Author Offers His Slant on National Debt

To The Editor:
John Young of Ocean View is correct in his letter of June 29. The federal debt has increased by $3.6 trillion under the Obama administration. However, the current debt is $14.3 trillion, which means that the debt at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency was $10.7 trillion, not $8.4 trillion as Young stated. The increase under Bush alone was $4.9 trillion, not $2.8 trillion.
The Congressional Budget Office confirms the $10.7 trillion figure, an increase from $0.9 trillion at the beginning of the Reagan administration. Of the $10.8 trillion increase over that time span, $9.1 trillion (84 percent) occurred under Republican administrations.
The Bush administration’s revenue and spending record epitomizes the “reckless spending” mentality that Democrats are accused of. Government spending increased by more than in any other administration since Reagan’s — at least twice as much as the increase in revenue during Bush’s tenure. In order to accommodate that spending spree, the debt limit was raised no fewer than seven times while Bush was in office.
Young blames Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and congressional Democrats for the increase in spending between 2006 and 2008. But Congress by itself cannot enact legislation; presidential approval is required. Bush vetoed 44 bills, but only four were spending bills. The claim that Bush’s tax cuts were instrumental in job creation is dubious at best. Assuming that the following statistics from a Wall Street Journal article are accurate, job growth was anemic, and the trickle-down theory would have to be judged a colossal failure: A net 3 million jobs were created under Bush, a pittance compared to the administrations of Clinton (23 million), Carter (10.5 million), and Lyndon Johnson (11.9 million). Furthermore, many jobs that were created left the U.S. for countries such as China, India, and Mexico.
Two other facts remain: Obama inherited 75 percent of the current debt. And as much as half the debt increase under his administration `can reasonably be attributed to interest on that inherited debt, and to the lingering effects of Bush’s disastrous economic record. Apparently most Americans understand Bush’s complicity: Respondents to a recent Quinnipiac poll blame him for our economic crisis by a 2 to 1 margin over Obama.
Still, I agree with Young that Obama cannot be completely absolved of responsibility for the current federal debt. But whereas he describes as “preposterous” the notion that Obama is blameless, I reserve that description for the accusation by some that Obama is mostly or entirely to blame. That accusation is as misinformed and erroneous as the fans’ reaction in this baseball-game analogy: The starting pitcher and three relievers – let’s call them Ron, George Sr., Bill, and George W., give up 10 runs, leaving their team trailing 10-0 (debt = $10.7 trillion). Then a pitcher named Barack enters the game. Two runners already on base score, and Barack gives up two additional runs. The team loses, 14-0 (debt = $14.3 trillion) – and some fans blame Obama for the loss. Now that’s preposterous.
JAMES DAVIS
Avalon