Did you know that Obama is a low, low spender? Just ask Eugene Robinson:
There are those who tell the truth. There are those who distort the truth. And then there’s Mitt Romney.
Every political campaign exaggerates and dissembles. This practice may not be admirable — it’s surely one reason so many Americans are disenchanted with politics — but it’s something we’ve all come to expect. Candidates claim the right to make any boast or accusation as long as there’s a kernel of veracity in there somewhere.
Even by this lax standard, Romney too often fails. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies. Quite a bit.
“Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history,” Romney claims on his campaign Web site. This is utterly false. The truth is that spending has slowed markedly under Obama.
As best as I can tell here, the sleight of hand being used to justify this ridiculous proposition is to attribute all of fiscal year 2009 to Bush. When Jay Carney cited the same article Robinson did, the fact checker at Robinson’s own paper gave Carney’s assertion “three Pinocchios” and observed of the article cited by Carney and Robinson:
Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.
In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.
Once you’ve blamed the stimulus on Bush, it’s easy sleddin’ from there.
It’s too obvious, but I can’t pass it up:
There are those who tell the truth. There are those who distort the truth. And then there’s Eugene Robinson.