Karl Rove's attack operation, Crossroads GPS, is launching a new attack ad this week, spending $7 million on commercials accusing President Obama of adding to the national debt through "reckless spending."
The complaint is ironic, in a way -- the driving factors behind the debt are the policies left behind by Rove's old boss -- but it's worth pausing to consider just how "reckless" government spending has been in the Obama era.
In a way, Rove accidentally stumbled onto an important point: government has been reckless, just not in the way he and other Republicans think.
TPM
TPM, borrowing a page from Paul Krugman, published this chart this morning, showing the rate of change of real government spending per capita. This isn't just Washington spending; it includes state and local expenditures.
Notice anything? Take a look at the direction of the line on the right.
It's simply accepted as fact among Republicans, reporters, and much of the public that government spending has just skyrocketed, reaching out-of-control heights since that wacky socialist president took office in 2009. But despite what everyone thinks they "know," we've effectively seen a form of American austerity in recent years, and it's holding back the economy.
Cutting government spending undermines economic growth. Hell, even Mitt Romney accepts this basic premise. And yet, here we are.
When there's an economic downturn caused by too little demand, common sense and Economics 101 suggest we would boost public-sector employment and inject more capital into the economy. Thanks to Republican policymakers, in recent years, we've done the exact opposite -- laying off public-sector workers and taking capital out of the economy.
That, to borrow Crossroads GPS' word, really is "reckless."
Why is the economy under-performing? This is why.
Leave a Comment:
Hell, even Mitt Romney accepts this basic premise.
But only on alternate Tuesdays.
What is being discussed is probably the central problem facing Obama's reelection efforts; how to change the very distorted perception of his record. Certainly, the mainstream media(MSNBC INCLUDED) has contributed greatly to this propblem. In general, the Democrats as a whole are awful at messaging and still haven't realized that for fours years the Republican messaging machine has been ruthlessly weorking to paint the current narrative on Obamam's record. Dems need to wake up and realize they are in fight with an opponent for whom rules are negilible.
This graph is kind of funny. Everything above that 0% mark is a compounding increase from the previous marks on the graph. That means that we actually are still increasing spending year after year. Except in 2011. All this graph shows is that in the year 2011 we finally stopped increasing spending from the year before, but the year before is way more than President Bush ever spent.
That is saying a lot when you take into consideration that President Bush also massively increased spending every year.
Thank god we decreased from 2010. I suppose the decrease has something to do with the debt ceiling, and the never having passed a budget.
I can just hear it now... "Vote Romney! He'll put us back on the road to the NORMAL recklessness!"
Uh, durp, isn't it supposed to go up and to the right? Yeah, that's it! This chart is bad/wrong!! Mitt Rmoney will fix that!
"When there's an economic downturn caused by too little demand, common sense and Economics 101 suggest..."
Has no one else been watching, because the GOP hasn't dealt in "common sense" for decades. Logic, thinking, common sense - these words are an anathema to the GOP and their sheeple; if they want the sheeple to apply any of the above they will tell them and the sheeple will follow.
GOP = AMERICA'S TALIBAN
Once again: When the Republican Propaganda Machine gets clicking on all four cylinders, Democrats aren't going to know what hit them. And they're going to be left there stammering, trying to get their breath, and impotently, effeminately punching air with a whining response that comes off as ... whining. You know, like they always do. The time to get out ahead of this cesspool of lies by telling their own story ahead of time and warning of the upcoming Republican attractions has passed. The election is effectively over. Get used to the phrase "President Romney."
I hate to agree with you but it's true . A compliant Infotainment - we need a horse-race MSM has aided and abetted this scam on the American people . Anyone who followed the Republican primaries would be saying Romney even???? Whaaaat???
I get so tired of the Republicans dismissing my half of the population, but I get really angry when Democrats, do it, too and then demean both the female and the male portions of the Democratic world as "impotently, effeminately punching air with a whining response..." Talk about a "Propaganda Machine"...Between Disgusted and sick-n-effin-tired, one would think the election was over, it was the day after, and calamity had fallen INSTEAD OF FIVE FREAKIN' MONTHS AWAY, with more than enough time to win this election for Democrats. You are the ones who sound as if you have quit and are whining. Buck up if you're Dems; go away if you're Republicans.
Nobody's dismissing your "half of the population." But, if you haven't noticed, Americans love them some (unjustifiably) confident alpha-males in the public sphere. And it doesn't matter how stupid what those obnoxious alpha-males say or whether it's a nauseating lie. (Explain football for example.) Democrats of the last 30+ years play the soft, low-voice class wimp who, to keep the bullies and alpha-males from taking their lunch money just refuse to fight. And they're getting ready to hand over the 20th century, the New Deal, the Great Society, the defeat of unions, and government by plutocrats to the alpha-male bullies. Because it's just too unpleasant to deal with the bullies. Whine about the reality if you want, but America just doesn't respect any show of modesty and humbleness. This is the land of Republican Jesus, not Jesus.
Talk about propaganda. Does any one in here think that this graph shows a decrease in over all spending? Or that it shows we are spending less than we were when Obama took office?
Surprise! It does not!!
The only thing this graph Shows is that We spent less in 2011 than we did in 2010.
Any number over that 0% line is an increase in spending compounded on top of the previous years increase all the way down the line.
Don't give me any of that "You didn't complain when Bush increased Spending!" I did say something and no one listened. I'm a libertarian.
By the way anyone here planning on having kids better keep in mind that the day those kids are born they too will owe their share of the debt. It's about $50,000 per person. Happy Birthday!
To me it looks like rove has little ammo if he is pulling this out already , we have been cutting taxes for 12 years , , states that are hurting have shut most spending down , leaving roads and services trashed , but dems are recklessly spending some where ?
He is speaking to people who buy his hype in the 1st place , rove has a lot of billionaires money , so he has to do something with it , lining the pockets of the corporate media with money for these commercials sure does help their cause tho
Steve,
You spend a lot of time talking about how much trouble Democrats have getting the MSM to simply acknowledge bald-faced lies when Republicans tell them, but not a lot talking about what it is about the MSM that causes them to do that. Some interviews with journalists about this--rather than just broad stroke generalities-- would be illuminating. That kind of thing is not your gig, but it is Rachel's.
The reason is several-fold:
1) This is what they are taught in journalism school; i.e., to report what was said, not to analyze. The old what, how, why, where, when went out the door
2) Media want customers and, as we all know, print media is losing them, and various markets have been sliced so thin that the competition of advertising dollars is brutal. Customers don't necessarily believe media if the side they agree with is made to look bad, whether it's true or not. So media are financially, as well as philosophically, married to false equivalency. Of course, they won't tell you that, but that is the case.
3) The 1% own the media, literally and figuratively.
So Republicans have a green light to lie at will. There is little to no downside to them lying, small or big. Republicans know this, and are unscrupulous and unprincipled enough to do it, making it an essential and primary part of their strategizing. By now, you'd think Democrats would have learned this, use it by getting out in front of it by defining themselves and trumpeting their accomplishments ahead of the lie onslaught and foretelling the certain Republican lies that will be coming the public's way. You'd be wrong. Democrats are impotent and pathetic and apparently believe there isn't really anything worth fighting fire with fire over. These are the people who are protecting the city from the barbarians outside the gate. Get ready to say good-bye to the 20th century and hello to the Gilded Age/banana republic brought to you by the Banana Republicans.
Hey, preaching to the choir. My point is that there needs to be some discussion of the structural problems in journalism that prevent the MSM from calling a lie a lie by the very people who are completely inhibited from doing so by those selfsame problems. Which is the real problem. It's a Gordian knot. Those kinds of problems tend to only have the one solution--the one Alexander came up with.
Well, I thought I addressed those structural problems and what prohibits the corporate media from calling a lie a lie. Didn't I?
When we can borrow at negative interest rates and have massive deferred maintenance pending on public infrastructure, and when we can get that maintenance done more cheaply now than later, business logic dictates doing it now rather than later.
When the demand for US Government securities is so much in excess of the supply that they are trading at historically unprecedented high prices, basic market economics (supply, demand, remember?) dictate that any prudent supplier take the market signal and produce more of them.
That's just two.
But that doesn't play well into Republicans' plans to keep the economy in the ditch till the elections. And of course, Democrats can't be caught being so gauche as to tell the public that is what is going on. That might upset somebody and cause them to have to suffer the slings and arrows of the rightwing.
The GOP Con-gress blood pack decision to avert any and all Pro-gress at the dinner the night of Obama's inauguration (as detailed in Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives") is how they paid back the US citizens after being routed in 2008. Thankfully, their craven incompetency has at least allowed something in Con-gress to Pro-gress.
I'm not a big fan of this chart, because I think it's too easy to misinterpret. Krugman's point is that the dip below the 0 line is similar to other points in our nation's spending history that didn't do well for us economically, which is a great point to examine.
TPM (and you by extension) seem to be making the argument that the drop since that peak in 2009 means a radical drop in spending. That is not what this chart is saying. This chart is saying that spending increased (at varying rates) until early 2011, at which point it started to decrease. This chart really lacks the perspective to be able to talk about the amount of spending as an absolute, since it's only considering the rate of spending change.
Put another way, if you go out a year from the stimulus peak, you see that the amount of government spending grew by another 1%. ... Is that good? Bad? Appropriate? Inappropriate? This chart can't answer those questions, because it lacks the context of the absolute amount of spending that happened.
I agree. Well put.
Thank you Mr. Krugman for stating that this President is not leader in deficit spending but exactly the opposite. Bush spent 7.4 in his first term and 8.2 in his second term while this President has spent 1.4% and yet Romney continues to lie daily about this fact. I think the democrats need to start to get more vocal on this fact and stand up for their President. Where the heck are they hiding......this election affects them also. It is important that we get back Pres. Obama and he needs to start to taut his achievements more than he has. Most of the country believe Romney when he calls him the President who has spent the most when intelligent people know better but the average general public believe Fox and others who like to distort this President's facts.Like you said on one show...they want a deficit hawk and they have him and they refuse to recognize it.
My question to the republicans is this: Why can't Romney make a stand on anything? He has been asked twice now on the Lily Ledbetter equal pay bill and he has not made a definitive statement Yet. This is true for many other things he has been asked and he flirts around with things but never says exactly what he intends to do.....and he gets away with it. It reminds me of Sharon Engle who ran away from reporters not to answer and if they caught her ....she refused to make a statemen ..she just asked for donations to her campaign. She was something else ...fortunately Mr. Reid was able to pull off a win but why is it that the republicans can run but never take a stand and no one presses them? Romney is now changing his comments on the auto center bail out...I think t his is his third story .....how can anyone want a President like him so wishy washy and non direct. He is afraid to answer...that is the truth...anything because he cannot defend it and who wants a president with no backbone? Today we heard President Obama killed another important AlQuida terrorist ....and Romney has the nerve to give him an "F" ....this President has devised a better way to fight a war where men and women will not be maimed or killed and has killed more Alquida terroriists in his 3 1/2 years totaling almost 20 and yet Romney has the gaull to stand there and say he deserves an "F". Is he for real????
Talk about propaganda. Does any one in here think that this graph shows a decrease in over all spending? Or that it shows we are spending less than we were when Obama took office?
Surprise! It does not!!
The only thing this graph Shows is that We spent less in 2011 than we did in 2010.
Any number over that 0% line is an increase in spending compounded on top of the previous years increase all the way down the line.
Don't give me any of that "You didn't complain when Bush increased Spending!" I did say something and no one listened. I'm a libertarian.
By the way anyone here planning on having kids better keep in mind that the day those kids are born they too will owe their share of the debt. It's about $50,000 per person. Happy Birthday!
If you divide it up amongst people who make enough money to pay taxes it is about $130,000 per tax payer.