It is well known that there is great power in the repeated lie. If you repeat a lie often enough, it will soon become believed as the truth. There is no better proof of this than the continued repetition of the lie that Obama’s Administration has been the “most prolific big government spender” in the history of the country. The ads continue to repeat the lie that Obama has raised the national debt higher than anybody.
So it is very interesting that Forbes magazine has an article entitled “Who is the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would you Believe it is Barack Obama?” This is Forbes Magazine’s article. This is the magazine headed by Steve Forbes who has run for President on the Republican side. This is the magazine owned by the conservative Steve Forbes and his magazine says that Barack Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower.
The writer Rick Ungar gives a chart that is a real embarrassment to the supply side economics of the Republicans and Romney. Reagan in 82-85 increased government spending by 8.7 percent. The first Bush increased it in 90-91 by 5.4 percent. The big liberal spending Democrats under Clinton only increased federal spending by 3.5 percent in the years 94-01. The second Bush in 02-05 increased government spending by 7.3 percent and in 06-09 by 8.1 percent. OBAMA IN THE YEARS 10-13 (BUDGETS) ONLY INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING BY 1.4 PERCENT. This is Steve Forbes the Republicans magazine telling us these facts.
One of the ways that Obama has been made to look like a big spender is that during the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.6%. That has been blamed on Obama’s stimulus package legislature, but the first year of any incoming presidency is saddled with the budget set by the previous president. So that budget increase was the responsibility of George W. Bush and the 2008 Congress.
Mr. Ungar says “…if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date –at least when it comes to spending — you are going to have to acknowledge that under Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.”
Certainly there are people who do not support the Obama nor his re-election but for heaven sakes, pick some real problems with him and do not oppose him on the basis of the big spender lie.
I cannot cite the article–but recently an article did note that President Bush did not sign a bill which would have added more to the budget. But open taking office Obama did–and had it credited to Bush administration.
With all Mr. Brand’s research–perhaps he can ferret this out and point out my error. Thanks.
I am not sure that Prudence is in error. There may have been a number of bills that Bush pushed for, that congress passed that were on the desk of the President when administrations changed. Bush might well have left the bail out of the banking and financial institutions unsigned so that the cost of that bail out which was being put together by Bush administration would be recorded in the Obama’s first year. That would be part of that 17.6% increase mentioned in the article.