Deficits Bad Under Bush — Deficits Required Under Obama

You can always count on genius economist Paul Krugman to tell the truth … as he sees it. He wrote an article last week, published in the “paper of record” (hah), The New York Times entitled “Moment of Truthiness.”

The article was about how voters “are often misinformed and politicians aren’t reliably truthful” when it comes to the deficit. On that point he will get no argument from me. Most voters don’t give two hoots about the federal deficit as they go off to their part-time jobs because either their hours have been cut to part-time status due to Obamacare or part time gigs are all they can find.

Krugman claimed that voters today have not been informed how much the budget deficit has actually fallen. Krugman asked Google’s chief economist Hal Varian to run a consumer survey (at no charge of course) to find out. It’s nice when leftists do favors for other leftists. Have Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ask Varian for a free survey.

The results were that 40% thought it had gone up a lot. Only 12% said it had gone down. Not that I trust any numbers calculated by the government from either side of the aisle, but let’s take them at their words . . . this time.

Krugman explained that Republicans — not Democrats — were lying or ignorant, citing examples of Eric Cantor and Rand Paul saying that we are running trillion dollar deficits every year.

Krugman asked his readers whether the Republicans knew the deficit was shrinking or even if they cared – rhetorically of course. His answer was, they don’t care. He implied they would just continue to misinform the poor electorate.

So what about the deficit? Well, the White House said recently the deficit will shrink to $759 billion.

I guess were supposed to celebrate that. According to Luke Johnson at Huff Po, it is great news. Only $759 billion. Of course it is a “will shrink” estimate. It hasn’t shrunk to that yet, but government estimates, as we all know, are always accurate and are never quietly adjusted up or down at a later date.

Johnson explained it will be the first deficit under $1 trillion in the Obama presidency and then added that Obama inherited Bush’s mess. They just can’t get past “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

But what if it were still Bush? Would they be so gleeful speaking about $759 billion deficits? Let’s take a look, shall we.

Andrew Taylor wrote in July of 2008:

“(T)he government’s budget deficit will surge past half a trillion next year, according to gloomy new estimates … a record flood of red ink. The deficit will hit $482 billion in the 2009 budget year. That results in the biggest deficit ever in terms of dollars… The figures are so eye-popping in dollar terms that it may restrain the appetite of the next president to add to the deficit with expensive spending programs.”

Nice to know that didn’t happen.

Whoa, step back! Did he really say $482 billion and gloom and record red ink? Huh. Funny, but I haven’t heard it described quite that way in recent years.

In 2004, Robert Freeman, a progressive blogger and commie described a “Bush budget deficit death spiral.” He explained that it is good for a few but “a death sentence for all the rest of the country. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record.”

So let’s see – $759 billion (maybe) – $415 billion equals a difference of $344 billion (minimum). Wow – almost double. I’m just saying.

In September 2009, Freeman wrote that Bush’s first full year delivered a $157 billion deficit and he never looked back. Maybe that’s what Obama means by his slogan “Forward”… to higher deficits?

Finally in 2011, just two years ago, Freeman wrote excusing Obama’s deficit spending by affirming the old Keynesian diatribe: “did the turnaround require deficit spending? Of course it did!”

So the statists just affirmed what we already know. When a Republican is president, regardless of the circumstances; 9/11/2001, nine months into Bush’s presidency; deficits are bad and are never required.

When a Marxist is president, deficits aren’t bad and are required.