Why We Need Consumer Protection From Banks (Chapter Elebenty)

We've all heard the stories. Here is one more.

I just got my Visa statement. Visa is my backup card, usually when I forget to put the other one back in my wallet. I didn't have any charges on it this month. However, I did in the previous month.

The current statement shows the payment made in full but also shows finance charges of $1.50 tacked on after the payment was received. When I called to inquire about this balance, I was told I had no balance. Why does my statement show a finance charge? It's a mystery.

It was easy for me to spot the extra charge because it was the only charge. How many people simply send off the check or use automatic bill pay without noticing extra charges?

If there were a consumer protection agency that covered banking and financial products, that would be my next call. As it is, the worst I can do is cancel my card and send a letter to the auto club, through whom I got the card, and explain how Bank of America lost them a credit customer.

When Bad Information Happens to Good People

Sunday night on C-Span between the first and second health care votes, the House opened phone lines so people could weigh in on the bill.

The yeses and noes were pretty much what you'd expect. Yeses had personal stories to relate of relatives or friends whose lives would be materially changed by reform. Noes cited Fox talking points.

Mixed into this group, one undecided caller stood out.

He spoke softly, hesitantly. Perhaps he hadn't expected to be on live TV. He admitted he wasn't very knowledgeable about the details of the bill. He thought it was a good idea and important to extend health care to all Americans. He only wondered if it really had to cost ten trillion dollars to do it.

Ten trillion dollars.

I wanted to hug this caller. His highest priority was to do right by his fellow Americans, even though he had somehow gotten the idea it would cost nearly the entire national debt to do it. Perhaps he had no idea what the numbers meant except that it was a lot. Either way, he understood it as a sacrifice, and one he was willing to make.

The caller said he was from Bakersfield, California, the repressive buckle in the central valley farm Bible Belt whose state congressional representative, Roy Ashburn, the conservative, "family values" homophobe, was recently outed as gay when he was arrested for DUI leaving a gay bar with a young male passenger. A few years ago, Bakersfield coughed up a teen-girl band called Prussian Blue who openly sang white supremacy songs.

It is easy for someone in an environment of hate, whether it's racial, religious, gangs or something else, to simply absorb and parrot the hate. This caller heard the misinformation, but he didn't absorb the negativity that came with it. He is a flower that broke through the concrete sidewalk. People like this deserve to get the right information.

There are many more of these good-hearted Americans than the hatemongering horde that attract cameras. These other Americans are shy, hesitant. They are not highly educated. They don't think they have anything important to say. They don't want to "waste time" asking "silly questions."

They want to do the right thing. But they are susceptible to bad information. They don't have the time or the means to sort the facts from the faux when each sounds plausible. This, of course, is what misinformationists count on. Misinformationists don't have to convert people to win; they just have to confuse people.

I have noticed that a lot of liberal discourse tends to be at a college level. It is technical, precise, and eloquent, but it can also be intimidating. We need this policy-level discussion, but we need to do a better job of reaching the Americans who want to know the truth but don't want to wade through Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, or even Keith Olbermann.

Stanford honors graduate Gretchen Carlson, for all her playacting at ignorance, creates a safe environment for asking and answering "dumb questions."

We need to write bullet-point articles for Reader's Digest, Parade, People, US, Cosmopolitan, and USA Today. For financial reform, we also need articles in Money. We need to appear on the morning network news shows.

Over and over until misinformation is beaten back.

These articles should focus on how proposals help people right now. Obama's speech for the signing of the health care bill did a good job of ticking off the benefits in plain language. Instead of saving this for the signing, we need to lead with it.

Instead of going through the whole sad history of deregulation or try to explain what derivatives are, explain that "too big to fail" will no longer exist. Explain that there will be a new agency whose sole job will be to prevent investment products and schemes that prey on individual investors.

We need to make it easier for good people to get the good information they need to do the right thing.

The Road to Hell is Paved With Words

Following the announcement that CNN hired Erick Erickson as part of their news team, some people started putting together a compilation of his worst spewings to make the case that CNN had made a huge mistake by hiring a raving hatemonger and should henceforth be boycotted. I helped by doing what I figured no one else would do--I read old blog entries from early 2005, right after Bush was elected to his second term. I chose this period because the Republicans were firmly in power, and I figured a conservative would feel secure showing his true colors. I think he did, but not in the way I expected.

I started reading Erickson's blog from January 2005 through about the middle of March and posted some interesting excerpts here. His posts were clearly conservative, particularly with regard to business, which he prioritized over the environment, archaeology, and human rights. However, there was no hatespew, and no hyperbole. He expressed Christian charity, condemned a group that protested against gays, distanced himself from religious fundamentalists, and called out bullshit on both sides. He complimented a left-thinker's willingness to debate, and Erickson seemed like he would be a reasonable, courteous debater, too.

So what happened?

I am a recent addition to political blogging, but I have been a writer for many years. I am also a member of the California Bar. In law school, I took a class--the name escapes me now--that required a long research paper. To challenge myself and entertain my professor, I decided to attempt to argue something utterly untrue and distasteful.

It started out as an abstract exercise; law school is full of them. After all, law school trains you to argue either side of a debate dispassionately.

But as I wrote, I realized I was able to build a very convincing case. There were lots of sources that supported me, and I knew how to argue it. It was the kind of argument you know is wrong, but there are no obvious internal flaws to attack.

This became more than a lark. It was an epiphany. This was the moment that I realized the power of words and my own responsibility in wielding them. Until then, I think that in the back of my mind, I believed that when it came to moral arguments, right and truth would always be more convincing. Lies and unfairness would only win when corruption was involved. Yeah, I was young.

I realized I have a choice--and the power to shape people's lives. Everything I write is an opportunity to make the world a little better or a little worse, from simple business letters to essays about the stock market written for anxious and uneducated investors. I never forget that this power is a responsibility, and I am reminded often that real people believe and act based on what I write. This is no abstract exercise.

So here's where we come around to the present. Rush Limbaugh has always been what he is now. You can go back to his early days in Sacramento (where he was initially viewed as a RWNJ), and the message is the same. Whatever demons plague him, whatever drives him, he is consistent.

But Erick Erickson is different. To read his blog in 2005 is a different experience than reading things he says now. In 2005, he used his blog for good. I don't agree with all of his positions, but I think he was sincere. I felt his sense of responsibility to words in both the topics he chose and the measured prose.

In 2005, Erickson acknowledges that he was already a very influential conservative force in Congress. In other words, power alone had not corrupted his writing.

However, then his audience was only Congress and other bloggers. Erickson with a wider audience seems to be enacting the pro wrestling version of political discourse. But this is neither sport nor an abstract exercise. This is political hatespew that affects real people. He knows the difference, and he has chosen to turn his back on responsibility for his words.

Instead of playing to Congress and the blogosphere as he did in 2005, Erickson is now playing to "the masses" (his term, and not a complimentary one) and using what he considers the appropriate tools for that audience. This excerpt from January 31, discussing a book by Mark Levin, supports this theory (emphasis mine):

"Mark Levin has done an impressive act of research and has shown, whether you disagree with him or not, that he is a true legal scholar. His work, with copious quotes, citations, endnotes, and appendices clearly makes the case that the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds. Unfortunately, also being a talk show host, Levin sometimes crosses the line separating passionate discourse and emotional hyperbole."

Somehow, between then and now, he started portraying a talk-show guy. And now he is one.

Erickson has the potential to be worse than Rush Limbaugh. He has proven that he knows not only the power of words but the difference between "passionate discourse and emotional hyperbole," and he has chosen the road to hell anyway.

(part of this was recently posted on DumpCNN's Facebook page)

If You're a Liberal, Show Me!

Has the left withdrawn from all feeling and holed up in dry, polite, measured discourse as this article and others would argue? Is the elected Democrat a mere husk mouthing policy jargon? Are liberal commentators imprisoned in soft restraints of gentility that preclude a good, rousing disapproval of Republicans?

In two words: hell, no.

With a few exceptions, the liberals got the creative people. We are passionate, heartfelt, and moving. We argue forcefully, sympathize easily, and tell the most inspirational stories. If you're a regular patron of liberal thought, I'll bet that without trying too hard, you can name five people who write or televise passionate content. They are everywhere.

We also got the best arguments: equality, fairness, quality of life, and the love and transcendence side of any major religion. We know that fear and greed are man's strongest motivators, but we choose not to bring out the worst in people in order to manipulate them.

Liberal passion did not die out in the 1960s. What did die out was inane followers chanting slogans they didn't understand, people going to protests they didn't care about just to get laid, and belligerent mobs using radicalism as an excuse for vandalism. All this only gave liberalism a bad name.

Who yells? Who threatens and carries out physical violence and vandalism? Bullies. People who have run out of things to say or never had anything to say in the first place. If you want to call me an elitist because I don't want to recruit stupid and violent people, I'll wear that label proudly.

Liberals also stand up to bullies, whether they are harrassing us or someone else. Whether it's one passive-aggressive person on the street or the Attorney General of Virginia. Just because we choose not to act like thugs and manipulators does not mean we are wimps.

If anything, liberals bow under the weight of decision. We feel responsibility too much. We need to remember that even a misstep lends momentum for the next step. Inaction is entropy. We need to move past Yes We Can into Yes We Are and then Oh, Yes We Did (gestures optional).

What liberals don't have is the money to create a media network to deliver our message. It's not elected officials on the right like John Boehner and Jim DeMint delivering angry, rousing, inspiring speeches to their electorate. It's Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the Armey of tea party astroturfers. That is where we are outmatched on the left: the dissemination muscle.

And those teabaggers? They are not yelling to support you, Mr. Trickledown.

Astroturfers are hired--one way to create jobs, eh? But real grassrooters have to come in their free time. The most politically active are seniors (helped by AARP) and college students. Why don't we hear from the mainstream of the middle class, those who have lost so much under Republican rule?

During the 1970s, the average individual workweek was around 35 hours, and the average family workweek was around 40. Today, the average individual workweek is still around 35 hours, but the average family workweek has jumped to 65-70 (BLS). That's a lot of potential volunteer time stripped away.

Did your father teach you to be quiet and detached? Mine taught me to be suspicious of anyone who urged me to feel instead of think. Like Glenn Beck. And like Clancy Sigal, who argues in favor of an atmosphere where "everyone had an opinion and voiced it full-throttle." Yeah, that's the way to get things resolved.

I am also suspicious of people who argue that we must sacrifice our ideals to succeed. The way forward is not giving up on reason and logic. It is not embracing shouting, rage, tea-party anger, or emotional manipulation. And it is definitely not a return to the days of burning down the Bank of America.

So from now on, if you consider yourself a good liberal, quit whining about how ineffectual the left is. Show us how it ought to be done. Show us what a passionate, reasoned argument looks like. Because if you persist in painting us as effete, weak-minded, and depleted, I will have to assume that you want to harm, not help, the left.

And then you'll really see some liberal anger.

The Real Ayn Rand

Can we once and for all clear up the political misappropriation of Ayn Rand? I've heard her themes characterized as everything from the foundation of libertarianism to 8th grade twaddle. I disagree with both assessments. If anything, Rand may be a New Age writer with her message of being true to yourself, seeking happiness and personal fulfillment, and living an authentic life. But above all, she is not a neoconservative.

Rand is an INTJ rational personality type, a practical creator of worlds (I am as well). Rand's two novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, are most commonly cited when talking about her beliefs. In each, the world Rand wants is a meritocracy.

She envisions a very practical world. Everyone does what s/he is best suited for, and the best (talent + hard work) become the most successful. She envisions the producers, creators, and natural leaders of the world as the richest, most successful people, but that's not the end of it. All others who are willing to take their natural places in this society are welcome and respected, be they financiers or janitors.

This is a critical addition. What she envisions is opportunity for everyone to the limits of their abilities--a healthy middle class. In purely practical terms, producers need employees, and those employees need to earn enough to be consumers. Her architect protagonist designs an affordable and very successful summer resort for people of "good taste and small income" and a low-rent housing project as well as skyscrapers and estate homes. There is no sense that only the captains of industry are worthy humans--quite the opposite.

In The Fountainhead, published in 1943, she contrasts an architect (Howard Roark) who lives a authentic life with a woman who knows what to do but doesn't quite have his courage, a man who sought the wrong thing in life, a man who is clueless, and a man who has consciously set out to subjugate the masses. Over the course of the novel, the architect interacts with all of these people. He helps the ones who want to improve to improve by filling in the gaps in their understanding; he dismisses the one who doesn't want help.

The format is a novelized version of philosophy books in which a teacher instructs students in The Way by talking about the ideal way to approach different situations presented by students. The New Testament uses this technique, and Gurdjieff and Ousspensky, two Russian philosophers contemporaneous with Russian emigre Rand, used this Q&A format in their writings.

How she treats these students says much about her philosophy.

Dominique knows what she needs to do to live an authentic life but fears the cruelty of public opinion--fears what the public swine would do to pearls. She needs to learn to not care so much about what others think and do. She learns this by seeing what the public does to Howard for much of the book--and helping them do it in some cases--and seeing that it doesn't faze him.

Gail became a powerful newspaper editor by pandering to the masses. He wanted power so that he would never be at the mercy of incompetence. Instead, he realizes that he has become a slave to the masses rather than their master. By pandering, he subverted himself. It's as if Roger Ailes suddenly couldn't bear the thought that he created Fox News and the Tea Party. Gail's only way out is to walk away from it all and close the paper. After once being unable to do it, he finally does, though he can never forgive himself the moment of weakness.

Peter is a successful mediocre architect. The things he's told he should want--money, promotions, recognition--aren't fulfilling, but he can't bring himself to stop pursuing them. Over the course of the story, Peter passes up chance after chance to be true to himself. He becomes a broken man.

Ellsworth simply wants to rule the world--and says so late in the story. He enjoys the ability to make and break people. He intimidates people into doubting their own opinions and following his, then turns that following into a movement. He pulls the strings at both conservative and liberal publications to better manage public opinion. He is annoyed that Howard can be successful on the basis of his talent and despite public disapproval--but downright infuriated that Howard doesn't give a thought to Ellsworth (a great line in the book).

Universality is a key test of any philosphy. Those that don't pass the test can still be discussed; they are, of course, not as good as the philosophies that pass all the tests and could actually be adopted across a population.

In addition to the INTJ systems builder, there are people whose natural orientation is to game any system that confronts them. These people would not be welcome in Ayn Rand's world, which points to a gaping flaw in her vision--it doesn't fit all people.

The lack of universality doesn't seem to bother Rand. After all, a core belief of her philosophy is to not worry about what others think. She would be happy to take a group of like-minded people and start a colony.

I suspect that fringe right-wing groups glommed on to her notion of starting a new colony and decided that she was one of them. She's not.

Why Ayn Rand is no Icon of the Right

Rand considered it a duty to consider the facts and think for ourselves. The Right operates by intimidating people into submission using media and false data.

Rand wanted a meritocracy. The Right uses artificial criteria like race and religion to value people. The Right elevates unworthy people into leadership positions. The Right has dumbed down the educational system and introduced No Child Left Behind.

Rand wanted a free market, but like Alan Greenspan (another INTJ) she assumed that everyone would understand that the long-term sustainability of the market was worth more than short-term looting. The Right wants to bestow unfair competitive advantages to looters.

Rand wanted an efficient world with a healthy middle class. The Right wants to kill the middle class--literally, sometimes.

In fact, Ayn Rand has a lot to say against the Right in the character of Ellsworth Toohey, the evil mastermind who appears to be a harmless toady but develops and exploits people's weaknesses.

• He stirs up "the Bible brigade" to tear down a beautiful building
• He gets a drama critic fired. When asked, "What's the matter with Jimmy Kearns?...He's got a mind. Smart as a whip," Toohey answers, "He's got a mind--of his own. I don't think you want any whips around the place--except the one you hold."
• Over time, he assembles a core staff at the paper that is loyal to him and eventually follows him on strike. Strikebreakers are physically assaulted.
• When Gail shows signs of having a conscience in his editorials, Ellsworth arranges for a rich fringe wacko to buy a big chunk of The Banner, Gail's paper.
  
• Ellsworth arranges for one of his own talentless former proteges to invest in a liberal magazine, at which Ellsworth pulls the strings. This magazine attacks the conservative Banner and publishes things too offensive even for The Banner.
• Ellsworth always has a facile explanation for the things he does that convinces people his intentions are good even if the results are not.
• He holds up to scorn and ridicule talented people and those who support them.
• He champions untalented people who will do what he says. These people go on to become recognized experts in their various fields, quoted for talking nonsense. Someone says, "Most of the boys that count in every office are his boys."
  
• He plants suggestions that his followers carry out, including rumor campaigns against the talented and those who oppose him.
  
• He makes public pronouncements like "Freedom and compulsion are one."
  

At one point, Dominique tells Gail he should fire Ellsworth:

It's not his popularity. It's the special nature of it. You can't fight him on his terms. You're only a tank--and that's an...honest weapon that goes first, out in front, and mows everything down or takes every counterblow. He's a corrosive gas. The kind that eats lungs out. I think there really is a secret to the core of evil, and he has it....I know how he uses it and what he's after...control of the world. [Gail scoffs] I'll try to explain. It's very difficult. The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see. But if you'll listen......

But he doesn't listen.

Random quotes:

Jules Fougler [the drama critic who replaced Jimmy Kearns] had not tried to influence anybody; he had merely made clear--well in advance and through many channels--that anybody unable to enjoy this play was, basically, a worthless human being. "It's no use asking for explanations," he had said. "Either you're fine enough to like it, or you aren't."

...there had always been a God and a Devil--only men had been so mistaken about the shapes of their Devil--he was not single and big, he was many and smutty and small.

Do you know what you're actually in love with? Integrity. The impossible. The clean, consistent, reasonable, self-faithful...

What we love about these buildings [NY skyscrapers] is the creative faculty, the heroic in man.

He was a very young man....He thought only that he wished to find joy and reason and meaning in life....Don't work for my happiness, my brothers--show me yours--show me that it is possible--show me your achievement--and the knowledge will give me courage for mine.

Howard, have you ever held power over a single human being?
No. And I wouldn't take it if it were offered to me....It was offered to me once. I refused it....out of respect for myself.

[From the rich wacko] People make too damn much fuss about freedom. I think people would be much happier in a regulated society that had a definite pattern and a unified form...what makes people unhappy is not having too little choice, but too much. Having to decide, always to decide, torn every which way all of the time. Now, in a society of pattern, a man could feel safe.

[From Ellsworth, when asked how he came to be so influential so fast] It's much simpler than it appears...because you think in personalities...But dear me, the lifetimes of a hundred press agents wouldn't be enough. It can be done much faster....if you want something to grow, you don't nurture each seed separately. You just spread a certain fertilizer. Nature will do the rest [he later makes the same analogy using weeding and herbicide]....People go by so many erroneous assumptions. For instance, that old one--divide and conquer. Well, it has its applications. But it remained for our century to discover a much more potent formula. Unite and rule. [no, it's not a new invention, but the point is there]

Gail had known for several years the trend which his paper had embraced gradually, imperceptibly, without any directive from him. He had noticed the cautious "slanting" of news stories, the half-hints, the vague allusions, the peculiar adjectives peculiarly placed, the stressing of certain themes, the insertion of political conclusions where none was needed....In the course of his career, he had been fought...by the greatest publishers of his time, by the shrewdest coalitions of financial power. He could not summon any apprehension over the activities of somebody named Gus Webb [one of Ellsworth's "boys"].

[Howard:] Actual selflessness...it's his ego he's betrayed and given up....And isn't that the root of every despicable action?...Look at them. The man who cheats and lies but preserves a respectable front....the man who takes credit for an achievement which is not his own....the frustrated wretch who professes love for the inferior and clings to those less endowed, in order to establish his own superiority by comparison....Now I don't see anything evil in a desire to make money. But money is only a means to some end....but the men who place money first go much beyond that....What they want is...to impress others....A truly selfish man cannot be affeted by the approval of others. He doesn't need it. [Gail:] That's what helps him [Ellsworth] spread his vicious nonsense. Just weakness and cowardice. It's so easy to run to others....there is no substitute for competence. That, precisely, is the deadliness of second-handers. They have no concern for facts, ideas, work...they don't ask: "Is this true?" They ask: "Is this what others think is true?"...Not creation but show. Not ability but friendship. Not merit but pull...Their reality is not within them,...but a relation--anchored to nothing....Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process....Power without responsibility....you can't reason with him. He's not open to reason....a blind beast running amuck to crush you without sense or purpose.

[Ellsworth on how to subjugate the masses]
Kill man's sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognize greatness or achieve it. Great men can't be ruled. We don't want any great men. Don't deny the concept of greatness. Destroy it from within...Don't set out to raze all shrines--you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity--and the shrines are razed.....Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don't deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away...Just say that reason is limited. That there's something above it...he must try not to think, he must feel. He must believe....Can you rule a thinking man? We don't want any thinking men....Let progress stop. Let all stagnate.

This last speech goes a long way toward explaining why so many people felt powerless while Bush was president (mediocrity elected if not quite enshrined).

Preemptive Strikes Updates

Preemptive Strike is my name for when Republicans accuse Democrats of things that they, the Republicans are themselves doing (cf John Ensign/President Clinton/Adultery). I am also including those WTF moments that happen when Republicans say up is down.

Paul Ryan accusing the Obama White House of a secret fascist agenda
This week Rep Rep Paul Ryan (the budget guy) said he voted for the bank and auto bailouts even though he didn't really approve of them because he knew that if he didn't, the recession/depression would have been much worse. That sounds quite sensible until you realize that his worst case scenario is not about greater hardship, fewer jobs, or even lost productivity. It's about preventing Obama from getting the economic disaster he needed to be able to suspend laws and create a police state. He knows this because he read Liberal Fascism.

Curses, Obama is foiled again! And he tried so hard to kill democracy! Heaven knows his predecessor did much of the job for him, yet Obama still couldn't get it right.

Republicans and the little guy--WTF?
Daily Show--John Oliver interviewed Republican delegates at a party meeting in Hawaii (definitely worth seeing if you missed it). The party line--we know because several delegates practiced it on Oliver--is that Republicans are the party of the middle class and Democrats represent the "moneyed elite."

This is some kind of promotion for the new Alice in Wonderland movie, right?

Sarah Palin tells tea partiers what to do: refuse to listen to liberals telling you what to do.

Add your own!

Financial Exhibits

As many of you may have gleaned, I am a financial writer as well a bookseller, editor, etc. At the beginning of each year, I analyze the previous year. These are the figures I used in this year's analysis, complete with sourcing. Help yourself to them and spread the truth. Sorry they are so fuzzy, but most are easy to rebuild. Click on a figure to see the whole thing.




Above, the Success of the Recovery Act--three different companies all agree that without the Recovery Act, the economy would have been far worse off. Below, the distribution of Recovery Act funds by year.








Above, the job loss "smile" chart used on Rachel Maddow's show that covers 1/08 to 11/09. I added the Bush/Obama dividing line. You can clearly see recovery charted in fewer jobs lost.



Above, this is a nice way to contrast the large few and the many smaller banks. It shows people that though we heard a lot about big banks giving away big bonuses, the financial sector as a whole was far from leading the 2009 stock parade. This is a sector ranking based on a breakdown of the stocks within the S&P 500.


Above, this is a great chart from Dalbar on how investors acting on their own intuition earn far less than even just parking money in T-Bills. L-R it reads Stocks, Bonds, T-Bills, Inflation, Average Equity Fund Investor, Average Equity Fund Market Timer.
Source: Dalbar, Inc. "Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior" April 1, 2004. Stocks are represented by S&P 500 Index (so a diversified portfolio would perform even better), Bonds by Lehman Bros Aggregate Bond Index, T-Bills by one-month Treasury Bills.

Above, this chart shows the rate of change in consumer credit rather than the growth of volume. Blue tracks revolving credit, red non-revolving credit (car loans). It's harder to see in this relativistic view, but 2009 is the only time since 1980 in which the total volume of credit card debt (blue) has decreased. I added in the horizontal line at zero to make that clearer.


The one above and below are interesting to compare. Above, you see 2009 returns by country. Below, national debt by country. The table below comes from the CIA. I pulled out a lot of the third world countries that people expect to have heavy debt so I could highlight more familiar countries, that have more debt than we do. I kept all the European countries and put the names in red. Note all but one has more debt per GDP than we do--even conservative Switzerland. I kept India and China as the leading countries in the Emerging Markets boom and because China is such a big creditor of ours.



Above is our national debt in trillions by year as it has grown from 2000-2009. Below, the percentage that each president increased the national debt. Republicans are in red tones, Democrats in blue.





The annual deficit (distinguished from national debt) projected through the next decade based on 2009, before the recent budget phased out the Bush tax cuts. The main point here is that the Recovery Act is a small portion of the total.