http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...bama-spending-
White House urges press not to buy into 'B.S.' Republican talking points about Obama spending 
Republicans have long used the "tax-and-spend" trope as a cudgel against  Democrats. That's happening again this election season. But, as White  House Press Secretary Jay Carney pointed out to reporters riding 
Air Force  One Wednesday, asserting that President Obama has been on a spending  spree is a GOP talking point utterly in conflict with the facts. Carney had just read the Rex Nutting analysis in the 
Marketwatch section of the 
Wall Street Journal that we 
highlighted  here Tuesday. Condensed, that analysis says the "spending binge" Obama  supposedly has been on since he came into office never happened.
 Donovan Black of Politico 
wrote that Nutting's piece spurred Carney to 
offer a bit of advice for his captive audience:
“That is a fact not often noted in the press,” Carney said, “and certainly never mentioned by the Republicans.” [...] “I simply make the point—as an editor might say—to ‘check it out,’” he said.
 “Do not buy into the B.S. that you hear about spending and fiscal  constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a  sign of sloth and laziness.”
 
Critics on the left have argued that the Obama administration has not  spent enough because more government stimulus is needed to remedy the  impacts of the Great Recession. Paul Krugman and other economists came  to this conclusion before the stimulus was passed 39 months ago.  Christine Romer, former chairperson of the Council on Economic Advisers,  also wanted more stimulus, but her ideas in this regard never made it  to the president's desk. The counter-argument was that while more would  probably be better, politically more was impossible because an unwilling  Congress stood in the way.
Suppose for a moment that Congress had not been in the way. Suppose that the stimulus package had been 
double  what it was, rounded off at $1.6 trillion. That's pretty much what I  and others argued should have been pushed. Reckless spending? On the  contrary, it would have meant a temporary boost in additional overall  spending of just 
5 percent. It should be noted that military  spending has risen just under 8 percent since 2009. For comparison,  during George Bush's two terms overall military spending rose 68  percent. Against that, a doubled stimulus package, especially one  focused on investments in 
clean energy and restored infrastructure, seems more than reasonable. And still nothing like a "spending spree."
 Whether or not one believes Obama should have spent more to boost the  economy, it's clear that he has not presided over four years of  reckless expansion of the federal budget. As Carney points out, 
the  media should not be reinforcing the Republicans' bullshit claims that he  has.
