Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktWonkbook posted their Graph of the Day today, linking to a Mother Jones piece. Their point is that if you think Obama’s a big spender, you need to see two charts. Here they are:
Drum [author of the Mother Jones piece] says, is that “total government spending didn’t go up much during the Clinton era, and it’s actually declined during under President Obama.”
[S]ome said Drum’s chart was a trick, as it looked at total government spending rather than just federal spending. So on Wednesday, he posted a second chart. This one only included federal spending and it didn’t adjust for population growth. The only thing is adjusts for is inflation.
[T]he sharp rise in federal spending begins in late-2009 and is largely over by 2010. It’s ridiculous to attribute all that spending to Obama, who wasn’t in office when it began, rather than to the recession, which is the clear and obvious cause.
Food for thought.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Drum’s argument would be more persuasive if the ’09-10 spending increase was followed by a decline back to pre-crisis levels. obama obviously used the ’09-10 increase to set a new permanent plateau for federal spending..
LikeLike
And the 11 – 12 reflects the Republicans blocking Obama’s proposals for more spending.
The standard counter argument:
http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1786
LikeLike
“obama obviously used the ’09-10 increase to set a new permanent plateau for federal spending”
Isn’t it still reflecting the temporary programs like extension of unemployment benefits that will either expire or fall when employment rises? As the Afghanistan conflict winds down, federal outlays will dwindle further.
Also, the WH has proposed spending cuts that Congress hasn’t passed. Klein claims “hundreds of billions” in the source piece, but does not enumerate them in this article.
LikeLike