In 2008, Barack Obama charmed the nation with powerful and emotional speeches promising “Hope” and “Change.” At that time, George W. Bush and his policies, specifically his fiscal and foreign policy, were harshly criticized. The U.S. had been in two wars for several years, in which we were spending billions of dollars, the national debt was rapidly growing, the financial system was falling apart, and analysts all over were screaming, “THE SKY IS FALLING!”
Barack Obama was supposed to be our savior, that great leader who would guide us with a steady hand through the messy aftermath of George Bush’s presidency. On several occasions he promised to end many of Bush’s failed policies. Instead, he has said one thing and done another.
George Bush was the first president in U.S. history to lower taxes while also starting a war. Bush proposed legislation, and signed into law, the first of his two tax cuts in 2001. This was before the events of September 11, 2001. In 2003, Bush proposed legislation for the second of his two tax cuts. These lowered the Federal income tax for all Americans. This was signed into law after the war in Iraq had officially been declared months earlier and after the U.S. officially had a presence in Afghanistan for nearly two years. This act of raising spending while cutting revenue was unprecedented and widely condemned.
Obama, however, has continued this unprecedented act with little reaction from the press or American people.
Obama has aided military conflicts in both Libya and Syria, expanded the war in Afghanistan, and “ended” the war in Iraq (there is still a large military presence in Iraq of “non-combat” troops). In fact, during Bush’s presidency there were approximately 630 U.S. deaths in Afghanistan. Since Obama has taken office that number has nearly tripled: 1,548 U.S. deaths have been reported in Afghanistan, according to iCasualties.org. Obama has also expanded an under-reported drone war. According to CNN, under his administration, there have been 283 drone strikes in Pakistan alone as of September 2012. These attacks resulted in anywhere from 2,000 to 3,300 deaths, many of which were Pakistani civilians in close proximity to the targets being bombed. Obama has hardly been a peaceful president.
All of this has been done with almost no increase in taxes. Obama has extended the Bush Tax Cuts, twice. It is fair to point out that, recently, he ended the Bush Tax cuts on people earning more than $250,000, which is a step in the direction he promised. But in terms of cutting spending and raising revenue, especially in terms of foreign policy, he has failed miserably.
Actually, when one looks closely at cutting spending and raising revenue, Obama has done just the opposite.
Since Obama has taken office, spending as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has gone up and revenue as a percentage of GDP has gone down. According to an article by Michael Medved on The Daily Beast in which he cited the government’s own data, when Bill Clinton left office in 2000, spending was at a level of 18% of GDP. At the end of Bush’s two terms, spending was at a level of 20.8% of GDP. At the end of Obama’s first term, spending has risen to a level of 24.3%. In other words, after Clinton’s term, Bush raised spending. By a lot. However, Obama has also raised spending. By a lot more. That is hardly a step in the right direction of correcting our deficit, let alone paying off our debt.
But wait, there’s more.
At the end of Clinton’s term, revenue as a percentage of GDP was 20.4%, under Bush it went down to 17.6%, and under Obama it is at 15.8%. This means that since Clinton’s term, the amount of money the federal government collects annually has gone down.
To add to this, according to treasurydirect.gov, Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt in 8 years, Obama has added $6 trillion in four years. If George Bush was bad, Obama is terrible.
And it is not just foreign policy. It’s not just fiscal policy. When it comes to monetary policy, Obama is right there with Bush.
The Federal Reserve, the central banking system of the United States, has the most direct influence on our economy. It conducts the majority of our monetary policy and can act without congressional approval. It controls all sorts of things related to the value of the U.S. Dollar.
In 2006, Bush appointed Ben Bernanke to Chairman of the Federal Reserve. This is arguably one of the most powerful positions in the world. Since 2006, the U.S., and much of the world, has suffered major economic downturns and the financial system has been on the brink of a major collapse. Bernanke, in an attempt to right our course, enacted three attempts of quantitative easing, an unconventional monetary policy in which the Federal Reserve buys large amounts of financial assets from large commercial banks in order to inject the economy with more money.
For some reason, Obama decided to reappoint Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve. No matter if you think Bernanke is the most brilliant man on earth, if Obama wants to step away from Bush and his policies, one would assume he would not reappoint the man most responsible for several of those policies. What kind of change is that?
