Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Jesse Kelly is avoiding the media like the plague, just as he did in 2010. Everything comes through his campaign spokespersons, one of whom is the Arizona Daily Star's former talentless hack political reporter, Daniel Scarpinato, who somehow fell upwards to land a job with the RNCC after blowing a tailor-made election for Jonathan "Payday" Paton in 2010 by losing to the political neophyte Jesse Kelly in the GOP primary (I mean really, how else does one explain this other than utter incompetence?)


Scarpinato's value to the Kelly campaign is his open door access at the Arizona Daily Star to an equally highly disappointing political reporter, Brady McCombs, who rotely reports whatever Scarpinato provides him in stenogrpaphic fashion. If McCombs had a lick of common sense he would avoid the obvious and transparent link between Star alumnus, which destroys the credibilty of the Arizona Daily Star as an objective news source. That goes double for the editors of the Star.

A line in today's reporting: "Scarpinato and the GOP have been trying to link Barber to Obama and what they call his 'job-destroying policies' throughout the campaign." McCombs does not correct this GOP falsehood.

The overall economy has now added over 2 million jobs over the last year, and nearly 3.5 million jobs over the last three years. For America's private sector, it's 2.3 million over the last year, and 4 million over the last three years.

Incidentally, the 8.1% unemployment rate is the lowest since before President Obama took office

April Jobs

Here's another chart, this one showing monthly job losses/gains in just the private sector since the start of the Great Recession. That's 26 consecutive months of private sector job growth.

April Private Sector

The Bush Years Were a Lost Decade of job growth. It was faith based supply-side "trickle down" GOP economics that gave us the Bush Great Recession. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to leave office with fewer jobs than when he entered office. "Mittens" Romney promises Bushonomics "on steroids."

And what about that Obama 'spending binge" that the entire GOP campaign structure and its right-wing noise machine echo chamber are polluting the airwaves with in campaign ads and mailers in your mailbox? I posted about Rex Nutting's report at MarketWatch the other day, but it bears repeating. Obama Spending Binge Never Happened:

Federal spendingOf all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, a [prarie fire] “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Obama spendingHere are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

* * *

[T]the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

Finally, the banksters of Wall Street and the "one percent" for whom Daniel Scarpinato flacks for are doing extremely well under this president that propagandists like Scarpianto and his ilk refer to as a 'socialist." Corporate Profits Return To Prerecession Levels. U.S. corporate profits have returned to prerecession levels of about 15 percent of gross domestic product, according to a report by the International Institute for Labour Studies released on Friday. (May 4. 2012).

Record company profits have come at the expense of investment and hiring, according to the report. Business investment is now hovering at about 16.5 percent of GDP — far below the prerecession average of 20 percent, according to the institute. Corporations are holding onto an "unprecedented" amount of cash because of lingering concerns about the economy's weakness, the report stated.

So its the banksters of Wall Street and the "one percent" who are sitting on mountains of cash instead of investing and hiring who are the real source of our unemployment woes. You know, the very same people who blew up our econony with their avarice and greed back in 2008. The "Job-destroying policies" of the Obama administration is just a propagandist lie.

Daniel Scarpinato has been a cancer on this community since he was writing GOP propaganda disguised as news reporting for the Arizona Daily Star. He is a propagandist, a professional liar by trade. He is now engaged in an unprecedented "big lie" propaganda campaign in the CD 8 Special Election. Fact Check: The NRCC's 'pants on fire' – the $500 billion lie that will not die. Any credible news organization would prohibit its employees from having any contact with him, or at least try to insulate itself from his insidious propaganda by fact checking what Scarpinato says. He is a cancer that destroys the Star's credibility as an objective news source. But instead, the Star is enabling this propagandist through the   “sloth and laziness” of the political reporting of Brady McCombs. (h/t WH Press Spokesman Jay Carney).

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in the editors of the Arizona Daily Star. it is sad watching a once great local newspaper being destroyed.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein adds his analysis and this chart in The reality behind Obama and Bush’s ‘spending binge’:

I’d point out that this entire conversation is nonsense. So far, we haven’t mentioned the only fact that really matters, which is that the economy began to collapse in late-2008, and continued to crater through much of 2009. Or, as Donald Marron, director of the Tax Policy Center, puts it, “the real issue is that 2009 is an anomaly driven by crisis.”

That there’s an implicit taunt in this debate just goes to show how blinkered our fiscal conversation has really become. It was proper that spending jumped in 2009. If the Ghost of Ronald Reagan had occupied the Oval Office, spending would have jumped in 2009. That’s just what happens when you hit a once-in-a-generation recession.

It is proper that, since 2009, spending has remained high in order to support a badly wounded economy and help unemployed workers and struggling families. The question isn’t which president to blame for elevated spending in 2009 — the blame there goes to the financial crisis, though Republicans conveniently forget that in order to score points. The question is where should spending be now?

Bush vs obama policy impact