President’s & Deficits Compared

Yes, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. I humbly suggest, however, that that is not the most important issue of the day. I continue to think that what we ought to be talking about is the fiscal solvency of the United States of America.

A brief conversation with a friend of mine (who happens to be a firm Democrat) inspired me to compare the fiscal records of Presidents since Reagan was elected in 1980. I used inflation adjusted numbers from Obama's Office of Management and Budget. I calculate the total deficits/surplus for each President beginning with his second year in office and ending with first year of his predecessor, since budgets must be prepared a year in advance. Here is the result.

1982-1989    -1,412,228,000,000        Reagan

1990-1993    -1,035,646,000,000        Bush41

1994-01            62,904,000,000            Clinton

2002-09    -3,546,539,000,000            Bush43

2010-11    -2,593,084,000,000             Obama

2010-12    -3,920,032,000,000            Obama

2010-17    -7,360,158,000,000              Obama

Reagan ran up a total deficit of $1.4 trillion over eight years. Bush41 racks up an impressive $1.035 trillion over only four years. No deficit hawk, that one. By contrast, William Jefferson Clinton managed to run a modest surplus of 63 billion over his eight years, according to these numbers.

I have often written on this site that the Clinton presidency was largely a success in terms of domestic policy. This is certainly true of his fiscal policy. It's fair to note that he enjoyed some advantages. He came into office as a recovery was in progress and left before the next recession set in. After his second year in office he faced a Republican Congress and decided to triangulate. Still, his was the most fiscally sound presidency in the period we are considering.

Over eight years George W. Bush managed a total deficit larger than his three predecessors combined. Granted, he came into office as a recession was beginning and saw another well under way before he left. Almost half his deficit ($1.4 trillion) came in the single year after he left office. Still, when Obama blames Bush for all the difficulties facing the current administration, he has a point.

Now to Obama: he managed a deficit larger than twenty years of Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton in just two years. By the end of his third fiscal year, according to OMB estimates, he will have accomplished what spendthrift Dubya took eight years to do. Past this year, all estimates are ephemeral. Projections beyond this year all assume unrealistic rates of growth. In absence of a Vulcan landing or some other happy surprise, the real deficits will be higher than projected.

Still, it is significant that the OMB projects a total deficit for the years 2010-2017 of well over seven trillion dollars. That is double the damage that Dubya did in his eight years, and it isn't what happens if Obama's plan fails. That's his plan.

Perhaps a better comparison is deficits as a percentage of GDP. Here is the chart:

Reagan    -4.3%    1982-89

Bush41    -4.3%    1990-93

Clinton    -0.1%    1994-2001

Bush43    -3.4%    2002-09

Obama    -7.9%    2010-13

Houston, we have a problem. I do not know who the next President will be. I do know that if the next President wants to blame all his problems on his predecessor, as Obama is wont to do, he will have twice the case that Obama had against George W. Bush.

Comments

[A.I.]

Are you sure "that is his plan" KB? When the CBO projects deficits, they use current law to do so. If that is what you're calling anyone's plan, you are not being accurate--the status quo is not a plan.

But, lets assume you are correct about the president's policies. How do they stack up against his Republican rivals? I've seen projections of even even worse deficits under their "sketchy" (I mean that in both senses of the word) plans.

[Bill Fleming]

Looks like Obama actually reduced the deficit in the years that have actually transpired. The rest are projections of time frames that have not yet occurred. Such is the nature of many of KB's posts along these lines. He tells the truth right up to the end, and then jumps off a cliff into the unknown abyss, hoping his gullable readers will follow him into hysteria, weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

Oh well, at least that's better than how Limbaugh and some of KB's GOP cronies do it.

They just start lying through their teeth, right from the get-go.

[duggersd]

About that deficit..... Does that include the $800 + billion for the stimulus? And does that Bush deficit account for the fact that Congress would not approve a budget until after the election so the new President could put his stamp on it? It seems to me fiscal 2009 in partially Obama's as well.
And Bill, at least he has kept one promise. That one about cutting the deficit by 1/2. Maybe what he MEANT was dividing the deficit by 1/2!

[Bill Fleming]

The deficit is not the problem right now, any more that it was your problem the day after you bought your house or started your own business.

...oh, wait. Dugger do you have a mortgage? Or your own company? Do you have employees? If not, perhaps you're not capable of understanding such things due to lack of experience.

Break even on most business startups is 5 years. 5 years before one sees any ROI. And something like 95% of all business startups fail in that time frame, due to lack of capital.

I repeat, the deficit is not the problem right now.

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I.: The CBO projections, which I have presented many times, are based on current law as you say. The President has offered budgets which make no changes in those projections. Either "that's his plan" or he doesn't have any plan.

Whether the Republicans can do better is a good question. If any of them seriously offers a serious budget proposal, other Republicans will attack it for raising taxes and your side will run commercials showing the candidate pushing old ladies into the canyon. I think that the only possibility is that the Republican will go back to the speeches where Obama pointed out the need to do something and point out that Obama never did anything.

While we don't know about the Republicans, we do know about Obama. He created a deficit reduction commission and then ignored its findings. He gave a pious speech about the need to reform entitlement spending but failed to follow it up with any real proposal. If he is returned to office we will go four more years without any serious attempt to address the problem.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: your deep infatuation with the President is impressive, in a dime store romance sort of way. In Fleming world the President (at least as long as he's a Democrat) doesn't have to worry about actually passing his budget and the Democratic Senate bears no responsibility for even working on his budget. In Fleming world, isn't the President's job to address the fiscal mess because the President doesn't really have a job, except to keep Bill's heart going pitter patter. It certainly isn't the President's job to think about or plan for the future, since the future doesn't exist. It must be very warm and cozy to live in such a world.

On the contrary, I think next year and the year after that will come and go in about two years time. That's me jumping into an unknown abyss. I think that the growth rate might be larger in the next couple of decades than it has ever been in the history of the Republic, but I also think that we can't count on that. If it is in line with past growth or worse, recent growth, and if the laws don't change, we are in for real trouble. I can well understand why an Obama groupie wants to eliminate any such reasoning.

[duggersd]

Bill, yes I have a mortgage and it is about to be paid off. I have been an independent contractor which would be a business for myself. No, I have not had employees. I make purchases each month. I put most of it on a credit card. I then pay that every month.
About that deficit not being a problem, OOOOOOKAAAAAAY. If I go to a bank and ask for a mortgage for a house costing $1,000,000, the bank is going to ask me about my income. They will say that I cannot afford a house at that price. I only have an income that can handle about $200,000. The bank would be irresponsible in lending me the money. Now, when I do purchase that house, I do not go out the next year and purchase another house, and another the next year and so on and so forth. That is what the government is doing.
Perhaps since you are a liberal you are incapable of understanding that deficits, especially at the rate being run up by this President, will destroy this country. Considering we are currently spending 6% of the budget and as the total debt is increasing dramatically, I can see where by the end of the Obama Administration in 2013 the amount could be up to 10%. Should disaster strike and he is elected to another term, I see it being up to 20 or more by 2017. No, that is not a problem.

[Bill Fleming]

"It must be very warm and cozy to live in such a world." Let's just say it beats self-induced hysteria and visions of the apocalypse. LOL.

[Bill Fleming]

You miss the whole point duggerSD as usual. If you buy a house for $200,000 and borrow money from a bank to do it, you are in deficit mode. You owe more money out than you have coming in, and you are depending on the value of your house to increase, or at least stay the same.

[duggersd]

No, I did not miss the point. You just missed the mark. I am in deficit mode for one year. BTW, the difference is I am actually paying off my mortgage. Also, there is another major difference. The government is just spending the money. It is not purchasing real estate, at least not $3.5 trillion dollars worth each year. It is spending money on mostly consumable things. I do not spend more money than I have coming in on consumables. If I were to do that, I would be bankrupt, sort of like where we are headed if we continue the current path. Even that failed President in the White House SAYS we need to cut the deficit. He even SAYS the deficit is a big problem. So is he wrong, or are you?

[Donald Pay]

Most of Obama's contribution to the debt resulted from:

(1) Bush-era tax cuts
(2) Bush-era wars
(3) Bush-era recession

Please be more specific in describing the contributions to the debt of legislation and policies enacted in the various presidencies. If you do that you will find your data is significantly different.

[Bill Fleming]

The main difference is that the "deficit" you bemoan duggerSD is a fluctuating cash flow deficit subject to improve or get worse dempending on the rates of employment, taxation, etc. The balance sheet is never considered... at leas not the "Assets" portion of it. If all we did is look at your house debt and never balanced it with the value of your land and property, you would seem poor indeed. Rest assured, the Net Worth of the United States of America is solidly in the black, and it's practically delusional to pretend otherwise.

[Mark Anderson]

The chart you should be looking at is job creation under Presidents since Eisenhower, the top three are all Democrats, the bottom four all Republicans. Words are all the Republicans have when they talk about job creation. It's interesting because all Republicans love to pick on Jimmy Carter, under the four years of Carter, job creation was at 2,600,000 per year, second on the list. Reagan didn't do to badly but his record was at 2,000,000 per year for fourth on the list. Clinton of course was at first with 2,900,000 per year. George W. Bush was of course last on the list at 375,000 per year. You can check it out at the Wall St. Journal.

[larry kurtz]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/obama-jobless-rate-falls-faster-than-reagan-s.html

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: Obama is President. Over four years he has offered no proposals to address the fiscal problems that you say Bush is responsible for. If Obama can blame Bush, the next President can blame Obama (even if it is Obama).

[Donald Pay]

KB,

Please. No one is fooled by this. The record is clear that Obama has offered proposal upon proposal to address fiscal problems. In fact he put Medicare and Social Security reform on the table provided the Republicans would end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Guess what? The Republicans refuse to address the fiscal problems unless they can protect the 1 percent from having to participate. So, move on. No one believes you.