On Thursday I posted this article to Facebook which supports the headline “Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data“
In a private message someone said to me “you’re conveniently forgetting that Pres. Obama returned the costs of the war into the national debt, where it belongs, unlike W who hid it by taking it out of the books”.
Here is my response:
I can’t find where Bush excluded the war debt from the budget. (Not sure he can do that) It looks like he excluded projections of the cost of the war in 2006 and his final budget (2007) only requested bridge funding to the next administration. These actions were misleading, at best, and very wrong however; that practice wouldn’t impact actual deficits only projected deficits.
The cost of the war according to the CBO is 709 billion spread over 8 years 2003-2010. An average of just over 88 billion/yr. The cost of the bailout alone is 100 billion and projections for healthcare are in excess of 1.6 trillion.
The final Bush deficit (2007) was just under 200 billion. (Democrats owned the purse strings from 2006 and their first fiscal year was 2008 which was just under 500 billion) The first Obama deficit (2010) is just over 1.5 trillion according to CBO projections.
I agree Bush’s excluding projections for the war was wrong but it doesn’t impact the actual numbers.
Am I missing something? Does a president have the authority to “take the war debt off the books”?
I want to be accurate and if I’m missing something please straighten me out.
Filed under: Debt/Deficit, Government Spending
Hey Gary,
Your friend is mostly correct, I believe. I am no budget expert, but after a year or so of reading Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports, I know that bipartisan agency has the best analysis on this.
Several CRS reports deal with this issue, reading just the opening summaries should give you an idea of how the budget wonks see this situation:
- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32783.pdf
- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
And I quote: “Most war funds were provided in either supplemental appropriations enacted after the fiscal year has begun and in bridge funds included in DOD’s regular appropriations acts to cover war costs before supplementals are requested. In both cases, Congress generally designated war appropriations as emergency funding or designated for ‘overseas contingency operations,’ which exempts these funds from the caps and budget rules that limit funding for discretionary spending, which fund all DOD and State Department programs.”
The Obama Administration changed the Emergency Supplemental process, integrating “emergency” funding into the base annual budget. They were, in this instance, more honest with numbers than their predecessors.
There is debate among conservatives on War Supplemental spending… see Cato http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11103 vs. Heritage http://www.heritage.org/issues/national-security-and-defense/budget-and-defense-spending/war-spending
Josh,
Thanks for the reply, I understand that the Bush way is very dishonest, and the Obama way is more honest.
Am I correct in stating the way Bush did it wouldn’t impact the actual deficit only projected deficits?
Gary,
I agree with you- actual matters much more than projections. Not sure I can answer your question directly, essentially a hypothetical viewed from a past point in time.
The two administrations seem to differ little in terms of actual defense dollars spent. With Obama approving more discretionary spending, the debt and deficit picture under him is looking more bleak than under Bush.
Josh
http://www.TheCivilRoar.com