Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute posted an interesting item on the Cato@Liberty website on the debt deal. In his post, he points out:

The deal would cut discretionary spending by just $21 billion in 2012, or just 0.6 percent of total federal spending that year. And that’s after federal spending has risen 22 percent since 2008 ($2.98 trillion in 2008 to about $3.63 trillion this year). Even if you believe that government spending helps the economy, it seems rather bizarre to claim that a 0.6 percent retrenchment after a 22 percent increase would hurt.

While his entry is certainly worth reading, the above bar graph that accompanied Edwards’ post tells the whole story. Just look at how much federal government deficit spending has increased under President Barack Obama. The first red line is President Bill Clinton’s last year in office (notice there is no surplus). The next eight bars represent deficit spending during President George W. Bush’s term and the last four bars show spending under Obama.

Anyone who claims we have a revenue problem rather than a spending problem is not paying attention. Democrats seem baffled as to why Americans are so upset. This graph shows precisely why. It also shows why the tea party formed and it has nothing to do with Obama’s skin color.

We need to cut spending and we need to do it now or our government faces a Greek-style collapse, only several magnitudes worse. The debt deal reached this week will do nothing to stem this march to collapse.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.