The claim has even been endorsed by Politifact, which did its own examination of the data: "Bottom line: The . . . claim that government spending under Obama is 'slower than at any time in nearly 60 years' is very close to accurate.

So is it for real? Well you might say that the claim is reminiscent of a subprime mortgage with a AAA-rating. The reason that Obama-era spending has grown so slowly — assuming as MarketWatch columnist Rex Nutting does that President Bush deserves credit for all but $140 billion of fiscal 2009 spending  — is directly related to the government’s 2008 financial rescue.

Congressional Budget Office data show financial crisis spending of $266 billion in fiscal 2009. (See p. 52)

That includes $152 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, $91 billion for covering losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and another $23 billion to reinforce the deposit insurance fund.

Fast forward to this year, and those programs will cost a combined $44 billion.

(See Mandatory outlays in the budget projections excel file linked to here.)

If one takes away this excess 2009 spending on the financial crisis — and focuses instead on run-of-the-mill government programs — then federal outlays rose about 15% from 2009 to 2012, or about 4.8% a year.

Nutting takes his analysis through fiscal 2013, building in CBO projections that Congress will make the cuts approved in the 2011 deal to raise the debt ceiling. It may happen, but that’s speculation, as is much else about next year’s fiscal outlook.

But even if one insists on including all extraordinary financial crisis spending, you still would have to cut $115 billion out of the 2009 spending level which Nutting uses as a baseline. That’s because, as CBO notes (on p. 4), the Obama administration subsequently reduced 2009 TARP outlays by $115 billion after having overestimated crisis-related losses. 

In other words, that spending never happened. So, at best (including all TARP spending), Obama has presided over three years in which spending grew at a 3.6% rate, not quite the 1.4% rate (over four years including 2013) confirmed by Politifact.

Clearly, Obama did as much as he could to boost spending to combat the economic downturn — and expand health insurance in the out years — in his first year and a half. But those efforts came to a sudden head and government fiscal policy is now acting as a significant drag on the economy.

So to take issue with Politifact, while there’s some truth in what Nutting writes — and it is mostly factual — it is not an entirely accurate presentation of the facts.

Follow Jed Graham on Twitter: @Jed_Graham

Judd is the convicted fellow who received about 40% of the vote against Obama in the West Virginia Democratic primary two weeks ago. John Wolfe is the Democratic candidate who got about 41% of the vote against Obama in the Arkansas primary Tuesday, while in the Kentucky primary 42% of Democrat voters pulled the lever for “uncommitted.”

It’s axiomatic that when an incumbent president faces a serious challenger in the primaries he is headed for serious trouble in November. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s challenge to President Jimmy Carter in the 1980 primaries portended Carter’s general election loss to Ronald Reagan. President George H.W. Bush’s days in office were, in retrospect, clearly numbered when Pat Buchanan began to rack up serious vote counts in 1992 primaries.

So, do Judd, Wolfe and Uncommitted portend something similar for Obama?

“These things are not flukes, but they’re not challengers, either,” election analyst Larry Sabato told Capital Hill. “This simply means that in deeply red states, Obama is very unpopular. Wow, what a headline!”

But Sabato noted that it may have implications beyond red states.

“No one really knows what it means at this point (for the general election),” he said. “But what it does tell you is that in states with large white, blue-collar populations, Obama is going to do poorly. He’s made no progress among those voters.”

That describes substantial parts of key states like Ohio, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia and Pennsylvania. It’s also a good description of the Florida panhandle.

“That doesn’t mean Obama will lose those states,” said Sabato. “He may be able to do it the same way he did it in 2008 even while geting in the 30 percentile, which he did last time, of the white, blue-collar vote.”

But what if Obama gets somewhere in the 20th percentile of those voters?

“Obama would probably lose,” said Sabato. “He’d need to see a big increase in the minority or the youth vote to make up the difference.”

In 2004 President Bush did better among all whites than Sen. John McCain did in 2008. So, Capital Hill took the white share of the vote in the 2008 election for those states listed above and recalculated it using the Bush-Kerry percentage of 2004.

If Romney were to get Bush’s share of the white vote in those states this year and Obama received Kerry’s, Romney would win Ohio, Colorado and Virginia. Assuming Romney takes Indiana and North Carolina, that gets him to 246 electoral votes.

Capital Hill also found that in Florida Romney would only have to do slightly better among whites than Bush did to win, which would put him over the 270 needed to win.

Of course, that assumes that disaffection among white, blue collar voters is sufficient to push Romney’s numbers among all whites up to Bush’s levels, something that at this point is speculation.

But if Judd, Wolfe and Uncommitted are indeed mini-Kennedys — that is, they are indications of big trouble for Obama among white blue-collar voters not just in West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky but nationwide — then it may be one and done for the current administration.

Follow David Hogberg on Twitter: @DavidHogberg

Florida’s Rubio, a Tea Party conservative, is pushing a limited version of the pro-immigrant Dream Act. While Democrats accuse Republicans of refusing to compromise, none has crossed the aisle to embrace his idea or even work with him on it.

The White House has lobbied pro-immigration groups to avoid the plan, promising a different tack post-election. Mitt Romney, presumptive head of the GOP ticket, has said he is looking at it.

Democrats fear if Rubio’s idea gets traction, the bipartisan compromise will eliminate immigration as a fall election issue. Democrats are counting on high minority turnout to lift their chances. The last thing they want is a Rubio legislative victory before November, Republicans argue.

Shortly after the story was published online yesterday, a source from the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Capital Hill to take issue with it. The source, who refused to speak on the record, argued strenuously that it wasn’t fair to say that no Democrat has embraced Rubio’s proposal, pointing to news stories reporting that two Illinois Democrats, Rep. Luis Gutierrez and Sen. Dick Durbin, have made positive statements regarding the proposal. (Durbin’s office did not respond to a press inquiry regarding Rubio’s proposal for the original IBD article.)

Furthermore, the source said that Reid was “totally willing” to work with Rubio on the legislation. To be fair, the story should have noted that Reid had been talking about a possible deal with Rubio in recent weeks.

That appears to be a change in position for Reid, because last month he had declared Rubio’s version a nonstarter since it didn’t offer citizenship to eligible immigrants.

Reid is still pushing for a version that includes citizenship, a provision that Republicans would reject, as Reid well knows.

When asked if Reid had reached out to Rubio, who has been outlining his proposal for months now, the source said no, he had not. Reid will not act until Rubio actually produces a bill. The source declined to say if Reid would commit to a vote when and if the legislation is introduced, saying the majority leader would have to examine the details first.

The source did not dispute reports that the White House had told pro-immigration groups not to back Rubio’s bill, instead saying it was unfair to say that represented all Democrats. Duly noted.

For the record, the story did not say that Reid opposed the bill, merely that he had publicly said that its chances were doubtful and that Reid has not committed to allowing a vote.

The fact that the call from the majority leader’s office came so quickly after the story was published points to the fact that top Democrats are closely monitoring Rubio’s proposal and trying aggressively to spin news regarding it. By making the proposal, Rubio has introduced a major wild card into the immigration debate, one that could potentially shift the politics regarding it. That appears to have a lot of people on edge.

Follow Sean Higgins on Twitter: @SeanGHiggins

It’s a fair argument, one that usually is leveled at people who work for Big Business. But it happens in all spheres.

Green activists get jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency. Big Labor activists are appointed to the Labor Department or the National Labor Relations Board.

The latter was the case with Craig Becker, who finished a term as an NLRB board member last year. Becker was so controversial when he was nominated that Republicans refused to allow a vote on him. President Obama was obliged to use an “emergency recess” appointment to put him on.

The issue wasn’t merely that Becker had been a top lawyer for both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union. It was that Becker had some, ahem, innovative ideas about worker-management relations — namely, that management should have no say in those relations whatsoever. In a law review article, Becker argued that “employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case” that comes before the NLRB.

This was the guy that Obama wanted to put on the NLRB so badly that he bypassed Congress and used a presidential power originally intended for emergency situations to put him there. Did I mention that Big Labor has been a huge supporter of the president and the Democratic Party?

So what’s Becker going to do now? Well, today the AFL-CIO made an announcement:

“Craig Becker will become General Counsel of the AFL-CIO, President Richard Trumka announced today. ... He will come to the AFL-CIO effective July 1.

“Craig Becker is a brilliant lawyer and creative thinker with deep experience in labor law, litigation and organizing; his combination of legal acumen and experience on the ground is simply unmatched,” said Trumka.

And so the revolving door swings again. Guys, you could at least be subtle about it.

There are two main take-aways from the data, the first of which has been true for some time: Time in college for dropouts may not do much to aid their careers and will leave them with a pile of student loan debt.

The second take-away is that whatever job market advantage college dropouts had in the past over high school grads with no college seems to have shrunk.

This makes sense for two reasons: 1) There has been a big shift in the population toward people who attended college at least for a time — from 43% in 1992 to 57% last year. 2) Higher education isn’t apparently necessary for a large share of the jobs being added in this recovery.

These two trends help explain why the number of jobless workers over 24 who attended college now exceeds the number who settled for a high school diploma or less — for the first time in history.

It’s no surprise that at a time the market for so-called knowledge jobs is more competitive than ever, college dropouts would have a particularly tough time competing against those with two- or four-year degrees.

But the data are worth a closer look to understand the significance of the at least temporarily higher jobless rate for college dropouts than for high school finishers (meaning they finished school after getting their high school diploma).

At first blush, one might discount this statistic as simply being a function of the higher labor force participation rate among college dropouts (66.1%) vs. high school finishers (59.3%).

Yet, a careful look at the evidence suggests the jobless data do signal a significant narrowing of labor market outcomes between college dropouts and high school finishers.

Labor Department data show that while the jobless-rate advantage of college dropouts over high school finishers has disappeared and turned negative, the advantage of two-year-degree holders over college dropouts is way above the historical norm. (See chart.)

Meanwhile, the jobless rate differential between high school finishers and two-year-degree holders is right in line with its historical average. This suggests that the principal mover is a decline in employment outcomes among dropouts.

And what of the difference in labor force participation? Census data show there were nearly 20 million high school finishers age 35-54 in 1979, but less than 7 million college dropouts or two-year-degree holders.

Those who are still alive are now at least 68 and mostly done with their work years. Back-of-the-envelope calculations show this difference accounts for roughly the entire difference in the labor force participation rates.

Of course, nothing is crystal clear when it comes to sorting through government data, which are based on a household survey and come with a margin of error. But this jarring bit of analysis from the Center for Economic and Policy Research gives a sense of just how badly college dropouts are struggling — even apart from their hefty student debt loads:

College dropouts and two-year-degree holders together now make up 33% of the low-wage workforce, only slightly less than the 37% share of high school finishers.

Both groups (those with some college but no four-year degree and high school finishers) have about 34 million employed, so outcomes in this area are pretty comparable.

Follow Jed Graham on Twitter: @Jed_Graham

And while keeping the 3.4% interest rate on federal student loans from rising to 6.8% in July is not yet a done deal, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion, with President Obama, Mitt Romney, and both parties in Congress on board. The dispute comes down to how to fund the one-year, $6 billion cost. Republicans want to take money from an ObamaCare preventive care fund. Democrats want to increase taxes on small businesses, specifically S-Corporations.

Neither “pay-for” seems particularly appealing, so here’s a better one. Take $6 billion from the Ex-Im Bank to pay for the lower rate on student loans.

No doubt Big Business will grumble, but with over $100 billion going to the Ex-Im Bank, few are going to sympathize with the loss of only $6 billion of it.

Further, opponents can quickly be set back on their heels: “You mean you prefer corporate welfare over helping students afford a college education?”

This “tactic” is just lying there, waiting for one of the two parties to pick it up. It seems somewhat better suited for the GOP since all but one of the votes against the Ex-Im Bank (that of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont) came from Republicans. There would be some schadenfreude in seeing Sen. Chuck Schumer have to defend giving money to big corporations instead of college students.

Unfortunately, it would amount to little more than squeezing a little lemonade out of a big pile of bad lemons. Corporate welfare needs to end, and Congress should not be keeping the interest rate on student loans artificially low when there is a very real possibility of a higher education bubble.

But, for the time being, it’s the best that can be done.

Follow David Hogberg on Twitter: @DavidHogberg

The Ending Spending Fund, funded by Joe Ricketts, founder of TD Ameritrade, decided to dispense with a $10 million ad buy highlighting some of Wright’s more controversial statements after Romney said, “I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they’ve described.”

A number of commentators, including yours truly, grumbled about why Republicans favor unilateral disarmament. Yet in this case Romney’s move might make more sense than initially seemed.

Earlier in the day on CNN, Roland Martin opined that this is a potential can of worms for Romney and the GOP. “You can try all day to drudge up Jeremiah Wright,” he said. “But you’re now putting Mormonism on the table ... you’re now putting on the table how African Americans were treated by the Mormon religion.”

During the 2008 campaign, Romney’s religion became an issue, prompting him to give a speech about the issue as he lost ground in Iowa to Mike Huckabee, especially among evangelicals. Since it didn’t work out too well back then, chances are the Romney campaign has decided that it’s not worth the risk of having it come up again. It appears that Romney has largely shored up the GOP base, and that last thing he wants is for something to start undoing that.

Thus far, the Romney campaign has proven fairly deft at counterpunching, taking advantage of Hilary Rosen’s “critique” of Ann Romney and turning the attacks on Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital into a discussion of the economy under Obama. Thus, it’s best to give the campaign the benefit of the doubt — for now.

Of course, if some left-wing SuperPAC decides to make Mormonism an issue, Romney better realize that all bets are off and it’s time to let Joe Ricketts off of his leash. And if he doesn’t, he’ll deserve all the criticism from the political right that he gets.

But, until that happens, conservatives should probably give Romney a pass on this one.

Follow David Hogberg on Twitter: @David Hogberg

In a conference call she stated, “Not only did 49 states and the District of Columbia accept grants to help plan their exchanges, but now 34 of those states and D.C. have taken additional steps to make sure their exchanges are up and running by 2014.”

Uh-huh.

What Sebelius is referring to is that 34 states and D.C. have received Level 1 grants to help set up state-based health exchanges. (See this figure at HHS’ website.)

There are three different types of grants that HHS gives for exchanges: planning, Level 1 and Level 2. The planning grants were of little consequence. Nearly every state received $1 million in September of 2010 for “research and planning” on setting up an exchange.

Level 1 grants are generally used for things like consulting, administrative and technical support, and making sure the exchange is in compliance with state laws and regulations.

Neither planning nor Level 1 grants require a state legislature to have actually passed enabling legislation to set up the exchange. For example, both Arkansas and New Jersey have Level 1 grants. But late last year Arkansas legislators decided not to pursue an exchange, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie recently vetoed enabling legislation. 

Missouri is another state with a Level 1 grant that has yet to pass enabling legislation, and this recent article in the Washington Post notes that a lot of states are dragging their feet waiting to see how the Supreme Court rules.

Level 2 grants are for states that are in the final phases of setting up their exchanges. Thus far, only two states, Washington and Rhode Island, have received Level 2 grants.

Thus, it’s misleading for Sebelius to suggest that there are 34 states that are taking “additional steps to make sure their exchanges are up and running by 2014.” But then candor has never been this administration’s strong suit when it comes to ObamaCare.

What renders Sebelius’ statement as little more than happy talk is the fact that HHS has no idea how many states will have exchanges up and running by the January 2013 deadline. During the conference call, Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at HHS, said, “It was premature to speculate” on how many states will have their exchanges ready on time.

One reporter asked: What would happen to the grants if ObamaCare were overturned in its entirety? Larsen responded, “We believe the law is going to be upheld.”

The reporter tried to follow up with, “But, if it’s not though, do the grants stay with the states or do they have to repay them?”

The call moderator cut him off and moved on to another question.

Follow David Hogberg on Twitter: @DavidHogberg

You would be wrong.

Yesterday, the House voted by an overwhelming 330-93 to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. The bill expands the Ex-Im Bank’s current lending limit of $100 billion to $140 billion in 2014. The Senate is expected to follow suit.

A bit of background: The Ex-Im Bank makes taxpayer-subsidized loans or taxpayer-guaranteed loans to foreign companies and governments for the purpose of buying products made in America. The interest rates on those loans are usually less than private loans. The biggest beneficiary of the Ex-Im largesse is Boeing (BA) — indeed, it is sometimes called Boeing’s Bank, as most Ex-Im Bank loans are for the purchase of aircraft.

Reporter Tim Carney has written extensively about Ex-Im Bank. In his 2006 book, “The Big Ripoff,” Carney stated that the moral problem of the Ex-Im Bank was “clear to see: Why does Boeing, which profited $1.9 billion in 2004, deserve the money of the average American worker, who earns about $36,000 per year?”

The answer is that the Ex-Im’s beneficiaries, like Boeing and Caterpillar (CAT) , make campaign contributions. Many of their workers are unionized, a key Democrat constituency. And many business groups, a key GOP constituency — such as the Chamber of Commerce — support it.

First, one wonders how the Occupy Wall Street crowd, assuming it’s paying attention, feels today knowing that all Democrats present voted for the reauthorization. Were the Democrats going to risk those campaign contributions and support from labor unions to “stick it to the 1%”? Ha! Everyone has a role to play in an election, and this time around OWS gets to play the suckers.

On the GOP side, 147 voted in favor while 93 voted against. According to Carney, that’s an improvement over past Ex-Im Bank votes.

Looking at the 93 Republicans who voted against reauthorization yields insight into what kind of Congress we would need to end this corporate welfare boondoggle. Thirty-six of them, or 39%, are freshman members. Of the 57 who are not freshman, a look at their scores in the American Conservative Union’s legislative ratings shows that the average lifetime rating is 93% — very conservative.

So what we need is a Congress that has more freshman and is more conservative, correct? Well, Congress has 92 true freshmen, 84 of them Republicans. You don’t get freshman classes much larger than that.

Furthermore, for 2011 the average ACU score in the House was 48%; among just Republican members, it was 81%. There is quite a ways to go to get a Congress conservative enough.

In short, we may have to wait a long time to get rid of the Ex-Im Bank. With issues like the presidential election, student loans, the so-called war on women and Obama’s speech yesterday sucking most of the oxygen out of the room, there just isn’t enough attention being put on the Ex-Im Bank for politicians to feel pressure to vote against it.

Hopefully, when the Ex-Im Bank comes up for reauthorization next time, it will be in the wake of some scandal involving government and corporations scratching each other’s back.

Follow David Hogberg on Twitter: @DavidHogberg

Despite Democrats’ “war on women” rhetoric, Romney narrowed his gender gap. Obama still leads 49%-40%, but the nine-point margin is down from 13 points, 48%-35%, in April.

Obama still leads overwhelmingly among single women, 59%-29%, and that 30-point margin was little changed from last month’s 56%-25%. But Romney leads 49%-42% among married women, who are more likely to turn out to vote. His margin there was just 44%-41% in April.

Romney leads among men overall, 46%-43% vs. the 44%-42% edge Obama had in April. Republicans have traditionally led Democrats by about 10 points among male voters, offsetting the gap with female voters.

Read the whole thing here.

Follow Sean Higgins on Twitter: @SeanGHiggins