Blaming your ex: a quick budget analogy

When people complain about the national debt accumulated during Barack Obama's first term, it's worth remembering that nearly all of our current annual deficit (the gap between the amount of income we raise through taxes and fees and what we spend on goods, services, and interest payments), and therefore the growth of the debt, is the result of:

1- policies initiated by George W. Bush:

• 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
• 2003 prescription drug benefit for seniors
• wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
• very deserved health, education, and retirement benefits that troops will rightfully receive long after those wars have concluded
• Wall Street bailout and government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

none of which were "paid for" through tax increases or spending cuts;* and

2- the Great Recession:

• millions of people who don't need food stamps, unemployment benefits, or Medicaid when the economy is good, do need them when the economy goes south, making those programs automatically (but temporarily) a lot more expensive
• tax receipts plummet because while unemployed people pay taxes, they don’t pay nearly as much in taxes as employed people do, and unprofitable corporations pay even less.

(Read more from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)

Of course, if you point this out, you'll get shouted down that it's time to stop blaming Bush.

I've been trying for awhile now to think of a good real-world analogy to explain what's going on in the budget and I may have finally come up with one:

It's like your reckless spouse bought a sports car. He's long gone but you're still stuck making the payments. Every single month, another big chunk of money goes out the door for a decision he made. No wonder you want to slug your neighbor when she tells you to stop blaming your ex.

*For what it's worth, I don't disagree with all of those policies. I just disagree with not paying for them.