Over the summer, I emailed the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) asking for data regarding the increase in the federal deficit. After hearing political pundits and officials scream about “Obama debt” all summer, I was determined to find out how much of the post-2009 deficit was actually a result of the President’s policies. Here is how they replied:

“On June 7, 2012, we updated a document that, in broad terms, showed the reasons for the changes in CBO's baseline budget projections since 2001. It ascribed the changes to various pieces of legislation, which, of course, can be placed within the Bush years or the Obama years.”

Each year, the CBO estimates what the government checkbook will look like for the next ten years. According to their projections, the United States was to have surpluses every year between 2001 and 2011. What happened?

In the report, the CBO explained how different pieces of legislation and other factors rendered its projections incorrect. In other words, we can look at which changes in projected revenue and spending between 2009 and 2011 were attributed to legislation passed before 2009 (Bush Administration) and after 2009 (Obama Administration). So, this report allows us to see how much of the one trillion plus deficit, which we now see during the Obama Administration, is a product of Obama himself.

Let’s start with revenue.

Revenue

The CBO data on revenues can be separated into three different categories: changes due to pre-2009 legislation (carry-over legislation), changes due to post-2009 legislation, and changes in economic and technical assumptions. Between 2009 and 2011, the federal government saw a $3.255 trillion decrease in expected revenues.

There were four main pieces of legislation enacted before 2009 that decreased revenues during the Obama Administration. The first two are known as the Bush tax cuts (the EGTRRA and the JGTRRA). The third is called the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2003. Last is the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. These four pieces of “carry-over” legislation were responsible for 15 percent ($474 billion) of the decrease in revenues, with the majority of that decrease stemming from the EGTRRA.

We can compare the decrease in revenue from pre-2009 legislation with post-2009 legislation. The CBO report attributes the following to the Obama Administration: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus), the Tax Act of 2010 and “other” legislation. Yet, the last two categories are not necessarily a product of the Obama Administration. The Tax Act of 2010 was, primarily, a bill passed to extend the Bush Tax cuts. Furthermore, the “other” category does not distinguish between Obama and Bush – something the CBO included in the “other” category could have been passed before 2009 and carried over into the Obama Administration. Nevertheless, we’ll label these as the Obama Administration’s legislation. In total, the post-2009 legislation was responsible for 25 percent ($819 billion) of the decrease in revenues between 2009 and 2011.

After analyzing this data, something becomes very clear. The legislation passed by Bush and Obama only accounts for 40 percent of the $3.255 trillion revenue-based deficit. What happened to the other $2 trillion in projected revenues? It was lost as a result of the financial crisis of 2008.

The CBO, aside from analyzing legislative effects, analyzed the changes in projected revenues due to economic and technical factors. Between 2009 and 2011 the Federal Government lost nearly $2 trillion (60 percent) in expected revenues as a result of the Great Recession. Unemployment skyrocketed, resulting in fewer people paying taxes, which resulted in decreased revenue. Business profits dropped, resulting in lower income, which also resulted in decreased tax revenue. The U.S. was hit hard by the recession, and as a result, there was less taxable income.

Now, let’s look at the other half of the story: spending.

Spending

Increases in outlays (spending), can be separated into five different categories: changes in discretionary spending, changes due to pre-2009 legislation, changes due to post-2009 legislation, changes in net interest payments and changes in economic and technical assumptions. As a result of these five factors, the CBO reported an increase in spending of $3.148 trillion.

Between 2009 and 2011, changes in discretionary spending accounted for 44 percent ($1.5 trillion) of the increase in outlays. Discretionary spending is supposed to be appropriated by Congress at the end of each fiscal year (October 31). The discretionary spending for FY2009 was already appropriated before Obama entered the White House, with over half going toward defense. Therefore, it is not accurate to attribute the entirety of this change in discretionary spending to the Obama Administration. Furthermore, the FY2010 and FY2011 increases were primarily the result of the Obama Administration placing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “on-budget.”

There were four pieces of legislation enacted before 2009 that carried over into the Obama Administration: the EGTRRA, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the Troubled Asset Relief Program. When combined, these four bills were responsible for 11 percent ($367 billion) of the change in outlays.

Compared with pre-2009 legislation, post-2009 legislation increased spending by $559 billion (16 percent). This figure was the result of the ARRA, the Tax Act of 2010 and “other” legislation. Thus, actual legislation from both administrations accounted for only 29.4 percent of increased spending.

The fourth category, increases in net interest payments, is similar to discretionary spending in its complexity. Basically, these payments are the ones the federal government makes to the holders of United States Treasury Securities – in other words, these are the payments we make to those who hold our debt. Between 2009 and 2011, net interest payments comprised $865 billion (25 percent) more than projected by the CBO. This increase can be attributed to the recession and to existing increases in spending (and therefore debt), which is supported by the steady rise of interest payments between 2001 and 2009.

Finally, changes in economic and technical factors actually decreased in relation to CBO projections by $143 billion (minus 4 percent). This decrease may seem confusing, since we just attributed the economic and technical changes in revenues to the recession. However, many of the relief efforts for the recession were included in the above categories.

Conclusion: Who is to Blame?

After breaking down the data, we can easily spot the category that contributed most to the burgeoning deficit from 2009 to 2011: the winner is economic and technical factors – or, in other words, the financial crisis of 2008 and the great recession. Due to the crisis, the federal government lost nearly $2 trillion in revenue, which makes up nearly one-third of the deficit from 2009 to 2011. Therefore, the common belief that we spent our way into $16 trillion in debt is nonsense.

Second place clearly goes to discretionary spending. If you look at the CBO data for before 2009 (which I certainly hope you do), you will notice a steady and alarming rise in discretionary spending between 2001 and 2009. In fact, discretionary spending projections were only off by $2 billion in 2001; and, by the end of 2008, they were off by $339 billion. The main cause of this increase was our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ever-expanding military budget that was attached.

Apart from the ARRA, post-2009 (or Obama Administration) legislation actually did not play a substantial role until 2011, when the Tax Act of 2010 came into effect. However, recall that this bill extended the Bush Tax cuts, and in 2011 alone added $391 billion to the deficit.

Pre-2009 legislation had a relatively large impact on the federal government’s revenue, making up 15 percent of the lost revenue between 2009 and 2011. Furthermore, interest payments on our existing debt skyrocketed over the previous administration and continued to do so into the Obama Administration.

Deciding who to blame for these deficits is not only incredibly complicated, but it is also incredibly irrelevant. You could pick and choose whatever statistics you need to point your finger in the intended direction. However, pointing your finger will not make the deficits disappear.

Over the past four years, it has become common for both parties (albeit primarily the Republican Party), to yell and scream about the debt. I find this ironic, considering the majority of the deficits are a result of the financial crisis, which no reasonable person can pin on President Obama. When you look at the numbers objectively, it is clear that saying “the debt has increased by $6 trillion during the Obama Administration” is completely different than saying “we now have $6 trillion in new Obama debt.” Whereas the former is correct, the latter is its disfigured and dishonest reflection.

Read "The Federal Debt, Part 2: The Real Risks We Face," here.

Reach Contributor Alex Blow here.