But the nation’s debt did not begin under President Bush. The historical data show the government ran deficits from at least 1970 to 1998. (The CBO’s most recent summary of historical data only goes back to 1970.) So that includes deficits under Republicans Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, as well as Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (for much of his presidency).
So Obama isn’t telling the full story by saying the legacy of deficit spending began a decade ago. It goes back even farther than that.
They’re missing the boat here. Obama was clearly talking about the current deficit problems, which were created by George W. Bush, beginning with his unpaid-for tax cuts ten years ago and his unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that continue to this day. That legacy continued through his 2007-2009 recession. The vast majority of the bailout costs are Bush’s, as is the lost economic growth.
While it’s true that if we had no accumulated national debt, the current deficit problems would appear somewhat less pressing, it’s hard to believe that $1.3 trillion annual deficits could ever seem underwhelming, even if we had started from a base of zero.
And anyway, again, what Obama’s clearly referring to in that passage is how much of that $1.3 trillion resulted from policies he inherited from Bush that were put in place beginning a decade ago. For the analysis there, we turn to The New York Times’s economics columnist David Leonhardt, who ran the numbers a year and a half ago on who was responsible for how much of the deficits.
Recall, back when Bush took office, the CBO projected average surpluses from 2009 to 2012 of $850 billion a year. So, 2010’s deficit wasn’t just a $1.3 trillion shortfall; it was a $2.2 trillion swing from what it could have been if Bush hadn’t taken the cushion away (I might add, and this is pretty crucial: Those huge surpluses would have eaten up most of the national debt PolitiFact is concerned about).
Of that swing, Leonhardt found $673 billion a year caused by Bush programs, $479 billion caused by the recession on Bush’s watch, $185 billion by the bailouts he instigated, and $232 billion by programs and/or wars he initiated and Obama either agrees with or can’t back out of (those numbers need to be updated a bit, but not that much).
That’s the legacy of deficit spending Obama is talking about. It adds up to $1.6 trillion of that $2.2 trillion swing. Wipe out just half of that number—or even just the $673 billion Bush is directly and inarguably responsible for—and the current problem becomes much more manageable.
And Obama the crazed “socialist” spender? Leonhardt found his policies added just $200 billion to the deficit—the vast majority of which was spent trying to keep Bush’s recession from becoming the sequel to the Great Depression.
So yes, what the president said there in the State of the Union is all true.

@Ryan,
Thanks. I really do appreciate your responding to my plea. I take back every mean comment I've ever said or thought to say about you.
My objection to Paul Ryan and Politifact's rating was the "“The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy.” seemed to be, as Politifact acknowledged, way overblown. What is "soon"? And "eclipse"? The "ENTIRE" economy? I'm shaking in my boots!
Politifact:
"We'll also note that these numbers could change over the course of the next two years, depending on economic conditions and policy choices. Still, we considered Boehner's statistics valid, and Ryan's formulation is equally solid. So we rate his statement True."
But fair enough, if you say it's worth a True, that's good enough for me.
In addition, Rep. Ryan said
"Just take a look at what’s happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn’t act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody."
This is a statement that Politifact didn't bother to evaluate. Paul Krugman points how embarrassingly wrong Ryan was here and here.
Nevertheless, I understand you don't want to get into a war with Politifact, and I'm very grateful for your response.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 12:16 PM
Fantastic work.
It is so common for journalists to point and scream "Look at the piles of negative money!" without putting it in context or attributing due accountability (unintentional pun). It takes time and effort to marshal the evidence that things are not what they are commonly reported to be.
Thank you for taking that time.
And furthermore, I'd like to add that when healthcare costs in the US align with healthcare costs everywhere else in the industrialized world,
http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
most of the looming public deficit problem will vanish. Furthermore, if the way the government borrows affects the cost as how the government borrows. The government owes trillions to social security, but it only has to pay the operating costs of the program for all that money.
That's a good deal (were it being used to pay for things other than stupid tax cuts for the rich).
The federal reserve is lending TRILLIONS in low to no interest loans to the biggest banks in order to keep them alive. The federal reserve can do the same for the federal government, reducing the cost of borrowing when compared to the international credit market. Japan's debt long eclipsed its GDP, but Japan pays less interest and maintains its standards as a wealthy country in spite of being a low domestic resource, high export, economy in a time when exports are highly competitive.
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR35.6/baker.php
Debt isn't that big a deal when it's used responsibly, borrowed wisely (during times of low interest - for instance), and produces value and future growth.
What is a big deal is letting your economy deflate because workers have no job security, businesses have no customers, states have no tax revenues, and money has no circulation. The economy needs to produce, but it can't produce without demand and demand is suppressed when a financial crisis occurs and personal future prospects look bleak.
If the government doesn't step in then and create demand, then you have a great big depressing problem.
Thimbles - Conservatives have no answers when private demand collapses because they have nothing to offer but tax cuts.
Thimble's Truth-o-meter....: TRUE
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 09:15 PM
James, not sure why you think we'd be afraid of PolitiFact. We criticize everybody.
#3 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 28 Jan 2011 at 03:04 PM
@Ryan
"Afraid" might be overstated. And CJR has occasionally criticized Politifact, you're right. They are supposed to be one of the "good guys" and they are really full of themselves after winning their Pulitzer. They did an outstanding job fact-checking the 2008 presidential campaign. But as I have documented on another thread,, they have a very distinct anti-Democratic bias in their selection of "facts" to check, and the way they "award" their ratings, putting a heavy thumb on their scale against the Dems. The great analysis you've done on this thread is only the latest example.
“The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy.”
In view of the graph you presented here, do you still rate this statement True?
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 30 Jan 2011 at 09:08 AM
If you're going to excuse Obama for the recession he inherited from Bush, then it seems you have to excuse Bush for the recession he inherited from Clinton. And we all know the CBO's projection of surpluses was a fantasy number; that money was going to get spent one way or another.
More to the point, the tax cuts and the wars have all been ratified by Obama now, so it's fair to call it a "half truth" when he says "we've been living with them for a decade, since we're also going to be living with them for some time much longer, due to choices he has made.
#5 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Mon 31 Jan 2011 at 12:54 AM
So you agree that the Bush approach was inexcusable and that Obama, by being at fault for continuing in the path of the Bush approach, should have made much more progressive choices.
Good to have you on board.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 31 Jan 2011 at 01:00 AM