In my post yesterday titled Barack Obama Is Indeed A Big Spender, And Convoluted Logic And Ignoring Facts Can't Change The Truth -- numerous debunkings of 'nutty' Rex Nutting's Obama propaganda piece published at Market Watch were pointed out. Nutting's piece essentially had David Axelrod's gleeful stamp of approval written all over it, and given that we're talkin' CBS here ... I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it actually was instigated by Axelrod.

As readers may recall, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One on Wednesday to "not buy into the B.S. that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration," and then cited Rex Nutting's preposterous MarketWatch column that claimed to show that "under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s." Carney then went so far as to say "I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out." Unfortunately for Carney and the rest of the Obama administration, many people did exactly that -- they "checked it out" ... and found to to be complete B.S.

Today, Conn Carroll adds some additional perspective and facts:

[Nutting's] most productive trick is to assign all of fiscal year 2009's spending to President Bush. Nutting doesn't start the clock on Obama's spending until fiscal 2010.

ases, that would be fair, because presidents typically sign the next year's spending bills in the calendar year before they leave office. But not in 2009. The Democratic Congress, confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009's 12 appropriations bills (Defense; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them, and Obama signed them.

So whereas Bush had proposed spending just $3.11 trillion in fiscal 2009, for a 3 percent increase, Obama and the Democrats ended up spending $3.52 trillion, for a 17.9 percent increase in spending -- the highest single-year percentage spending increase since the Korean War.

By the end of Obama's first year in office, spending as a percentage of GDP was 25.2 percent, the highest it has ever been since World War II. As Obama's stimulus spending has receded, spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down, but only slightly. Under President Bush, spending averaged 19.6 percent of GDP. Under President Clinton, it was 19.8 percent. The historical post-war average is 19.7 percent. In 2012, after four years of Obama's fiscal leadership, it is expected to be 24.3 percent.

Even The Washington Post isn't buying Carney and Nutting's B.S. WaPo Fact checker Glenn Kessler reports this morning: "Carney suggested the media were guilty of "sloth and laziness," but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context -- context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House." (Emphasis added)Also today, Investor's Business Daily "pimp-slaps" Nutting (via Doug Ross) -- and does so with a simple, but contextually accurate (unlike Nutting's), chart:

You wouldn't think that, after adding $5 trillion to the U.S.' debt, President Obama would seriously claim he's a fiscal hawk. But thanks to a misleading article on CBS' MarketWatch site, that's just what he's doing.

president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years," Obama said on Wednesday. "Think about that."

Obama didn't turn to his own Office of Management and Budget to support this fact, or even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Instead, he went to a CBS MarketWatch column by Rex Nutting, which claims spending under Obama has risen by an average of just 1.4%.

"Federal spending," he wrote, "is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s."

Nutting even posted a chart to "prove" his case, which appears to show average annual spending hikes under Obama coming in well under that of his predecessors.

Not surprisingly, this "fact" lit up the left-wing blogosphere, with the White House quickly parading the article to dismiss GOP attacks.

There's just one problem. Nutting had it wrong ... In fact, he made two significant mistakes that have the effect of hiding Obama's huge spending spree, mistakes that even Nutting's conservative critics missed ...
IBD goes on to point out that, aside from the Stimulus scam and the litany of frivolous spending Obama pushed through a compliant Congress, TARP and GSE spending were incorrectly accounted for in Nutting's analysis. In other words, Nutting made giant mistakes, small mistakes, and everything in between -- and the White House was all too happy to repeat his faulty logic, assumptions, data, and conclusions without checking them, hoping that just saying it would somehow make it so.

Unfortunately, the WH is, more likely than not, bound to just keep repeating the same lie as long as there are enough gullible voters out there to lap it up.