What's the difference between Enron and the Obama Administration? Enron's accounting was more honest.
By now, some liberal, happy warrior has brought your attention to Ray Nutter's, er, Nutting's Market Watch piece about how Obama is Mr. Fiscal Conservative, and that
"under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s."
Seem too good to be true? That probably seems counter intuitive to what most of you know to be true, and it should, because there's some Enron style accounting going into those figures*. First of all, it includes a heaping helping of stimulus that wasn't in Bush's budget. But since it happened in 2009, when traditionally, the previous president is responsible for the spending, it was in Enron's, er Obama's benefit to count it as Bush's spending.
To make the bamboozling even worse, what most of us thought would be a one time stimulus, is now built into the baseline of the federal budget, so that, according to the plan, about an additional billion dollars is spent, before there is any "increase". That's how they figure the increase is lowest since Eisenhower. It is a shell game. Obama is spending money faster than a drunken Congressman. And like Obama's phoney claim to have cut millions from the budget, Obama, should he be re-elected, would spend more every year he is in office. He's told us that we would. Now if only his willing accomplices in the media would expose this charlatan, this bamboozler of the gullible, for the big spender he really is, we can send him packing back to Chicago. Or Hawaii. Or Kenya. Or wherever he wants to go. Just go.
*When White House press secretary Jay Carney starts quoting them, it becomes a part of the administration's spin machine.
(You can read Proof daily at: Proof Positive Blog)