The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt

Our friends on the left like to argue that it was George Bush that created our large sovereign debt.  Yes debt grew extensively during the Bush Presidency, and W wasn’t exactly a spendthrift.  It is helpful, however, to look at what part of the Bush Presidency the debt started to skyrocket.  Hint: it’s not during the Republican controlled Congress.

The debt started to skyrocket almost the instance that Nancy Pelosi became speaker and Harry Reid became Senate President.  In the first six years of the Bush Presidency the debt went up around $2.7 T, in the six years that followed the debt went up $6T a significant increase.

To put it in perspective, the debt limit increase just agreed to is greater than the entire debt growth during the first six years of the Bush Administration.  This is not Bush’s fault. It’s the Pelosi-Reid-Obama regimes.

No matter which way the left tries to spin it, runaway debt is their creation, not ours.  They also like to say the recent debt negotiations were a “manufactured crisis”.  They were a crisis only if you believe in Big Government.  They were not a crisis if you believe in limited government.  In fact they were a much needed conversation to discuss the size and scope of government.  A conversation we somehow blew.  

About Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno

  • Blame whoever you want, and yes the last 6 years are mind-numbingly pathetic. But that is simply no excuse to increase the debt by 2.7T. That in and of itself is an abomination – Republican President and Congress – the debt should have gone down, not up.

  • The blue colors of this graph show when Democrats held complete control of Congress, while the white areas show when Republicans held complete control.  The two purple areas show when Democrats controlled the Senate, as York notes above, and when Republicans controlled only the House.  This gives a much different picture of when job losses occurred, and who controlled policy in Congress when it happened.

    Also note the Byron York-linked articlein this Hot Air piece:

    As far as tax cuts are concerned, Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy – along with everybody else who paid income taxes. But does Brown remember that tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?

    Revenues fell in Bush’s first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That’s a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. (Revenues slid downward a bit in 2008, and a lot in 2009, when the financial crisis sent the economy into a tailspin.) “Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts ‘cost,'” says one GOP strategist. “We’re saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue.”

    And deficits shrank. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today’s $1.6 trillion deficit.