are more likely to turn back to Republicans, the same people who enabled Bush with his extravagant tax cuts and open-ended wars to chart the nation into that red-ink ocean.

So, it is useful to read Wednesday's New York Times analysis of the CBO budget projections, which revealed that Obama's stimulus plan and other domestic programs account for "only a sliver" of the deficits, about 10 percent of the projected $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009.

The Times analysis by David Leonhardt blamed 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing from surplus to deficit on the business cycle, including the bursting stock-market bubbles and related recessions. The Times traced about 33 percent of the deficit swing to legislation signed by Bush, including his signature tax cuts and his Medicare prescription drug plan.

Though Bush is now out of office, continuation of other of his key initiatives, such as the Wall Street bailout and the Iraq War, contributed significantly to the deficit under Obama, the Times found.

"Mr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq War and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000," the Times reported. "Such policies – together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama – account for 20 percent of the swing."

Obama's stimulus bill, signed in February, accounted for 7 percent of the deficit expansion, and his other early programs, including health care, education and energy, added 3 percent, the Times said. So, the tally would indicate that Bush's policies contributed to 53 percent of the 2009 deficit swing compared to 10 percent from Obama's plans.

Yet the Republicans have scored some important political points by repositioning themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and tagging Obama as a spendthrift.

Ironically, too, in his efforts to show bipartisan continuity with the Bush administration – especially on the Wall Street financial crisis – Obama has opened himself to GOP attack lines.

Not the First Time

This is surely not the first time that the Republicans have relied on the powerful right-wing news media and the careerists in the mainstream press to turn political reality inside out.

One telling example was how GOP congressmen and right-wing operatives in 1999-2000 linked Vice President Al Gore to the compromising of U.S. nuclear secrets to China, when the secrets were compromised years earlier under Ronald Reagan. [See Consortiumnews.com's "How America Fell."]

But a striking fact of the early Obama era is that – with only a few exceptions – Washington has changed very little, systemically.

The right-wing media remains the dominant megaphone; the same inept talking heads fill the air on CNN, CNBC and – for much of the day – on MSNBC; Republicans will say or do anything to sabotage a Democratic administration; and Democrats are still mesmerized by the pleasant mirage of "bipartisanship."

The hard reality for Obama, the Democrats and the progressives is that as long as they ignore these systemic features, especially the power of America's right-tilted media, the Republicans will always have the edge in framing the issues – and thus limiting the choices for the future.

.....

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. He is the author of "Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush".

2 comments:

  1. You acknowledge that Obama is President, then you blow it off. Not only that but Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since 2007. It seems ridiculous to claim that Bush is entirely responsible for the deficits that happened on his watch (including spending bills that Obama voted for as Senator - Bush's signature counts against Bush, but Obama Senate vote isn't being counted against Obama), but Obama isn't similarly responsible for what happens on his watch. Obama is President not Bush and if Obama continues Bush policies, Obama becomes the new owner of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dave,

    I am not Robert Parry who wrote the article. I am the person that posted the article here.

    At least we agree that Presidents are RESPONSIBLE for their full term and will be so judged by history. With that established we agree that President George W. Bush should take full and total responsibility for his term in office and that includes the lack of defense of the United States during the attack on New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. We also agree that Obama has not finished his first term and just like Bush deserves a full term of 4 or 8 years before a fiscal comparision can fairly be made. Deficits and surpluses can only be viewed thru the lens of history for one president and that is George W. Bush. Documented and substantiated analysis show that Bush took a near $1 trillion surplus and turned it into a $1 trillion deficit in 8 years no matter who was in Congress (a $2 trillion dollar reversal from black to red). He had a zero reduction in deficits his entire term and was directly responsible for one of the largest expansions of the U.S. government in history. In addition the first $350 billion of TARP funds targeted for a 'socialistic' bailout of the financial sector occurred in January 2009 during Bush's watch and continues under Obama. It's only fair to wait until the end of Obama's term or term's before we determine his policies were a success or failure. Credit or condemnation can be fairly assessed only at that time. One thing is for sure we all better hope he succeeds as these are perilous times.

    Regarding your request for a direct response to the article by investigative reporter Robert Parry published at his ConsortiumNews.com site you can comment directly here:

    http://consortiumblog.com/

    HAKA

    ReplyDelete