For years now, and rightly so, many have criticized the Bush administration for obscene out of control spending at the federal level. Liberal democrats have spent many nights weeping over the deficit and the cost of the Iraq war.
However, the fact of the matter is that it’s now evident that Bush’s spending could fit in a thimble compared to Obama’s unheard of spending plans in the budget.
Here’s a little graph illustrating the absurdity:
USAToday examines the historically massive budget and the ramidications it will have for Americans:
WASHINGTON — This is change, whether you believe in it or not. And not just pocket change.
Following through on many of his campaign promises, President Obama wants to spend about $3.6 trillion next year to pull the nation out of recession and begin major new initiatives in health care, energy and education.
All that and more is contained in a 134-page budget request for 2010 and beyond that is unprecedented in size, breathtaking in scope and sure to have a major impact on millions of Americans — if he can get much of it through Congress.
It’s a budget plan that would help the young by increasing their chances of getting a college education and the poor by providing funds for health insurance. It seeks to clean the air and reduce the USA’s dependence on foreign oil. It would cut taxes on low- and middle-income Americans while raising them, starting in 2011, on couples who make at least $250,000 a year.
All this would come at a price to be paid by in the future: annual deficits of at least $500 billion, and a federal debt that would reach $23 trillion in a decade.
Like Ronald Reagan for Republicans 28 years ago, the new Democratic president is staking out his party’s position on spending and taxes. Whereas Reagan sought to limit government, Obama wants to expand its reach. And he’s determined to tackle the nation’s most pressing issues, despite setbacks suffered by fellow Democrats Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter in similar efforts.
“These are extraordinary times,” Obama senior adviser David Axelrod says. “We’re not in a position to think incrementally in terms of recovery, in terms of financial stability.”
The most jarring difference is with the last eight years — a period in which George W. Bush focused on sweeping tax cuts and spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“If anyone disputes the fact that elections can make a difference, all you have to do is look at the budget,” says Thomas Mann, a political scholar at the Brookings Institution. The differences between Obama and Bush, he says, are “day and night.”
I have seen some people scoff at Republican criticism of Obama’s spending by pointing to Bush’s spending in the past 8 years. That might be valid if Obama wasn’t spending off the chart. You may have heard this, but you could have spent a million dollars a day from the birth of Christ and still not spend as much as Obama has spent in the last 20 days. Imagine that.