New Crossroads Ad Has The Left Tied In Knots

There is an article at Salon that I stumbled across that caused my jaw to drop.  The author is in a tizzy because of a new Crossroads ad that he is afraid will resonate with the voters. I think he is right. Please check out the ad

The author believes that the so-called deficit crisis is nothing more than hysteria perpetrated by the Republicans. Let’s look at one of the articles he links to prove his point

Obama spending binge never happened

Seriously. That is the title of this Market Watch article. Using official government statistics, the author proves that “Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.” You can see the results in this bar graph.

Numbers don’t lie, do they? The statistic clearly support the authors contention. However, the author intentionally does not explain why Obama’s spending rate is so low, for example, when compared to his predecessor, Bush. Let’s do a little of our own analysis, shall we?
President G. W. Bush was a profligate spender. None of us are going to argue with that fact. Then, on top of everything else. the housing bubble exploded on Mr. Bush and he was convinced that the Too Big To Fail  banks had to be bailed out Congress approved TARP, a one time bailout of something over $780 billion. Enter Barack Obama. In his first year, he didn’t have TARP spending on his record. Although much of TARP was repaid on his watch, which otherwise would make his spending even higher. But, Although Obama didn’t have the $780 billion of TARP money to spend, he got congress to pass a stimulus bill of over $800 billion. So his first year of spending appears to be only a little over than 1% more than what Bush spent in his last year as president. If the TARP paybacks were credited to Bush, the difference would be much greater. But here is the real kicker. The stimulus package of $800+ billion was not a one time thing. Because the Democrat controlled Senate has refused to pass a budget for the last three years and instead congress has passed Continuing Resolutions, that $800+ billion slush fund has become part of the budget base line. So, Obama’s 1.4% growth rate in spending is that low because he has this huge slush fund to  spend each year at his discretion. No other President in history has had such a slush fund at their disposal. We have not had a stimulus of only $800 billion. In four years, Obama will have spent nearly $3.5 trillion in stimulus. Does our economy appear to be stimulated?
So, yes I do think the author of the Salon article has good reason to worry about the Crossroads ad. I will resonate with the voters.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

24 thoughts on “New Crossroads Ad Has The Left Tied In Knots

  1. I’m blogging on the Marketwatch article tomorrow. It is full of Krugmanesque tricks, which I will explain. Liberals are good at devising obscure, meaningless benchmarks hoping to show their latest big spender really isnt.

    This is the key…
    Because the Democrat controlled Senate has refused to pass a budget for the last three years and instead congress has passed Continuing Resolutions, that $800+ billion slush fund has become part of the budget base line. So, Obama’s 1.4% growth rate in spending is that low because he has this huge slush fund to spend each year at his discretion.

  2. You missed a big reason, Jim. The 2009 budget (Bush’s last) was NEVER given to Bush to sign. Pelosi and Reid stalled until Obama was elected, then Obama signed it, the biggest budget in Bush’s 8 years in office, in March, two months after Bush left the White House.

    Also, the 2008 budget was an increase (the deficit was declining dramatically until the Dems took over both houses of Congress) that came as a result of Bush having to deal with the Dems.

    The trick the guy is trying to use is to put 2009 on Bush (for a budget he never signed, but Obama did) and to ignore (as you said) the added stimulus spending that’s become the baseline. So the Dems shot the budget up by a trillion dollars (all deficit spending), but haven’t increased it much since doing that.

    How anyone can fall for this is beyond me. How would you possibly increase the debt more in 3 years than the previous administration did in 8 while being a frugal spender? You’d have to be a die hard, economically ignorant, intentionally obtuse Democrat to buy it.

  3. I already dispelled the Democrat’s lies in the article, “The Truth of Bush Vs, Obama Deficit Spending” back in March where you can see for yourselves the levels of spending year by year in a graph without statistical base-year selection manipulation and other gimmicks.

    The true is that even taking the spending crisis year of 2008 as a base, spending grew by 189.7% in the years 2009 to 2012 period. That is an average of 47.4% per year in the last 4 years (whose years? Obama’s). Check it out at,

  4. $16 Trillion. Can the author explain that? We’re not just borrowing more to pay interest on debt already incurred.

    Love the ad. Hope it gets aired in all 50 states.

  5. The issue is not totally a spending issue. It is spending with relation to revenues, and what you are spending the money on. For example, Reagan had a recession to handle, and he did by lowering taxes, and increasing defense spending while the corresponding revenues increased substantially.

    Obama has a recession, raises taxes, and decreases defense spending which is one of the few categories of Federal spending that results in any stimulus to the economy. This happens because defense spending is technology spending, and Obama’s spending is on old stuff (infrastructure) already producing economic value.

    For example, Obama’s $852 Billion stimulus program focused on union and political payoffs. The money would have bought more than 5000 F-22 fighter jets at the high price of $150 Million each. We don’t need that many fighter jets, but that kind of program would have generated tens of thousands of jobs, and could have brought us out of the recession.

    The graphs are misleading, too. There is no way Obama has spent less than Reagan, Clinton, or Bush. Delivering information for the purpose of misleading people is called, lying. Period;.

    1. Amen, Bob. Both regarding spending on things that make a difference, and on the lying part. I’m still astounded at how many people bought it. Before I’d read a single debunking of it I was able to debunk it when someone posted the graph on Facebook, and I’m no economist. I just have both a memory and a rudimentary knowledge of “bullshit when I see it.”

    2. Without a doubt there are areas where government spending is necessary and desirable. But, we do have a serious spending problem and we know that the DOD is just as quilty of waste as any other department of government. In general, I support lower spending and lower taxes. which allows the private sector to decide where the best use of money is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s