.
No one would ever accuse the Cato Intstiute, a libertarian think tank, of bowing to President Obama and his administration. They are no friends of Democrats or liberals. So when Cato comes to the defense of Obama, it’s worth noting.
Two weeks ago, Foxnews.com posted this story…
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents — spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history. In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion …That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush’s term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama’s.
[...]
When Mr. Obama was sworn into office the federal deficit for this year stood at $422 billion. At the end of October, it stood at $1.42 trillion.
Daniel J. Mitchell of Cato, who wrote he felt nauseated by the Fox story, felt a need to set the record straight.
I’m a big fan of criticizing Obama’s profligacy, but it is inaccurate and/or dishonest to blame him for Bush’s mistakes. At the risk of repeating my earlier post, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush Administration policies. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, and the cash-for-clunkers nonsense, but as the chart illustrates, these boondoggles only amounted to just a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total — about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget.
So if we do the math, President Obama is responsible for 4% of the 2009 federal budget. The other 96% is Bush’s handiwork. How strange that Fox did not mention any of that. It was left to the Cato Institute to set the record straight.
I like their analogy…
Obama’s FY2009 performance is like a relief pitcher who enters a game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans should be far more angry with the starting pitcher.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
..
Fox doesn’t mention it because to them and to the Republicans everything started the day Obama took office, prior slate wiped clean.
Good for Cato for honest reporting. The problem is that Fox will probably not come back with a retraction. Their story will remain and their audience will be the more ignorant for it.
@Zenith
you are so right. Despite their ‘no more mistake’ policy then continue to make them and continue to not correct them.
Janine. That’s because they’re not mistakes. Fox has an agenda and facts and truth are not anything which will deter them.
@TonyM
oh yes, they are in the ‘if Fox says it it must be true’ cognitive dissonance/inferred justification school.
Fox said “no more mistakes” not any LESS mistakes…
@Craig
Ha!!! thanks for the clarification
I wonder if this will get through to anyone?
@Frances
let’s post the link on a bunch of conservative web sites and blogs
Only about 1/3 of the federal budget is discretionary, which means $140b is about a 12% increase in discretionary spending.
That aside, since only a 4% increase in spending is ok, lets just do it again next year. And the year after that. It’s only 4%, right?
@Tommy Pane, Pres. Obama budgeted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pres. Bush financed the wars by emergency supplemental petitions that were not figured in with the budget. I don’t know if war funds constitutes discretionary spending, or whether this even pertains to the 2009 budget, so this point may not apply to your comment. I do know that, due to the configuration of the existing budget, Pres. Obama was forced to request supplementals because the funds were just not there.
There are Republicans who exploit the addition of the war costs to the budget without mentioning what it’s for and without making the distinction between how Bush and Obama differ in their methods for financing the wars.
Fueled by FOX,
Fooled by FOX
http://www.CitizenPoet.com
Frances – None of us really knows how the government counts our money. That alone is a big enough red flag for me to rail against them asking for any more of it.
The bigger issue with these postings about FOX, is their intent. It’s a pretty blatant effort to discredit the only main street media source that is willing to report anything bad about the government. Marginalization of the delivery system used by dissenting voices is a classic Marxist tactic. If you can get people to doubt the messenger, they will doubt the messege, even when the messege is right.
@Tommy Pane: Fox News is doing an excellent job of discrediting itself. Did you ever wonder why there are stories on Fox News that don’t appear anywhere else? It is because they are not credible stories. Are you saying that the Obama Administration is using Marxist tactics? What are you implying? That Obama intends to have a Marxist regime? Because that is what Fox News is implying, and in doing so, they are full of BS and only acting in the best interests of the GOP.
Fox News is trying its ass off to get people to not trust factual information.
I should also mention that your opening statement is pretty ambiguous. What does counting our money have to do with my query or my comments?
Epiphany Moment…..You guys rail so much that Fox is misleading like thinking individuals. Did it ever occur to you that possibly the MSM is misleading you guys to THINK Fox is misleading people??
Frances asks, “Are you saying that the Obama Administration is using Marxist tactics?”
I don’t know about Tommy, but I would say, “Yes”.
“Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism which is defined by Encarta as “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.” Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.”
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm
TN, believing that Obama is a Marxist is pure wing-nuttery. You might be able to find some common ground over at World Net Daily.
Frances – Your comment was about the differences between two different administration’s methods of budgeting the money that they take from us. My comment was speaking to the ambiguity of that process, which is probably why it came across as ambiguous.
Tactics are tactics. Follow the source of the attacks to find the motive. You believe FOX is purposely misleading its viewers. I believe it’s a media willing to offer a counter view to the left’s. Even though I don’t watch much of FOX’s programming (except The Family Guy), I appreciate their efforts in a free republic.
Frances, keep it straight. You didn’t ask if he thought he “was a Marxist”, you asked if if he thought he was using “Marxist tactics?”
I said yes and supplied you a definition. Currently, the Obama Presidency IS using what could easily be considerd “Marxist” tactics. He may move away from them in the future and IF IF IF the economy improves. Of course, if the economy does not improve, he may use that crisis (Emanuel) to move even further in the direction of Marxist principles.
How can you deny it? Financial Institutions, Automobile Industry, Health Care Industry……what’s next???
Tommy, it is not ambiguous. The complete budget is posted online. Bush conveniently left financing of two wars out of the budget. Obama has included it. That’s about $10 billion per month – $120 billion per year. Who’s fooling who?
I believe that Fox News does a shoddy job and if ABC/CBS/NBC tried to get away with what Fox does in the name of news, they would lose their broadcast licenses. Fox News gets to skulk around on cable and prey on stupid people. They are no better than a tabloid.
TN. Deny what? Be specific about your examples. You sound a little bit hysterical to me.
Frances, read more closely. Try “Responsive” as opposed to “Combative”. I gave you 3 examples.
Take care.
TN, be specific about your 3 examples.
Frances, No. I have better things to do than play silly games with you. If you want an intelligent exchange, I’ll do my best, realizing I will always fall short in your estimation.
But I’m not playing little kindergartner games with you. Read my comment. If you don’t recognize the 3 examples I provided then I see nothing to be gained in discussing much of anything with one so intellectually challenged.
Why don’t we do this? Why don’t YOU be more specific and support why you do not feel actions taken with the Financial, Automotive and Health Care Industries may NOT rise to the level of trending toward some degree of “Marxism”?
TN, why should I reverse-engineer your argument?
My comment was being held because of one word. You can guess what it was by how I’ve spelled it.
TN, If you want an intelligent exchange, than don’t leave me to guess what it is about those three examples that points to a run-up to social ism. You are the one that brought up the examples.
Frances, you should spend more time on your own arguments and less on mine. Get your “isms” straight. We were speaking about Marxism.
Let me make this very clear for you. If you aren’t intelligent enough to understand what I meant with those 3 examples, why should I bother trying to engage you?
Point one..the staement Tommy makes about attacks on Fox perfectly describes Republican and Fox attacks on the mainstream media over the past two decades. they have been sliming the messenger for years. I say that not to justify the tactic, just to point out a potential for hypocrisy that I don’t think TN and Tommy want to exemplify.
Point two.. the whole Marxism vs. Capitalism is an interesting subject, and one not easily discussed on a blog post. Our country has a long history of trying to find a balance between pure capitalism and individual control of the system. Laisse-fair capitalism, which is true capitalism, has not had a better run in its various forms than any other “pure” political/economic arrangement (such as Communism). It is worth a thought that if we live in the marketplace, and the marketplace is a critical defining piece in our lives, than we should have a voice in the marketplace. Our democratically-elected government should be that voice. Otherwise, why do we vote?
Point three..I think that the fact that the Obama Administration fought pressure from Libertarian as well as Liberal entities to demand more from banks and automakers would contrindicate the claim that he is pushing for wide-reaching application of Scoialism. He would never have a better time to nationalize banks than last spring…ever. And bank nationalization is a primary necessity in controling “the means of production”. Personlly though, I would have liked to see many other options tried than the ones presented, as I don’t see why taxpayers should have spent any money on the automakers. Survival of the fittest is a sacred rule in capitalism. The big money interests on Wall Street (none of whom are Socialists) had their hands fully extended LAST FALL…when Bush was the man. No socialist cries were heard then. So I detect a bit of double-standard in action.
TN: You quoted “Marxism is the system of *socialism* of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” I didn’t just pull the word out of thin air. I realize that Marxism is a more scary word (to stupid people) than social ism, so I guess that’s why you and Tommy Pane prefer to use it.
All I wanted was for you to explain why you felt they were examples of social ism, since the public doesn’t own (beyond stock) any of those industries.