As the nation’s federal budget problem comes back into the spotlight, it has unfortunately been forgotten that as recently as 2008, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office both issued spending forecasts that determined that the federal government would have a budget surplus in 2012 and continuing thereafter. Although OMB and CBO used quite different policy assumptions, both foresaw surpluses starting in 2012 — CBO projected a surplus of $87 billion for 2012; OMB projected a surplus of $48 billion for 2012.
Instead, while a recession and some temporary tax relief reduced the government’s revenues, federal spending soared, the surplus disappeared, and the federal debt increased by trillions of dollars.
During the Obama administration, instead of moving towards the projected surpluses, the federal deficit exploded to a record $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, and $1.3 trillion in 2011 — a level nearly triple the highest deficit ever recorded previously. The key role of the Obama administration’s ongoing spending increases demands more attention, even though the economic assumptions of the 2008 forecasts proved mistaken and tax revenues declined. Tax revenues will increase when economic growth is restored — indeed, CBO currently projects that revenues for 2012 will rebound to 2008 levels even with no change to the Bush tax rates. But the level of spending that has generated record deficits can only be fixed by a president and Congress. So, in light of both the OMB and CBO 2008 forecasts of a surplus in 2012, it is reasonable to ask how close spending is to the 2008 path to a balanced budget.
In 2008, with the economy in recession, federal spending was just under $3 trillion. The Obama administration and the 2009–2010 Congress chose to enact extraordinary spending increases, starting with the 2009 “stimulus” bill, but then extending to various appropriations bills and new entitlement spending (such as health care spending). As a result, federal spending in 2011 alone was increased to $3.6 trillion — nearly $400 billion more than the Bush administration had contemplated, and more than $600 billion above the 2008 level.
A look at the budget proposal the Obama administration submitted to Congress this year shows the significantly higher level of spending each and every year relative to the spending previously projected in the 2008 CBO forecast:

The CBO director at the time of its 2008 forecast was Peter Orzag, who one year later became President Obama’s budget director. Nonetheless, the Obama administration sought to spend at least $4 trillion more over the next decade than the path of earlier spending policies that its own budget director had forecast previously in 2008. That is hundreds of billions of extra new spending every year. It will continue to generate untenable deficits. CBO recently forecast that if current spending and tax policies continue unchanged, then annual deficits will exceed $1 trillion every year for the rest of this decade. These unprecedented spending levels and deficits have predictably generated major concerns about the fiscal situation of the United States, to the detriment of our economy.
Not only will Americans miss out on the surpluses that CBO and OMB both had forecast for 2012 and thereafter, but the spending increases adopted by President Obama and the Congress of 2009-2010 have left our nation in a perilous place — with a worsening debt burden more like Europe’s than like the 2008 forecast. Equally importantly, those elevated spending levels present a straitjacket for our economy that must be escaped.
What is to be done? Relative to the president’s budget proposal, approximately $4 trillion of spending could be avoided by returning to the spending path that CBO set out in 2008, and even more with the OMB planned spending levels from 2008. The president’s own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, recommended that discretionary spending levels go back to the 2008 level. That was a sensible recommendation to begin to reduce federal spending. It is unfortunate that to date the president has not been willing to support it, even though it came from his own commission. The president’s insistence on continued spending increases, even if slowed from his original plan, will not solve the deficit problem nor fix our economy.
— Jeff Rosen served as general counsel and senior policy advisor at the White House Office of Management and Budget during 2006–2009, and is now a lawyer in Washington, D.C.
"Relative to the president’s budget proposal, approximately $4 billion of spending could be avoided by returning to the spending path that CBO set out in 2008"
No. Trillion. With a T.
It is a measure of the insanity of the present fiscal course that such a mistake is possible...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously has to be one of the stupidest articles ever on NRO. This guy acts like the previous White House left the fiscal house in order when it was handed to Obama. Does this dolt not remember the panic in the last months of the Bush administration, TARP, Medicare D., nearly a Trillion dollars in war spending and unpaid for tax cuts. Almost all of the debt we've incurred are due to these things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou said it, DrPalin. What a CYA posting, and once I read the guy's tagline at the bottom, I knew he was full of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou probably shouldn't be calling something else "stupid" if you don't know TARP was paid back, and was a one-shot, one-fiscal-year deal to begin with.
No, the extra trillion dollars of spending over what Bush spent for the last three years can't have a thing to do with it the current deficits; it's must be all Bush and more Bush.
Open your eyes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you believe the budget math of the government, then TARP was paid back. However, TARP wasn't just used to by distressed assets (in fact, it never was used for that). Michael Medved does a neat trick: He splits off the use of TARP under Bush and the TARP used under Obama and declares that the Bush use of TARP has been "paid back", a trick that I think that you are employing as well.
TARP was a bad idea, period. Never mind the precedent it set for an actual socialist coming into office to pursue, after TARP was passed it was immediately used not for buying up subprime mortgages, as the law intended, but for recapitalizing banks, bailing out car companies, and providing funding for dumb stimulus ideas. It was an exercise in the lawlessness of government and even if it was "paid back" no one should support such a law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusechrisbssr-- I am very sympathetic to your point of view. at BEST TARP was a necessary evil. BUT-- arithmatic is arithmatic, the BANKS which took the TARP paid back interest and repaid warrants in excess of the amount they took. The BANK TARP was a net positive for taxpayers. AIG is far murkier; and The Obama UAW TARP was a disaster for taxpayers. GM and Chrysler should have gone through an orderly bankruptcy; but that would have rejected UAW pension benefits, so all taxpayers are now paying legacy UAW retirees.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe real cost of the financial crisis wasn't TARP. The real cost is the massive unemployment (and the deficits that naturally arise from that unemployment).
The problem with TARP isn't whether the banks pay the money back. The problem with TARP is that it creates moral hazard and the problem of "too big to fail," which will ensure that the crisis will be repeated in the future. When the people who cause a crisis don't have to pay for it, they have little reason to not cause the crisis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you're saying that goverment stimulus doesn't work?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChris, it doesn't matter if TARP was a bad idea or a good idea. What it absolutely is NOT is a cause for the massive budget deficits we have today, as the post which I responded to claims in an attempt to blame the obscene financial irresponsibility of the current administration on Bush.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour problem, DavidJ, is that you think that there is a partition of government, one under a Republican president and the other under a Democratic one.
I only see government. In that sense, TARP has contributed to the deficit of the United States government, never mind the lawlessness that attached to it.
We're in so much trouble.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTARP will only be fully paid back only when the banks pay back the Treasury for all of the lost revenue caused by the economic crisis which was precipitated by their reckless behavior.
I love it when people defend the banks by pointing out they paid back what they directly received via TARP.
An analogy:
Joe, who has an important business relationship with Sally as the only supplier of a certain special ingredient of which he is the only supplier, one day recklessly drives his semi-truck into one of Sally's two restaurants while high on drugs, causing $150,000 in damage. In distress because she will lose even more money if Joe isn't able to make deliveries to her other restaurant with a big event on the horizon, Sally loans Joe $10,000 to perform emergency repairs on his truck so he can resume deliveries as soon as possible. In the meantime, Sally loses $1,000,000 in lost profits at the restaurant that was hit by the truck while it is being repaired. As soon as he can, Joe pays back the $10,000 Sally loans him.
Joe later sells his delivery business and becomes a banker.
Conservative Analyst:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"As Joe is a member of the protected financial class, since he paid Sally her $10,000 loan back, she shouldn't hold him accountable for anything else."
Good God, you are the most slobbering hack I have ever, ever seen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama voted for TARP, didn't he? Didn't he also push through a Trillion dollar Stimulus in his first month in office? Didn't he also jack up domestic spending to 25% of GDP versus historical levels of 18%.
These are facts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously has to be one of the stupidest comments ever on NRO.
I've never understood the logic that if the (R)s spent like drunken sailors, then the (D)s spending like an entire GD drunken navy was somehow not part of the overall picture.
The national debt, as I type this, is $15,115,448,027,224 and I had to guess at the last six numbers because they were moving so fast on the debt clock. I don't know how much Dr P considers "almost all", but you have to be a true idiot to think "almost all" our debt was racked up when Bush was president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh wow. We actually have someone who served in the OMB under George W. Bush willing to opine on budget issues.
Talk about hubris.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe word "budget" shouldn't even be a part of any Lefty's vocabulary.
After all, money just grows on trees and as long as the tree doesn't die you can always go back and get more.
CAPCHA is "two left feet". So true, so true.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen you must not believe that Bill Clinton is a lefty, as he balanced the federal budget.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Bush-Republican Congress's biggest deficit was a fourth the size of the Obama-Democrat Congress's smallest deficit.
But, I guess Bush's were worse because he was a Republican.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegregory-- not quite true, For the sake of accuracy-- the highest Bush-Repub deficits were FY 2003 and 2004 approx $450Billion -- that is about 1/3 of the BEST Obama-Dem deficit $1.4Trillion (not 1/4). Of course ibn FY we were fighting a hot war in Iraq, the occupation if Afghan, starting the Dept of Homeland Security, paying for No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. Bush and the Repubs SHOULD have cut other spending $100B to account-- they didn't-- they were wrong. The Obamaniacs-- they are 3 times worse running annual insane $1.5TRILLION deficits and refusing to cut anything other than defense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight. That is only because the Bush administration escaped most of the damage from the financial crisis which had origins in policies that occurred on their watch.
The George W. Bush administration inherited a large surplus and promptly turned it into a huge deficit.
Who does that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse