|
In any event, you'll get no routinely acceptable numbers as to responsibility for the deficit this year. Or last year, for that matter.
Take TARP. It added $700 billion to the deficit, right? And it was all passed under Bush II's term--last October, in fact. Except that 1/2 of it was held by Congress and needed an additional vote before being released to the administration. Well and good, they were being responsible. Now, the money was released a couple of days before Obama was inaugurated. So it clearly falls under *'s term.
However, that second $350 billion was money that * said he wouldn't request unless Obama said he wanted it. Dem Congressional leaders and * both said that he asked for it, and one of the Congressional leaders said they were releasing it on Obama's behalf. So he wanted it, he asked for it, and dems gave it to * knowing that he wouldn't be spending it. Obama had the choice--ask for it or not ask for it; then he had the choice of using it or not using it. In fact, there was still money from the first "tranche" of TARP that was unused. Even more in fact, billions of last fall's disbursement of TARP money have been returned to the administration; if Obama deposits the money with Treasury then it reduces the amount issued by TARP and reduces the deficit, sort of undoing some of the damage. But he hasn't, instead new uses are being found for the money--maybe a good thing, maybe not, who am I to know? Net addition to deficit: $400 billion or so that Obama incurred but, under one method of accounting, can bear no responsibility for, but which, under a different method of accounting, he bears sole responsibility for. Of course, dem leaders are up to their navels in the allocation process, but we only talk about presidents when we talk deficits, as though the president's budget were enacted when he drew it up.
But we know that's not the case. In February of this year *'s final budget was finally passed. It meant that there were just continuing resolutions keeping part of the government going, which have the effect of simply maintaining the previous year's spending levels unchanged, while other bits of the government had their funding levels tweaked. Since the final budget was passed under Obama's administration, he had the ability to address it--but didn't. Do budget deficits approved under Obama by a Democratic Congress count towards his deficit total? No, because, well, * drew up the budget. How you put things under (R) and (D) is entirely up in the air, and almost certainly would say more about you than the actual events.
Then there's the stimulus defense. Any money spent as stimulus, to try to save the economy, is good. Tax cuts? Good. Increased spending for programs? Good. Increased infrastructure? Good. Every dollar spent is an additional dollar in the economy. Hence the February 2009 stimulus is wonderful, if not merely "good".
So take last year's budget deficit numbers. It was a record deficit, and, apparently, it was all because of *'s wars. But well over $200 billion of it was, um, stimulus--bad, evil stimulus money that was approved by far more dem Congressfolk than repubs, but signed into law by *. Wait a minute--*stimulus* money? Bad, evil stimulus money? But isn't all stimulus money all good? No, 18 months ago it was all bad, unless it fit DU prescriptions (not just "Democratic" prescriptions). Why, that faux stimulus was mostly tax cuts, of course. We can ignore that things only really fell apart a few months *after* the money was spent, and that coincided with some nasty banking weirdness.
So just try sorting out the differing moral and legal responsibilities in that mess, and then make sure that everybody can agree on your categorization. The partisan minefields are wide, deep, and packed with landmines with about 1/32" clearance between them--thermal expansion from just breathing on them can set them all off.
Ah, I see that it's after noon. Now, where's the beer? (Dang, still at the store.)
|