Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama {mostly true unless you give the republicans PROPS} ? COMPARE TO Our rating Walker said new figures he released indicating Wisconsin added more than 20,000 jobs in 2011 are "the final job numbers." But the count won’t become final until after it is reviewed by the federal government. We rate Walker’s statement False.

PolitiFact | Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Facebook posts

 

Says Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has “accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history,” because it’s actually risen “slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.”

 

 

Facebook posts on Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 in on the Internet

RACHAEL WAS SO RIGHT ABOUT…. THIER IDEA OF MOSTLY TRUE? RIGHT IS RIGHT “NOT WHITE” GET OVER IT AND JUST TELL THE TRUTH…..

 

Our rating {complete story found below} 

 

 W

alker said new figures he released indicating Wisconsin added more than 20,000 jobs in 2011 are “the final job numbers.” But the count won’t become final until after it is reviewed by the federal government.

 

We rate Walker’s statement False. THIS TRANSLATES TO HE LIED 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE RACE AND THINKS WISCONSIN PEOPLE AND THE NATION ARE SO LAZY AND SLOTHFUL WE WILL RESIGN OUR RIGHTS TO THE KOCHS LIKE HE HAS… will we America???

1st lets look at a Viral Facebook post it says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

On May 22, 2012, Rex Nutting, the international commentary editor for the financial website MarketWatch, published a column titled, “Obama spending binge never happened.” Nutting’s column explored data on federal spending patterns during recent presidencies, concluding that — contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats — President Barack Obama has actually presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any recent president.

The column went viral. Within hours, people who liked the column were posting a graphic on Facebook that paired a line from Nutting’s column with a quote from Mitt Romney’s campaign website.

Under the heading, “Romney’s World,” the Facebook post quoted a Romney Web page saying, “Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history.” (That accurately quotes Romney.)

Immediately to the right, under the heading, “Real World,” the Facebook post provided a retort using a caption from Nutting’s key chart: “Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4 percent annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.” (The post cited the quotation to the Wall Street Journal; technically, Nutting writes for MarketWatch, which is an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal.)

The Facebook post appears to have originated with the liberal blog Groobiecat Call, which promises “data-driven analysis” and “lefteous indignation.” Before the day was out, roughly a dozen PolitiFact readers had forwarded it to us, seeking our view of its accuracy. So we looked into it.

Nutting’s column

First, let’s recap what Nutting said in his column:

“Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an ‘inferno’ of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. 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.”

Nutting ran the numbers for the past 60 years, adjusting for the fact that “the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.” For Obama, that means that “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.”

He continued, “By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.”

Nutting did, however, attribute a portion of fiscal 2009 spending to Obama rather than Bush. He reassigned about $140 billion, covering spending made that year through the stimulus bill, the expansion of a children’s health-care program and other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

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

Our analysis

Before presenting our own calculations, we’ll get some methodological issues out of the way.

Like Nutting, we used historical data from the Office of Management and Budget along with projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Projecting outlays into the future involves a degree of uncertainty, but CBO’s most recent projections are considered the most independent and reliable.

Because we’re checking the Facebook post rather than Nutting’s column, we examined the way the post compared the presidents. Since the Facebook post ignores differences between presidents’ first and second terms, which are noted in Nutting’s chart, we’ve combined presidents’ entire tenures into a single time span. And several presidents who served during the past 60 years didn’t have tenures that coincided precisely with fiscal years, due to assassination or resignation. So we’re using the closest fiscal years we can, and we’re skipping President Gerald Ford, whose tenure was too short to adequately measure.

Here are the average spending increases per year in raw dollars (not adjusted for inflation) in descending order by president:

President

Fiscal year baseline

Last fiscal year

Average percentage increase per year

Carter 1977 1981 16.4
Nixon 1969 1975 13.5
Johnson 1964 1969 11.0
George W. Bush 2001 2009 10.2
Reagan 1981 1989 8.6
Kennedy 1961 1964 7.1
George H.W. Bush 1989 1993 5.8
Clinton 1993 2001 4.0
Eisenhower 1953 1961 3.6
Obama 2009 2013 1.4

 

So, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

Here are the results using inflation-adjusted figures:

 

President

Fiscal year baseline

Last fiscal year

Average percentage increase per year

Johnson 1964 1969 6.3
George W. Bush 2001 2009 5.9
Kennedy 1961 1964 4.7
Carter 1977 1981 4.2
Nixon 1969 1975 3.0
Reagan 1981 1989 2.7
George H.W. Bush 1989 1993 1.8
Clinton 1993 2001 1.5
Obama 2009 2013 -0.1
Eisenhower 1953 1961 -0.5

 

So, using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase — in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Bottom line: The Facebook post’s claim that government spending under Obama is “slower than at any time in nearly 60 years” is very close to accurate.

Explaining the results

So why the disconnect between Obama’s image as a big spender and the reality of how much federal spending has actually grown?

First, Obama’s record on debt is a lot less flattering than is his record on federal government spending. During the same time that spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.

Second, federal spending under Obama is higher as a share of gross domestic product than it has been in most of the previous 60 years. That, too is because of the economy, which has simultaneously slowed the growth of GDP and boosted government spending for programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.

Third, the aging of the baby boomers has driven a rise in entitlement spending that is masking cuts Obama and the GOP Congress have made, and have promised to make, in discretionary spending. Using outlays as the unit of measurement, as Nutting and the Facebook post have done, means focusing on money already spent. It does not take into account future spending that’s been committed to but not yet carried out.

And finally, many Americans associate Obama with the high-profile legislative activities of his first year or two, when initiatives such as the stimulus sent spending upward the fastest. Since then, spending has slowed, thanks in part to spending cuts pushed by congressional Republicans.

Which brings us to another important issue: The president is not all-powerful, so his record on spending was accomplished in collaboration with congressional Republicans.

 

 

NOW AN OUT RIGHT LIE TIMED TO IMPRESS THE 5% AND BELOW…. BUT WHY WOULD EVEN THE ELITE SUPPORT A KNOWN LIAR FOR ANY POSITION LET ALONE GOVENOR???

Walker

Says new figures he released showing Wisconsin job gains for 2011 are “the final job numbers.”

Scott Walker on Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 in a TV ad

In recall battle, Wisconsin Gov. Scott says new figures showing job gains are “the final job numbers”

A day after Gov. Scott Walker announcedstatistics indicating Wisconsin had gained jobs in 2011 — not lost them, as earlier numbers showed — he touted the new figure in a TV ad, saying:

“The government just released the final job numbers. And, as it turns out, Wisconsin actually gained — that’s right, gained — more than 20,000 new jobs during my first year in office.”

We’ve rated Mostly False Walker’s claim in the ad that 33,200 jobs have been added during his watch when you add the new 2011 figure to monthly numbers for 2012. While both sets of numbers are the most up to date, they are gathered differently and cannot be added in this manner, and they were presented without critical facts.

We’ve also rated False a claim by Democrat Tom Barrett — Walker’s challenger in the June 5, 2012 recall election — that Walker was “cooking the books” and had “dreamed up” the 20,000 figure. It’s a real number the state submitted to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But there is another question tied in to both statements: Are the 2011 figures Walker announced three weeks before the election “the final job numbers” as he said in the ad?

His claim suggests, despite the controversy that ensued after his announcement, that the new figure has been reviewed by the federal government and is complete.

The 20,000 figure — a precise figure of 23,321 appears on the screen in the ad — comes from a quarterly jobs count involving about 95 percent of Wisconsin employers done by the state.  

The day Walker announced the figure the state reported job numbers for the final quarter of the year to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the official jobs scorekeeper.

But just submitting the count does not make it final.

BLS will review the quarterly count and possibly adjust it before releasing a figure in late June 2012, some three weeks after the recall election.

That’s when an official jobs lost or added figure for 2011 will be, well, official.

Walker himself has acknowledged it’s unusual for a state to release its quarterly job count before BLS does it officially, although BLS has said states are free to do so.

Walker didn’t respond to our request for comment on his claim. But his own Department of Workforce Development, which submits the jobs data to BLS, notes that BLS won’t issue an official figure for 2011 until the end of June.


 

    Advertisements