Yes, after Democrats spent eight years lambasting George W. Bush for the budget deficit, President Obama is presiding over record deficit spending. Of course, the fiscal year that ended 9/30 isn't Obama's baby - it was enacted during the Bush administration. That said, Obama has proposed record increases in government spending including the "stimulus" bill. It just so happens that much of the "stimulus" will be spent as Democrats try to hold onto their majority in the House and turn back a GOP effort to repeat 1994.
Of course, Democrats argue that the objections to Obama's deficit spending is based on race. That's silly. A number of Republicans have been very critical of Bush, specifically Bush's signature on a law that expanded the federal government's role in primary and secondary education, a failed effort to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, his signature on a law creating a brand new federal entitlement program and his signature on the obscene "campaign finance reform" law authored by failed 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain. One of the most consistent voices critical of Bush was none other than radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Democrats love to point to tax cuts signed by Republican Presidents as the reason for large deficits, and accuse Republicans of "hypocrisy" when we criticize President Obama's deficit spending. Do we really need to go through this again? As I pointed out last February, federal tax revenue was $599 billion in 1981, and had increased to $991 billion 1989. The federal government took in $1.99 trillion in tax dollars in 2001. White House estimates for tax revenue in 2008 is a whopping $2.66 trillion. So what caused the large deficits? Answer: government spending.
If we want to expand the economy, we need allow people to keep more of what they earn. We need to reduce the tax burden on business so it is easier to invest and create jobs. That strategy worked under John F. Kennedy, it worked under Ronald Reagan, and it worked for George W. Bush.
It worked for Bush, that is, until a number of stupid mistakes (including the disastrous Community Reinvestment Act) caused the meltdown in the financial markets that crashed the global economy. (See below for more on the CRA.) Democrats engaged in shameless race-baiting as conservatives pointed out the folly of the CRA, but the bottom line is that "encouraging" banks to loan money to people who cannot pay it back, no matter the race of the borrowers, is foolish and dangerous. Bad fiscal policy has nothing to do with race.
Obama is repeating the mistakes of the past, blinded by an ideology that places the "wisdom" of 535 legislators in one city on the East Coast above decisions made by 300 million Americans in their household budgets, small businesses and workplaces. If we want the United States so succeed, we need to give the American people the chance to be the best that they can be, by reducing the tax burden (which has been proven to increase government revenue), lowering government spending, and reducing the regulatory burden.
The Bush Administration pretended to be "fiscally conservative" while significantly increasing the size and power of the federal government. If Obama truly wants change we can believe in, he should not simply build on the big-government policies of George W. Bush. But since that is Obama's plan, I hope he fails.