The battle between President Obama and House Republicans over increasing the nation’s debt limit has been the dominant political story this week.  Obama has artfully positioned himself as the sole agent of balance and compromise,  who cares about protecting the Middle and Working classes while shifting more of the tax burden to the “wealthy.”   It is House Speaker Boehner, says Obama, who seeks to cut spending on the backs of the poor and elderly while preventing the wealthy from paying their “fair share.” 
 

On the surface, this is the type of typical demagoguery that resonates with the majority of Americans.  We know this because the Democrats have been using it for decades to win elections.  But as people become more educated to the ways of the Left, they see it for what it is...lying.  

The Republicans are correct when they position the debt ceiling issue as a mere symptom of a greater illness in Washington – the Democrats’ addiction to spending.   Using this debate as an opportunity to show the American people just how ridiculous government spending at the federal level has become and who the major offenders are, may pay off at the ballot box.

Looking back on the last three two-term presidential administrations and the spending habits of the congresses they served with, will show that whenever the Democrats largely controlled Congress, spending outpaced receipts.   During the eight years of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, receipts to the treasury rose 92%.  However, during those years, Congress was controlled by the Democrats who increased spending by 94%. 
 

During the eight years of Bill Clinton, in which Republicans largely controlled the federal checkbook, receipts grew by 86%, while spending increased by a mere 29%. 

When George W. Bush entered the White House, he inherited a budgetary surplus as well as a deep recession and a Republican-controlled Congress.  However, the Republicans held slim majorities in both houses and pushing a Conservative agenda through Congress proved to be difficult.   Just when Bush was tamping down the recession in 2001, the terrorist attacks of September 11th caused the economy to almost crash.  Nearly every economic indicator showed a dire future for the nation, and retaliation for the attacks would be costly.  Despite the catastrophic events of September 11th, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina, receipts to the treasury increased under Bush by 25% and spending increased by 48% through 2006.  In 2007, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, and increased spending by 20% in just two years.

Now after only two complete years of the Obama economic policies, receipts have fallen by 14% below 2008 levels, but spending has increased 16%.

What the data shows over the last thirty years is while receipts to the federal treasury continued to grow consistently, spending on average, outpaced receipts just as consistently.  This clearly points to a spending problem, more specifically, a Democrat addiction to spending.  This is why this entire debate over spending is as pointless as trusting a drug addict not to steal your pain killers.   Any financial planner could look at the federal budget and identify the problem within minutes.  Any addiction specialist can look at the Democrat Party’s spending habits and make a diagnosis within seconds.   Simple problems call for simple solutions, right?  Not for Democrats, who will always view government spending as a way to ensure their own electoral victories.

The only adults in the room have been the Republicans, for their ability to see the larger economic picture and the destructive path President Obama and the Democrats want to continue to take the nation down.

President Obama has demanded a balance of revenue increases, i.e. tax increases on the “rich” (notice the change in vernacular in time for election season) and spending cuts that will either happen in 2013 or never.  The Republicans want revenue increases as well; only they want them from higher employment and higher corporate profits, due to an improved economy.  They also want deeper spending cuts immediately without cuts in Medicare and Social Security, as Obama is suggesting.  Reforming and strengthening Social Security will have to be addressed soon, but it does not appear that Obama has the will to do this.

In the context of spending cuts, it is important to note that in 2009, federal spending included a large portion of about $1 trillion in so-called stimulus spending that has done nothing to improve the economy.  In fact, it can be argued that the “stimulus” actually held the economy down while ObamaCare gave it a kick to the gut.  Those are the two spending initiatives that are low-hanging fruit for spending cuts.