Political Hotsheet
August 3, 2009 5:30 PM

$1 Trillion More in Debt Since Obama Took Office

(CBS/iStockPhoto)
So rapid is the pace of deficit spending by the federal government, that the National Debt has increased over a trillion dollars since President Obama took office.

On Inauguration Day, the Debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows that as of July 31st, the debt hit $11.669 trillion.

During the last administration, it took over 2 ½ years for the National Debt to increase a trillion dollars. But by the time former president George W. Bush left office, he had run up the deficit by a record amount: $4.9-trillion over eight years.

A great deal of current deficit spending was already in the pipeline from the Bush administration and Mr. Obama, anticipating this day, said that increases have to be kept in perspective.

"They basically handed me a bill for $1.3 trillion and said, 'Here, fix it,'" insisted the president last week at a Town Hall Meeting in Bristol, VA. "And now they're on TV saying, why haven't you fixed it yet -- in the middle of the greatest recession since the Great Depression."

But since Mr. Obama took office, Congress approved his $787-billion stimulus plan. In addition, the new Administration had reign over the second half of the $700-billion bank bailout program.

"Look, I understand the concern about debt," Mr. Obama said Thursday in Raleigh, N.C. "I'm looking at these spreadsheets every day. We dug ourselves a deep hole." And he concedes that the recovery package enacted on his watch has added to the problem.

"We're going to have to tighten our belt," he said. But he was quick to add that it cannot be done "just as the economy is coming out of recession. No economist would recommend that."

He says he understands those who believe the government is way too deep in red ink for him to pursue a trillion dollar program to overhaul the system of health care coverage in America, but he remains adamant about it. And he says that in the long run – over ten years - his plan will be deficit neutral and end up saving taxpayers money.

"We're not going to make progress on the deficit without dealing with health care," said spokesman Robert Gibbs today.

He said the administration doesn't think it can get the deficit under better control until it gets the economy moving again – and Mr. Obama believes health care reform is an indispensable part of that strategy.

The budget numbers issued by the Administration in May project the deficit in the current fiscal year will top $1.8-trillion dollars. But an updated report is due this month, and an even larger deficit is expected to be announced for the current fiscal year, which began October 1st – 3 ½ months before Mr. Obama was sworn in.


(CBS)
Mark Knoller is a CBS News White House correspondent. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here. You can also follow him on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/markknoller.
Tags:
Debt ,
Deficit ,
Spending ,
Barack Obama
Topics:
Economy
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 109 Comments
by independent1234 September 12, 2009 10:23 PM EDT
This is for Iam4honesty...How about William Ayers, Van Jones, ACORN and Blagoiavich? All who have had very close relationships to Obama...just to name a few!
Reply to this comment
by tautomer August 23, 2009 6:17 PM EDT
Actually from Jan 2001 to Jan 2007 (6 years) Republicans racked up right around $3 Trillion ($5T to $8T), the Dems took over in Jan 2007 and have racked up 4 trillion ($8T to $11T)in just 19 months!!!!

Just yesterday Obama indicated he plans to rack up $9 Trillion during his administration rather than the already obscene $7 Trillion he initially indicated!

Obama is like Reese Whitherspoon on Rodeo Drive with a limitless Charge Card! Buying votes until at last the country is broke.
Reply to this comment
by amk212 August 4, 2009 9:22 PM EDT
Irritating comments from this thread:
1) People justifying Obama's reckless spending by saying that Bush was worse. Bush/Greenspan was disastrous for the economy. Obama has been terrible as well. A president needs to be judged on his own merit, not compared to a prior.

2) People who say things like, "What is Obama supposed to do -- nothing?" Actually, doing nothing is a viable economic alternative, just difficult politically since people demand action. With better economic education, people can be made to understand that the government cure is usually far worse that the disease in the long run. Keynes is blindly hailed as a hero by many but there are numerous economists (including Nobel Prize winners) who argue convincingly to the contrary, F.A. Hayek among them.

3) People blaming "greedy Wall Street people". I read a great analogy comparing the blaming of bankers to blaming gravity when a plane crashes. People, whether bankers, or not, respond to incentives. The incentives put in place by the government (low interest rates, encouraging lending to unqualified people) led to the natural, if not unfortunate, decisions by Wall Street bankers pursuing profits.

4) When people think we have "turned the corner" and things are now getting better (or that things would have been worse had the government not intervened). By increasing our debt, we have merely postponed the day of reckoning. The future tax revenue needed to finance this debt is too staggering to imagine. More likely, we'll monetize it, which will lead to inflation the likes of which this country has never seen.

Summary: Contrary to what the government would like you to believe, and what most in the media unquestioningly pass along, there are no simple solutions to a two decade consumption binge fueled by borrowing. The recession is the cure that allows for restructuring and future growth. We need to pay down our debt, start saving, and use that savings to invest in productive assets. A time of pain would be followed by growth and long run economic health. Instead, we dig our hole deeper and deeper by the day...



4)
Reply to this comment
by amk212 August 4, 2009 9:21 PM EDT
Irritating comments from this thread:
1) People justifying Obama's reckless spending by saying that Bush was worse. Bush/Greenspan was disastrous for the economy. Obama has been terrible as well. A president needs to be judged on his own merit, not compared to a prior.

2) People who say things like, "What is Obama supposed to do -- nothing?" Actually, doing nothing is a viable economic alternative, just difficult politically since people demand action. With better economic education, people can be made to understand that the government cure is usually far worse that the disease in the long run. Keynes is blindly hailed as a hero by many but there are numerous economists (including Nobel Prize winners) who argue convincingly to the contrary, F.A. Hayek among them.

3) People blaming "greedy Wall Street people". I read a great analogy comparing the blaming of bankers to blaming gravity when a plane crashes. People, whether bankers, or not, respond to incentives. The incentives put in place by the government (low interest rates, encouraging lending to unqualified people) led to the natural, if not unfortunate, decisions by Wall Street bankers pursuing profits.

4) When people think we have "turned the corner" and things are now getting better (or that things would have been worse had the government not intervened). By increasing our debt, we have merely postponed the day of reckoning. The future tax revenue needed to finance this debt is too staggering to imagine. More likely, we'll monetize it, which will lead to inflation the likes of which this country has never seen.

Summary: Contrary to what the government would like you to believe, and what most in the media unquestioningly pass along, there are no simple solutions to a two decade consumption binge fueled by borrowing. The recession is the cure that allows for restructuring and future growth. We need to pay down our debt, start saving, and use that savings to invest in productive assets. A time of pain would be followed by growth and long run economic health. Instead, we dig our hole deeper and deeper by the day...



4)
Reply to this comment
by cloverhills August 4, 2009 5:54 PM EDT
The final Bush tax cuts became effective in May 2003. They provided tax relief to every American who paid income taxes, created a new bottom 10% bracket rate, doubled the child tax credit to $1,000 and removed 13 million low income earners from the tax role.

From that point until the end of 2007 the country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth of over 50 months with over 8 million jobs created. Real GDP averaged over 3% and unemployment averaged 5%. Tax receipts exceeded CBO projections by almost 450 billion from 2003 through 2007. For the tax year 2006 (latest year data available) the top 1% had 22% share of income and paid 40% of total taxes (highest percent in 40 years) up from 21% and 37.4% respectively in 2000. In 1990 1% share of income was 14% so the rich got richer while Clinton was president.

Government spending increased by 27% from 1993 to 2000. From 2001 to 2008 it increased by almost 60% Spending was 18.5% of GDP in 2001 and 20.2% in 2007. From 1993 through 1999 annual spending increase was less than 4%. From 2002 through 2006 the annual rate was greater than 7% in four of the years and greater than 6% in the other year.

It was the uncontrolled growth in government spending not the Bush tax cuts that caused the deficit to swell. And now Obama is planning on raising taxes while increasing government spending even more. A recipe for disaster.
Reply to this comment
by nra4ever August 4, 2009 4:06 PM EDT
"We're going to have to tighten our belt," he said. But he was quick to add that it cannot be done "just as the economy is coming out of recession. No economist would recommend that."

No economist would recommend that? I'm sorry Mr. President, I think EVERY economist would recommend that!
Reply to this comment
by Daves1221 August 4, 2009 3:30 PM EDT
The need to erase the blemish of illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program?EXCEPT THESE LAWS NEVER WERE ENFORCED? Neither the federal government, nor state county have denied most benefits to illegal immigrants. That is why one state?California?is involved in a monstrous budget deficit? California--THE SANCTUARY STATE-- has been overrun with millions of illegal entrants, as with Arizona and other border states. An the ingredients of federal law has been a breeding ground for entitlements that have been gravely compromised by pandering to minority caucuses REMEMBER THERE ARE MANY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, WHO WANT ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS ON HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN BE ALLOWED INTO THE US?.

It would be untrue to accuse just the Democrats for this, because all politicians have been involved in distracting?THE PEOPLE?from the real issues that cost them billions of dollars. The population falls for these distractions every time, so they can hit you with either higher taxes or give huge tax reimbursements to their corporate comrades. Illegal immigration is a major depletion of every tax treasury, throughout this land. Giving any kind of AMNESTY will enhance the predictable?OVERPOPULATION. The complete neglect of our interstate highway system, tunnels and bridges is just the slow eroding of our infrastructure. In the near future the population growth will explode, to over another hundred million people. IT would be an unmentionable catastrophe to open the doors wide at the border, giving millions of illegal immigrant?s expressway to a path to citizenship. Already our Senate has voted to give illegal immigrants and families a right to access the new health care provisions--WHICH THE TAXPAYER WILL PAY FOR?
THEREFORE THIS IS A FREE WELFARE FOR ALL PARIAH BUSINESSES THAT STILL HIRE ILLEGAL LABORERS.

You must decide the future of future generations, because just my ranting will have very little influence on the power brokers in Washington. Call your Senator or Congressman at 202-224-3121 and impress on the people you vote into office that you want an alternative to the predatory health care insurers. You want the right to choose? That includes the Universal government run system that certainly isn?t any worse than the profiteering insurers. That you also want your political representative to sever any path to citizenship, but to enforce a firm, permanent--ALL ENCOMPASSING-- E-Verify, police 287(g) enforcement and not to rescind the no-match letter or weaken ICE raids. Tell them you are a voter and convey to them, as you voted them into office as you can remove them, just as easy? Read the naked true facts by GOOGLING--NUMBERSUSA
Reply to this comment
by endurorob August 4, 2009 9:24 AM EDT
elz523 August 4, 2009 9:04 AM EDT
This is a great example of an unfair headline. You have to read 4 paragraphs in to get this point.

"A great deal of current deficit spending was already in the pipeline from the Bush administration and Mr. Obama, anticipating this day, said that increases have to be kept in perspective."

At this point and until the next budget is passed, the bill is on George Bush. There is some spending that has occurred that is a result of decisions made by President Obama (stimulus bill for instance), but most of that has yet to be spent.



What you are talking about as being in the pilpeline from Bush is the budget that was actually not presented to Bush by the dem congress because they did not think he would sign it so they let it sit until Obama got in office and he gleefully signed it as he does anything that includes spending money. You people need to get off the Bush thing. Obama is in charge now and making some very stupid decisions.
Reply to this comment
by velma179 August 4, 2009 1:39 PM EDT
endurorob--

1) There was a lot more "in the pipeline" than the budget legislation you refer to. Examples include War spending, TARP money, Medicare Rx spending-that-wasn't-paid-for etc..... obviously there is more.

2) Obama did not "gleefully sign" the budget that was left to him. That is so patently false, it serves to disprove your entire statement.

He clearly stated that he was signing the budget presented (including the "pork" projects proposed by both Republican and Democrat reps) to him as a matter of necessity in order to keep the government funded and it was with reluctance that he signed it.

It is also important to note that the country does not STOP and RESET between every succeeding administration and that the actions, policies, decisions of ALL previous administrations have the bearing of this continuity on the current administration.... Republican or Democrat.

Just because YOU don't like the guy who won the election and sits as president today doesn't change the way the country runs.
by elz523 August 4, 2009 9:04 AM EDT
This is a great example of an unfair headline. You have to read 4 paragraphs in to get this point.

"A great deal of current deficit spending was already in the pipeline from the Bush administration and Mr. Obama, anticipating this day, said that increases have to be kept in perspective."

At this point and until the next budget is passed, the bill is on George Bush. There is some spending that has occurred that is a result of decisions made by President Obama (stimulus bill for instance), but most of that has yet to be spent.
Reply to this comment
by tautomer August 4, 2009 7:42 AM EDT
On 1/20/2001, the day Bush was inaugurated the Fed Deficit stood at 5.7 trillion. On 1/2/2007, the day the Dems seized control of government it was 8.6 trillion.
Today after 2-1/2 years of Democrat rule it is 11.6 trillion.

In 6 yrs from 2001-2007 the Repubs increase the deficit by $3.1 trillion. In the 2-1/2 years they have been in power the Dems have increased it by 3.0 trillion!!!!

The Dems have increased it at a rate 2.3 times the prevailing average rate of increase when the Repubs ran the show.

Obama should have PLANNED instead of HOPED!!!!
Reply to this comment
by pensacola8-2009 August 4, 2009 3:16 AM EDT
When our federal government borrows, it is between 4-6% interest rate. The banking system then extends that rate somewhere between 12-36% to the consumer. If the banking system can get toxic assets off their banksheets where they can function on their own and repay the bail out money, it is good news, but the stimulous package is another matter, since most local governments lost taxation revenues after consumers quit buying homes and cars. That 6% sales tax on car sales meant about $1,200 everytime a new car was sold for $20,000.

Most citizens don't understand that we came very close to seeing the end of capitalism. If we had allowed the banking system to fail and not passed either a bailout or stimulous, we would definitely be 100% socialist country.

Borrowing is proof that we are not socialists. Countries with nationalized banks either are socialists or about to become socialist.

The stimulous package gave us one more year to be capitalists.
Reply to this comment
by Newster1 August 4, 2009 2:56 AM EDT
by SouthwestisBest August 3,
by taebok August 3,
'Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus of $559 billion.'
_______________

Wow, what school of economics did you drop out of? I want to take that course that tells you you have a $5.7 trillion dollar debt and a surplus! That sounds like a good delusion, I want to learn how to present my finances to the bank that way!"

Real easy dude, if you actually know how the budget works which you don't, the national debt is separate from the annual BUDGET!
It's like your home mortgage debt of $100,000, you are paying your monthly mortgage bill as scheduled, and out of your paycheck you have $200 a week left over but now that you clip coupons and made some changes you have $250 a week left over, thats a surplus you didn't have the week before and prior.

Duh that's real hard to understand eh?
Reply to this comment
by velma179 August 4, 2009 1:17 PM EDT
Right on all points alphaa10000!

It is so refreshing to read comments from people who actually know what they are talking about.
by duffyn August 4, 2009 1:50 AM EDT
fortunately right wingers are history. the voters figured them out and the old right wingers r history. thankfully!!!! yes, bush and his ilk created this mess. deregulated bankers r still out of control. on and on. the rpugs supported evry big corp rich man scheme there was and now there's no money left to play with but our good man Obama and others will tax it out of them and get the system back in balance. the modern repgunant party is finished. to return to power they must take up new mantaras. no one is lstening to their old decayed sh**t anymore.
Reply to this comment
by dixxson August 4, 2009 1:36 AM EDT
Surely this so called journalist is not suggesting OBAMA did this!
Where has he been the last 40 yrs and the last 10 months?
On the MOON?
This is the kind of SILLY JOURNALISM that,
FACILITATED Bush, a DRAFT DODGER in depiciting a millinaire, on the "Front Line" as a "COWARD!
FACILITATED the Bush" WHITE HOUSE "COUPE"!
FACILITATED starting the "OIL WARS"!
And is the reason (DAN RATHER) is suing CBS for, "70 Million".
Reply to this comment
by velma179 August 3, 2009 11:26 PM EDT
The country is not going down the toilet.

How dare you have such a profound disrespect for the USA!

If you think ANY one political party or individual or gathering of Congress can destroy the USA in a mere four to eight years... you have no faith in the core values of our country.

You're biased, judgmental words are despicable. No one you denigrate could be any worse than you, yourself.... picklepants7
Reply to this comment
by veteran71 August 3, 2009 11:07 PM EDT
Obama Not Blamed for Economy

(CBS) While Americans have become slightly more optimistic about the economy, they continue to have overwhelmingly negative perceptions of the current economic situation overall, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds.

But while 82 percent of those surveyed say the economy is in fairly or very bad shape, just four percent blame President Obama, who has now been in office for slightly more than six months.

Instead, they blame the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush (30 percent), Wall Street and financial institutions (29 percent), and Congress (12 percent).

Mr. Obama is seen as a better steward of the economy than Republicans in Congress. Asked who will make better decisions on the economy, a majority of those surveyed (56 percent) cited Mr. Obama. Just one in four pointed to Congressional Republicans.

OUCH!!....Gotta be worrying stats for Reich Wingnut Droolers who have suffered devastating Azz-Whoopin' Pound Downs at the Polls the last two election cycles......if only they could find a candidate that wasn't either Retarded, Insane, Senile, Stupid, or joined at the hip with some Witch-Doctor Preacher......Drat it all, that's all they have left.......LMMFAO
Reply to this comment
by velma179 August 3, 2009 11:46 PM EDT
Right on veteran71...


I am so tired of comments like those of picklepants, bmallen and kiawest that preceded yours (I had already posted to pickle before I saw your welcome, rational comment). These posters have no facts to back up their dire predictions and worse -- seem to have no understanding of the political realities in America today, not to mention the abiding strength of the country as it has weathered many, many storms internal and external thus far.

Do they really think each of us can vote for more than one rep in the House... or more than two senators?
Do they not understand the electoral college? Do they not understand that we just had an election and it is VERY unlikely that ALL the people that voted as they did in November are going to just suddenly say... "oh I changed my mind, what was I thinking... now I really want the old ideas to come back".

Sheesh.

I care so much about America and I KNOW -- it will be this extreme "us against them" attitude that has the power to destroy our country, not a terrorist bomb or a poor economy.

I am saddened when I read the rantings of these very Un-American partisan, hate creators.

Again, thank YOU for a voice of reason. Thank you very much.
by kiawest August 3, 2009 10:59 PM EDT
If a bill is provided to Obama, he signs it whether it is what he wants or not. Anything to get something passed and spend money. The tax payers are paying for all the pork progams and bills that will send more jobs overseas. It's like the Federal Government is trying to bankrupt us. We are borrowing money from China for these ridiculous programs. People, open your eyes and vote all those nuts in Washington out. They could care less what we want. The Democrats plan to push the HealthCare plan through that is sure to bankrupt us. They are not address drug prices, uninsured issues, etc. They have no idea what the issues are that need fixing. Obama is so inexperienced. Loves to talk on TV, but reads nothing, plans nothing.....How embarrassing.
Reply to this comment
by picklepants7 August 3, 2009 10:36 PM EDT
we were doing just fine until pelosi and reid took over. add barney frank and dodd, and that's why we are in the mess we are in. then you have odumba who has no brains, and this country is going down the toliet no matter how the msm tries to diguise it.
Reply to this comment
by jschmidt27 August 3, 2009 9:30 PM EDT
Bush spent 4.9trillion getting us out of the tech bubble mess, 9/11, creating Homeland Security, 2 wars, 2 hurricanes, wildfires and floods. Up to early 2007, despite all the problems we had a growing economy. Dodd and Frank cheerlead Fannie and Freddie and as late as July 2008 said they didn't need regulation. Of course they both took plenty of money from the lenders. Dodd, Rangel, Frank, Waters, Murtha are all under ethics investigation. Dodd is collecting huge sums from bank and healthcare companies while working on bank regulation and healthcare and he's saying he is not listening to lobbyists. The Dems have corrupt leadership deciding major aspects of our lives. They've kept their committe chairs despite being under ethics investigation. Obama is well on his way to making Bush look like a cheapskate. And for a stimulus plan that didn't stimulate, healthcare that will eventually put the insurers out of business(Obama and Franks own words), and cause rationing, reduction of research. The climate bill will damage businesses and not result in less pollutants. And all you guys can do is complain about Bush. The liberal media helped elect Obama by being biased. They continue to support him and pave the way for his policies. If you want to see the future, look at the states in fiscal trouble all with Democrat controlled legislatures, California, CT, NY, NJ. We need more balance in the political system and we don;t need anymore liberal left ideas in govt.
Reply to this comment
by veteran71 August 3, 2009 9:42 PM EDT
The "Liberal Media"??? You mean the same MSM that's owned and controlled by Multi National Corporations, the life blood of the Reich Wingnut Clown Party??? You really are as deluded and stupid as you sound....LMMFAO
(You guys better get some new material 'cause by anyone's estimate you're about to become extinct)
by jschmidt27 August 3, 2009 10:03 PM EDT
Vet- obviously you are ignorant. Most of the reporters of the major network supported OBAMA. Press coverage of Obama was far and away more positive for Obama than McCain and studies show that. Don;t insult the readers by saying the MSM is unbiased. And the networks lovedObama because he brought in viewers which allows the networks to charge more money for commercials. It business stupid. You must be listening to Air America fulltime. And it is so typical of a liberal to insult people when they have no idea what they are talking about. Vet- if you served, thanks. But that is all the thanks you;ll get from me.
by veteran71 August 3, 2009 10:14 PM EDT
I know, Rush, Hannity, and Billo the Clown fell all over themselves talking Obama up......please, offer something besides your tired Rovian cliches to support these "facts" of favoritism of Obama by Corprorate Controlled Media who give 3 to 1 in favor of Republican candidates.
I'll wait while you call in to Wingnut Headquarters to get your talking points download......no rush......LOL
by USSAmerikan August 4, 2009 1:29 AM EDT
Thanks... Not everyone gets the fact that the economy was growing and the Dow went past 14000 right before Democrats took over congress and wrecked a good thing. Don't worry, at the rate Obama's ratings are dropping, even Carter will look good by comparison!!
by airjackie August 3, 2009 9:25 PM EDT
While the Media/KKK/Republicans yell about how Obama used 1 Trillion dollars to help save the US Economy and the American people, not one reporter says a word about how Bush/Cheney/Congress gave Iraq 1 Trillion dollars and then told Iraq they don't have to pay it back to the US. We could use our money. Funny how everyone is all over Obama because he's trying to fix the mess, while no one said a word when Bush and Cheney spent over 9 Trillion dollars without any accountability to the US Taxpayers and our Law Makers just said Bush was the President and he could do what ever he wanted.
Reply to this comment
See all 109 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER