Why Does Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) Hate American Values and Working Families

Why Does Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) Hate American Values and Working Families

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R), like Republican governors all across the country, aims to implement a regressive tax plan that involves cutting income taxes for the rich while, in his case, maintaining a sales tax hike that primarily hurts the poor. The sales tax increase was supposed to be temporary when it was adopted in 2010, but Brownback now wants to make permanent.

Sales taxes disproportionately impact the poor, who are more likely to spend all or most of their income. According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Brownback’s plan will raise taxes on the poorest Kansans, but still lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue due to huge tax cuts for the rich:

    – The poorest 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers would pay 0.2 percent more of their income in taxes each year, or an average increase of $22.

    – The middle 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers would pay 0.2 percent less of their income in taxes each year, or an average cut of $104.

    – Upper-income families, by contrast, reap the greatest benefit with the richest one percent of Kansans, those with an average income of over a million dollars, saving an average of $6,528 a year.

The plan would cost the state $340 million in revenue, despite hiking taxes the poor. And Kansas already has a regressive tax system, with the poorest residents paying a rate more than twice as high as the richest 1 percent.

 Brownback and other anti-American conservatives feel that millioanires and wealthy coporations have it real tough. So they're just asking people in the bottom 70 % percent of the income range to contribute more. If people - many of whom are making around minimum wage and barely getting by, why those wealthy people and coporations might create some more jobs that do not even pay a living wage. Conservatives in several states are finally getting what they want, America as a giant plantation, the 1950s model of America. Sense they're going to give people a few dollars an hour, you can't technically call it slavery. Since they're gutting education, degrading rivers, blowing the tops off mountains and making health care even harder to get for most Kansas residents - how can they say they believe in progress and prosperity? Prosperity for who, a few wealthy plutocrats who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, because they made their wealth on the backs of labor.

Why Does The Conservative Republican Confederate Yankee Bob Owens Hate American Values

The Patriot Gospel: Guns Don't Kill People, Video Games Kill People

The Patriot Gospel: Gun Don't Kill People, Video Games Kill People

Republicans are more likely to place the blame for gun violence on video games, not guns, according to a recent poll from Public Policy Polling. Sixty seven percent of Republicans believe that such games are a “bigger safety threat” than firearms — only 14 percent think the reverse.

The only problem? There’s no data to support that position. There is evidence that limiting access to guns can help limit violence wrought by those machines. In particular, there’s evidence to show that the Assault Weapons Ban helped to limit gun violence on the Mexican-American border. And in states where gun ownership is high and gun laws are lax, violence rates are higher.

On the other hand, there’s absolutely no conclusive evidence showing that video games are the root cause of violence. There are countries with much lower rates of violence that have much higher consumption of video games.

It doesn't matter what reality says, conservative gun fetishists love believe stuff. Once they believe stuff, it is like trying to convince the member of a cult that the guy up there preaching is not a mini-god. Since conservatism has all the hallmarks of a cult, good luck with trying to get them to consume some reality.

Fox News and Torture Boy Sean /Hannity Uses Ex-LAPD Cop Killer To Dishonestly Smear Liberals

The Terrible Truth About the Republicans' Favorite Historian

Why Wacky Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) Is Not The Savior of Conservatism

Why Wacky Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) Is Not The Savior of Conservatism

Since Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) abandoned his opposition to providing undocumented immigrants with a pathway to citizenship and embraced a bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration, political pundits and Republican leaders have anointed the Florida Congressman the future of the GOP.

Consequently, the likely 2016 presidential candidate has become a media darling, appearing on conservative talk shows and mainstream outlets to tout his reform principles and convince skeptics of the wisdom of reforming the nation’s broken immigration system. The media idolization reached its zenith on the cover of this week’s issue of TIME magazine. The publication prominently features a picture of a defiant Rubio under the headline, “The Republican Savior [2]: How Marco Rubio became the new voice of the GOP.”

But dig beyond Rubio’s newfound embrace of immigration reform, and you’ll find that the GOP’s future appears stuck in the past, as the great hope of the party still espouses many of the extreme policies voters rejected in November:

    1. Refused to raise the debt ceiling. Rubio voted against [3] the GOP’s compromise measure to temporarily suspend the debt limit through May 19 in order avoid defaulting on the national debt. In a statement posted on his website, Rubio insisted that he would hold the debt ceiling increase hostage “unless it is tied with measures to actually solve our debt problem through spending reforms [4].”

    2. Co-sponsored and voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment. “Now more than ever, we need a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” Rubio proclaimed in 2011. A Balanced Budget Amendment would force the government to slash spending during an economic downturn, driving up unemployment and making the downturn worse, in a vicious cycle. If the amendment were in place during the last financial crisis, unemployment would have doubled [5].

    3. Signed the Norquist pledge. Rubio pledged to never raise taxes [6] under any circumstances and even voted against the last-minute deal to avert the fiscal cliff, since the deal included $600 billion in revenue. “Thousands of small businesses, not just the wealthy, will now be forced to decide how they’ll pay this new tax [7],” Rubio noted in a statement.

    4. Backed Florida’s voter purge. Rubio defended [8] Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) attempted purge Democratic voters from the rolls, brushing off its disproportionate targeting of Latino voters. He also defended Florida’s decision to shorten its early voting period from two weeks to eight days by pointing to “the cost-benefit analysis.” After Election Day, several prominent Florida Republicansadmitted [9] that the election law changes were geared toward suppressing minority and Democratic votes and researchers found that long voting lines drove away at least 201,000 Florida voters [10].

    5. Doesn’t believe in climate change. During a recent BuzzFeed interview, Rubio claimed has “seen reasonable debate [11]” over whether humans are causing climate change. Scientists have long agreed that the debate is now over.

    6. Opposed federal action to help prevent violence against women. Rubio voted against the motion to proceed to debate the Violence Against Women Act, noting that he disagrees with portions of the bill. Rubio claims [12] he supports a scaled-back version of the legislation.

    7. Believes employers should be able to deny birth control to their employees. Rubio co-sponsored a bill — along with Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — that sought to nullify Obamacare’s requirement that employers provide contraception to their employees without additional co-pays by permitting businesses to voluntarily opt out of offering birth control [12].

    8. Recorded robo calls for anti-gay hate group. Rubio has previously boasted the endorsement [13]of anti-gay hate groups like the Family Research Council and during the election recorded robocalls [14] for the National Organization of Marriage urging Americans to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians. He recently wouldn’t take a position on legislation that would prohibit employers from firing employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identify and wouldn’t say [15] “whether same-sex couples should receive protections under immigration law.”

Rubio is pretty wacky and radical Right, but his jack-booted thug theory of government is still not far Right enough for the Republican tea freaks, charlatans, egotistical plastic patriots and snake oil vendors.

Gun Truth for Patriots Only

Gun Truth for Patriots Only

By cutting off federal funding for research [1] and stymieing data collection [2] and sharing [3], the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
gun ownership

Sources: Congressional Research Service [4] (PDF), Small Arms Survey [5]

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher [6] than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states [7] with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.
ownership vs gun death

Sources: Pediatrics [8], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [9]

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely [10] than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more [11] than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground [12] and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase [13] in homicides.  


Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 [21]
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5 [22]

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide [23], suicide [24], and accidental death [25] by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders [26], 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes [27] with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys [28] who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments [29] than by civilians trying to stop a crime [30].
• In one survey, nearly 1% [31] of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% [31] involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater [32] if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more [33] women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times [34] if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times [35] more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said [36] NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan [37]?
      United States     Japan
Per capita spending
on video games     $44     $55
Civilian firearms
per 100 people     88     0.6
Gun homicides
in 2008     11,030     11

Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers [38], Small Arms Survey [39] (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime [40]

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns [41] are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion [42] of the population.
• About 50% [43] of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about [44] 45% [45] say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans [45] personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each [46].

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% [47] of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates [48] who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers [49] were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers [50] agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years [51], due to an NRA-backed requirement [52] that the Senate approve nominees.


Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all
[2] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control-alcohol-tobacco-firearms
[3] http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/80518462.html
[4] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
[5] http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2006.html
[6] http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/state-level-homicide-victimization-rates-in-the-us-in-relation-to-TNMKd0qUVn
[7] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
[8] http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/116/3/e370.full
[9] http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2
[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434012
[11] http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/american-public-health-association/when-concealed-handgun-licensees-break-bad-criminal-convictions-of-patzzJ6ljx?articleList=%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Dfirearms%26dateFacetFrom%3DNOW%252FDAY-5YEARS%26internal_rental_state%3Drentable%26journal_journal_name%5B%5D%3DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPublic%2BHealth
[12] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground?page=1
[13] http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
[14] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-newtown-bushmaster
[15] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-members-selleck-nugent
[16] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/nra-mass-shootings-myth
[17] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/nra-membership-numbers
[18] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-life-duty-police-assault-rifle-gun-control
[19] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground
[20] http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2012/12/guns-in-america-mass-shootings
[21] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
[22] http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2812%2901408-4/abstract
[23] http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full
[24] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
[25] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490
[26] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/
[27] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.90.4.588
[28] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/6/1247.abstract?sid=96fc3066-8fc5-4c58-b518-1940841c762b
[29] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
[30] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15
[31] http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full
[32] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
[33] http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
[34] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/
[35] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3456383/
[36] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/national-rifle-association-has-video-game-too
[37] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
[38] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0316/Top-video-game-markets-in-the-world/United-States
[39] http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smallarmssurvey.org%2Ffileadmin%2Fdocs%2FA-Yearbook%2F2007%2Fen%2FSmall-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf&ei=Zp8JUZrxD8rhigK_iIBw&usg=AFQjCNFYCb3CI6fyWJpCx1qTfVYVdKB_wA&sig2=eeeku-E1n8tpFC6XbBDq6g
[40] http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html
[41] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation
[42] http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29
[43] http://publicdata.norc.org/webview/velocity?var1=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V5076&op1=%3C%3E&cases2=5&stubs=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V1&var2=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V5076&op3=%3C%3E&analysismode=table&v=2&var3=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V5076&ao2=and&weights=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V5084&cases3=7&V1slice=1972&ao1=and&previousmode=table&study=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2F4697&headers=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V648&op2=%3C%3E&mode=table&ao3=and&V4slice=0&tabcontenttype=row&count=2&cases1=4
[44] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20130113.html
[45] http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
[46] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610545/
[47] http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm
[48] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940
[49] http://www.fixgunchecks.org/deleteonlineoutlaws
[50] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2937134/
[51] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/atf-ill-equipped-enforce-new-gun-laws
[52] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all
[53] http://thenounproject.com/
[54] http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=gun+man+woman&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=konstantynov&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=33221842&src=c4c1199215fa517793878a728c5ca0be-1-0

Why Do America's Plutocrats Hate Workers? Starbucks Tycoon CEO Howard Schultz Bullies the Baristas

 Why Do America's Plutocrats Hate Workers? Starbucks Tycoon CEO Howard Schultz Bullies the Baristas

The billionaires peddling austerity have always insisted that they’re in it for the common man. A recent TV ad for Fix the Debt—the well-heeled group demanding that we cut tax rates and Social Security benefits—stars a teacher and a farmer. But Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz did his peers one better: conscripting countless low-wage workers into the austerity army.

....Days before the so-called New Year’s “fiscal cliff” deadline, the Starbucks stunt seized a decent chunk of media attention. Some celebrated its spunk; others slammed its seeming naïveté. A smaller number noted the moral bankruptcy of its premise: that the national debt is a crisis, and one the working class should sacrifice to fix. But in mainstream circles, there was little outrage over what was most outrageous about the Come Together campaign: Starbucks’ decision to draft its employees as a delivery system for austerity.

Schultz’s use of hourly employees was both shrewd and deceptive. Logistics aside, a Come Together message inscribed by a billionaire CEO and printed on coffee cups could never pack the same punch as one that was handwritten by workers making $8-something an hour. Schultz’s blog post was quickly followed by a mass e-mail from Fix the Debt, bragging that “Baristas at Starbucks are showing their support for bipartisan solutions this week.” CEOs hawking “shared sacrifice” are a dime a dozen. A working-class seal of approval is much more valuable, even if—like so much in the American workplace—it’s coerced. (Starbucks assured CNN that workers could decline to participate. But not all who are drafted will risk becoming a conscientious objector.)

As sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild has observed, and Starbucks has unwittingly reminded us, the service sector is replete with “emotional labor”: not just physical production but interpersonal performance. Workers are paid not only to perform a task but to act out a part—from speaking from a company script, to smiling despite verbal abuse or physical pain, to urging that Congress embrace a deal that could imperil their retirement.

The Come Together episode illustrates the rise of political coercion in the workplace. That trend drew rare attention last year with a series of stories about companies that told their employees whom to vote for (Koch Industries), tracked workers’ political donations (Murray Energy) or warned of layoffs if President Obama was re-elected (Westgate Resorts). In the Citizens United era, companies have even greater freedom to impose their politics on employees, from convening a mandatory meeting devoted to political “persuasion” to firing an employee for affixing the wrong candidate’s bumper sticker to her car.

American law generally protects the freedom of bosses to force their politics on workers, but not the freedom of workers to take independent political action (even outside work) without being fired.

The plutocrats deeply feel that they are doing the peasants a favor by letting them have a job. You know the jobs held by people who make having a business possible, that help generate the millions of dollars that go into the pockets of these modern day Marie Antoinettes.

If We Cut Corporate Taxes Does Is That Good For the State and Jobs? NO! How States Lose $600 Million On A Worthless Corporate Tax Break

If We Cut Corporate Taxes Does Is That Good For the State and Jobs? NO! How States Lose $600 Million On A Worthless Corporate Tax Break

There’s no shortage of corporate tax giveaways at both the federal and state levels. Lawmakers of all stripes love to use the tax code to subsidize companies, either directly or indirectly.

But in some instances, federal tax breaks for corporations undermine state budgets. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities detailed today, one particular tax break will cost states $600 million next year:

    The federal government created this tax break, known as the “domestic production deduction,” in 2004. Since most states base their own tax codes on the federal tax code, the tax break was carried over into many states without specific legislative scrutiny or a vote. Now it is costing not only the federal government but also 25 states a large amount of money. By 2014, it will cost these states over $600 million per year.

    The deduction — enacted as Section 199 of the federal Internal Revenue Code — allows companies to claim a tax deduction based on profits from “qualified production activities,” a sweeping category that goes well beyond manufacturing to include such diverse activities as food production, filmmaking, and utilities — a substantial share of states’ corporate income tax base.

These deductions are largely worthless, and many states have tossed them overboard. But 25 states still leave it intact:

As CBPP noted, “Firms can claim the domestic production deduction for profits from all qualifying domestic activities — meaning activities that occur anywhere within the United States. As a result, a multi-state firm can claim the deduction in a conforming state for production activities in any state, not just the state where the firm is filing.” They also benefit large firms at the expense of small.

State efforts to encourage corporate growth and job creation through the tax code usually encourage a race to the bottom, as corporations play states off each other in order to secure the most preferential treatment, and then feel no hesitation about up and leaving later. Of course, paying corporations to create jobs is only one of the bone-headed ways states try to generate economic activity.

Another conservative myth bites the dust, again. 

MSNBC's Scarborough, Known For His UnAmerican Conservative Bias, Ignores The Facts In Front Of Him To Attack Government Spending

MSNBC's Scarborough, Known For His UnAmerican Conservative Bias, Ignores The Facts In Front Of Him To Attack Government Spending

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough blamed "a Keynesian spending spree" for the contraction in GDP at the end of 2012, while holding evidence that the opposite is true in his hands. Scarborough's claims fit into his ongoing effort to deny and marginalize demand-side economic policies which continue to enjoy broad support from trained economists.

During a discussion of the 2012 fourth quarter GDP report on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Scarborough implied that the 0.1 percent drop in output was due to government spending since the recession. From Morning Joe:

Scarborough's claim is contradicted by the Wall Street Journal article he held up during the segment, which states that "government spending, which has been a drag on growth for more than two years, declined for the ninth time in 10 quarters." The article's subhead - "GDP Shrinks 0.1% on Government Cuts, but Consumer, Business Spending Offer Hope" - also splashed across the screen moments before Scarborough made his argument.

The Wall Street Journal's reporting is in line with the latest Bureau of Economic Analysis report. The BEA calculates the component parts of the GDP figure for each quarter. This most recent report is notable not because the government spending component of GDP continues to be negative due to shrinking direct spending into the economy, but because, for the first time in the recovery, the government component of GDP was so negative that it overwhelmed the positivity in other components.

Poor Joe Scarborough lives in the lala-land of conservative myths. The report showed two inconvenient truths, Obama has not gone on a wild spending spree and, gosh darn-it, government spending can stimulate the economy.