Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Washington Times: Obama more successful at cutting spending than Bush

obamabush.JPGThe arch-conservative Washington Times is not known for its gentle treatment of Obama or its esteem for the spending records of Democratic Congresses, which makes their lead story today all the more surprising:

President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.

The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs.

Among the president's victories are canceling the multibillion-dollar F-22 Raptor program, ending the LORAN-C radio-based ship navigation system and culling a series of low-dollar education grants. In each of those cases, Mr. Obama succeeded in eliminating programs that Mr. Bush repeatedly failed to end.[...]

By comparison, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Mr. Bush won 40 percent of his spending cuts in fiscal 2006 and won less than 15 percent of his proposed cuts for 2007 and 2008.

And if you compare the major early initiatives of George W. Bush and Obama, the picture is even starker. Bush cut trillions in taxes without paying for it and added trillions in Medicare spending without paying for it. Obama, by contrast, put the stimulus bill on the deficit, as you would expect for a countercyclical program, but his health-care bill actually raises more money than it spends, and reduces the deficit in both its first and second decades. Saying Obama is far more fiscally responsible than Bush may not be saying much, but it does put Republican fury about the deficit in context.

Photo credit: By Jae C. Hong/Associated Press

By Ezra Klein  |  January 14, 2010; 11:49 AM ET
Categories:  Budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The new bank tax, and beyond
Next: Can't know the facts without a fact sheet

Comments

"Mr. Bush won 40 percent of his spending cuts in fiscal 2006 and won less than 15 percent of his proposed cuts for 2007 and 2008."

_________

As you'll recall, Ezra, the '07 and '08 budgets were with a Democrat Congress, so let's compare apples to apples, shall we?

"but his health-care bill actually raises more money than it spends, and reduces the deficit in both its first and second decades."

_________

If you don't mind, I'd like to take a "wait and see" approach to this claim....it's yet to be implemented, therefore Congress hasn't had to actually make those cuts in Medicare it claims it will...and I don't think Dems have the political will to make them either...

Posted by: boosterprez | January 14, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Left handed compliment of the day: "Obama more successful at cutting spending than Bush." I can't imagine what's next - Obama golfs better than Stephen Hawking?

Posted by: ostap666 | January 14, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Washington Times is not known for its gentle treatment of Obama or its esteem for the spending records of Democratic Congresses

Perhaps they're looking to alter their revenue model now that the bat-guano insane head of the Unification Church has stopped handing out blank checks.

Ironically, it looks like their long-standing place as the premier right-wing propaganda sheet couldn't hack it in a free-market environment.

Can penetrative op-eds by Katerina Van Huevel and Amy Goodman be far behind?

Posted by: antontuffnell | January 14, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Hardly something to cheer about when the majority of cuts came in Defense, and Obama's asking for approval of those cuts from a Democratic Congress. We all know how liberals feel about defense...

Obama had the wind at his back.

Posted by: boosterprez | January 14, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

And, lest we forget, his spending deficits for 2010 will FAR OUTWEIGH Bush's deficits, with a projected 2010 deficit of $1.8 trillion.

The cuts this article brags about represent less than 1/2 of 1% of that deficit. He's going to have to do a whole lot more cutting of the budget to satisfy ANYONE.

Posted by: boosterprez | January 14, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Yep, no suprise. The unaccounted tax cuts and medicare expansion have always been my biggest domestic points of contention with the Bush Administration. Allowing them to pass unfunded made little economic sense at the time, and even less now.

Posted by: trident420 | January 14, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company