[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 17 (Thursday, February 4, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Page S477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            BUDGET DEFICITS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I recommend to my colleagues a Robert Robb 
column, published in the Arizona Republic, February 3, 2010.
  In it, Robb points to the massive deficits in President Obama's 
budget and argues that the administration has no grounds on which to 
pass the blame.
  He explains that the deficits President Obama recommends from 2011 on 
are entirely his own, driven by vast new spending, and that they are 
far higher than historical deficits.
  Robb writes that, even though President Obama's budget projects that 
the recession will be over by 2011, he proposes that Federal spending 
continue at nearly 24 percent of gross domestic product through 2020, 
far beyond the historical average of around 20.5 percent.
  He also points out an enormous increase in the debt as a share of 
GDP:

       After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated 
     federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, 
     when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it 
     would grow to 77 percent by 2020.

  Robb recommends returning spending to its historical average as a 
means of getting the deficit under control.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this article be printed in the Record 
and urge my colleagues to consider the facts and arguments contained in 
it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Arizona Republic, Feb. 3, 2010]

                    Obama Deficits Not Bush's Fault

                      (By Robert Robb, Columnist)

       The Obama administration undoubtedly wants the budget 
     message to be all the good things it wants to do for the 
     American people, except those who make the mistake of earning 
     too much money.
       There's a second stimulus, rechristened a jobs program. 
     Health care reform, repositioned as an attack on the 
     insurance industry's dirty deeds. New middle-class tax 
     breaks. More spending on education. Lots more spending on 
     infrastructure and clean energy.
       The budget is intended to position the Democratic Party as 
     the friend of the middle-class. But the message is blotted 
     out by all the red ink.
       Obama likes to depict himself as a deficit victim. He 
     inherited a huge deficit and a deep recession. Not his fault.
       Certainly the Republicans during the Bush years were 
     fiscally irresponsible. But within historical bounds. The 
     deficits in Obama's budget are beyond historical bounds and 
     are his alone.
       Even with Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues in 2007 were at 
     the average as a percentage of GDP, 18.5 percent, going back 
     to 1960. The deficit was just 1.2 percent of GDP, 
     historically on the low side. Accumulated federal debt was 36 
     percent of GDP.
       Then the recession hit. From 2008 to 2009, federal spending 
     increased 18 percent. This was a budget year that straddled 
     the Bush and Obama presidencies. But the spending increase 
     was driven by anti-recession measures, predominately the Bush 
     stimulus and bailouts.
       Obama supported these measures. In fact, his complaint 
     about the Bush stimulus was that it was too small.
       This raises a question of political ontology: If Obama 
     agreed with Bush, is it still just Bush's fault?
       The Bush tax cuts expire this year. Except for the legacy 
     costs of the Iraq war, Obama is free to recommend changing 
     anything Bush did. The deficits he recommends from 2011 on 
     are purely his own.
       And they are massive, and driven by spending.
       Obama purposes that the federal government spend over 25 
     percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a historical average of 
     around 20.5 percent. He justifies this as necessary to 
     continue to fight the recession.
       Obama, however, projects that the recession will be fully 
     over in 2011 and robust growth under way. Yet he proposes 
     that federal spending continue to be nearly 24 percent of GDP 
     through 2020.
       In other words, rather than wind down the additional 
     recession spending after recovery, Obama is proposing that it 
     simply become a new, higher base.
       After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated 
     federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, 
     when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it 
     would grow to 77 percent by 2020.
       If Obama were to recommend a path to return spending to its 
     historical share of economic output, in 2020 the deficit 
     would be just $255 billion, about what the federal government 
     spends each year on large capital projects, and just 1 
     percent of GDP. In other words, not a problem. And federal 
     spending would have still increased by more than 4 percent a 
     year since 2008.
       Instead, Obama recommends a 2020 deficit of over $1 
     trillion and a troubling 4.2 percent of GDP.
       Rather than recommend deficit reducing measures himself, 
     Obama wants to turn the job over to a bipartisan commission. 
     Republicans suspect a rat, an attempt to get them to support 
     even larger tax increases than Obama is already proposing.
       They are right. Under Obama's budget, revenues are already 
     projected to be 19.6 percent of GDP, much higher than the 
     historical average. Yet he still proposes trillion dollar 
     deficits.
       The problem is spending. Obama wants to do too much of it.

                          ____________________