Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say. ... This is, of course, nonsense...
.... Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.
In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion.
...
During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. ...
This was the primary justification for a big tax cut. Subsequently, as it became clear that the economy was slowing – a recession began in March 2001 – that became a further justification.
The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008.
There's more, of course.
As I listen to The Rominee claim The President made things worse, I look across the pond to Europe, where disaster abounds. Given the trash heap left to him, and observing how much worse Europe is doing compared to the US, and understanding that Europe's struggles affect our own recovery, to me it's remarkable that our economy is doing as well (a relative term) as it is. Added to the demonstrable obstructionism of congressional Rs, it seems nothing short of miraculous.
Another case Obama could be making, but isn't.
Sure Obama could make the case. Then Romney would counter it with a baseless assertion, which the media would dutifully repeat without critical analysis. Wouldn't want to take sides, after all. Then the electorate would become confused and throw up their hands in dismay because, you know, some of this stuff happened a couple of years ago, and Besides, math is hard.
ReplyDeletePainless