There's A Big Damn Difference

President Obama -- and most other Democrats, too, following his lead -- likes to point to Bush as being such a big spender that the financial crisis we're now experiencing was inherited, as if they had no part in the mess.  That is disingenuous to the point of intellectual dishonesty.  Without rehashing the details, Obama has increased the spending and deficit levels by multiple times the most Bush ever did (I've posted many graphs to illustrate this, so just look a little further down the page if this is news to you).  My favorite analogy of the situation is to driving down a highway with a 70mph speed limit.  Sure, Bush may have been going 80mph, but it's laughable to point at Bush's speeding to excuse the Democrats from driving 150mph themselves.  There's a big damn difference between the two.

Coincidentally, this analogy meshes perfectly with a recent article from the Heritage Foundation titled, "Accelerating Us Off A Cliff":

Speaking to House Democrats at their Kingsmill Resort & Spa retreat last month, President Barack Obama defended his economic stimulus plan, claiming: "[We] are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin. … If you're headed for a cliff, you've got to change direction." Our public policy definitely needs a change in direction. But the Obama Administration's budget is not a change in direction. Instead, it is a foot on the accelerator taking us off that cliff. Consider:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
• President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

The only sharp break President Obama takes away from President Bush is the amount of money he takes from the American people. President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; President Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.4 trillion. Yet even after taking $1.4 trillion more out of the private sector, Obama's budget still would double the public debt level to $15.4 trillion. Between 2008 and 2013, the budget will add $5.7 trillion ($48,000 per U.S. household) in new government debt. The annual interest on this debt would nearly equal the entire U.S. defense budget by 2019.

How does the Obama budget raise taxes by $1.4 trillion yet still double the national debt? By exploding government spending. Domestic discretionary spend­ing (including stimulus funds) has been hiked over 80 percent over 2008 levels. Even if we set aside the stimulus spending, and take the Obama Administration's word that all of that spending will be temporary, the expansion of government under Obama's budget is historic. In 2007, before the recession, Washington spent $24,172 per household. By 2019, the President's budget would spend $32,463 per household—an inflation-adjusted $8,000 per household expansion of gov­ernment.

Summarizing his findings Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Brian Riedl writes: "President Obama has framed his budget as a break from the "failed policies" of the Bush Admin­istration. Actually, his budget doubles down on President George W. Bush's borrow, spend, and bail­out policies."

Obama has, as we predicted long ago, been able to blame much of the current problems on Bush despite being the majority of the problems himself.  But, that blame game is wearing awfully thin already, and the more spending he and the Democrats push through the harder it will be to keep up, even with the media dutifully 'reporting' the Obama party line of blame-Bush.  It might also be useful to remember (and point out often) that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in the past two years of Bush's tenure, and until that time, the debt was headed downward.  Obama has spent so much so fast that the ramifications will likely be severe, and people will be out for metaphorical blood.  That's why we need to remain steadfast on the truth of the matter, which is the fact that it is Obama who is swamping mulitple generations of Americans in debt, not Bush. 

When the pitchforks come out, they need to be pointed in the correct direction: Obama and the Democrats.

There's my two cents.