Obama Claims Fiscal Restraint, Backs it with Fuzzy Math

Many of you may be wondering where are the reactions to the Wisconsin Recall Election.  As always, I am waiting 24 hours to give my reactions so that I can give you a thoughtful reaction with final numbers. So, coming tomorrow will be my reactions to the Wisconsin Recall. Thanks for reading!

Fuzzy Math is nothing new to liberals. Whether it's the foolish practice of Static Budgeting or the Obama Administration setting the costs of Obamacare on 12 year budgets instead of the standard 10 year budget, the Left LOVES to make their spending seem less significant and costly and validate their big government spending. But President Obama has officially crossed the line into the ridiculous by claiming that he has had "the lowest rate of increased spending in 60 years."

In fairness, it was not the Obama Administration that is putting out these figures. It's MarketWatch. But President Obama remains culpable for running with this data and making the claims of his own fiscal restraint.

So let's talk about some of the issues with these numbers:

1. All 2009 spending was attributed to George W. Bush. Now, in fairness, SOME of that spending legitimately belongs to Bush, specifically T.A.R.P.  The total expenditures of T.A.R.P. was about $431 Billion. was about ($151 Billion of the 2009 Budget was T.A.R.P.).  However, it neglects the fact that an additional $831 Billion was Obama's Stimulus Package. 
2. Even though the entirety of T.A.R.P. was considered as Bush era spending (justifiably so, as Bush did in fact pass it into law) but then when about $169 Billion in T.A.R.P. funds were repaid in 2010, that repayment was credited to Obama as a "spending cut" of 1.8%.  So even though Bush saw his spending numbers increase, when that money was returned, the benefit went to Obama.
3. MarketWatch further considered Obama as having a "spending cut" of $56 Billion in 2010 from 2009. Unfortunately, this "cut" is based on the spending on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropping from $96 Billion in 2009 to $40 Billion in 2010. The only way this can be called a cut is if we assume that money would've always been spent. Unfortunately, it's not like bailing out Fannie and Freddie is a nondiscretionary budget item. At all.
4. It can be legitimately and I would argue accurately stated that any spending cuts in 2011 and 2012 are a result of the Republicans winning the House of Represeentatives in 2010. Remember, in the 2011 Debt Ceiling battle, the Democrats just wanted to raise the debt ceiling and make zero cuts. It was the GOP that forced any cuts at all. So giving Obama credit for them is just a lie.

Bottom line, if you try to credit Obama for "fiscal restraint" based on these numbers it is nothing but sophistry and political tricks. Again, it's not the Obama Administration's fault that these numbers are were crunched. It is, however, his fault for lying to the American public to call himself fiscally restrained. To call Obama the biggest budget cutter in 60 years is more than sophistry. It's a blatant political lie.