Calling Carter out.

John Carter has taken to the Round Rock Leader to bash Obama and his economic proposals. Maybe Carter hasn't heard, but as of this writing Obama's job approval rating stands at 61%, the public trusts the Democrats more than the Republicans to fix the economy, and 58% of Americans disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling their job. (That's you, Mr. Carter.)

Or maybe Carter does know all this, and that's why he's trying desperately to attack Obama and Obama's proposals.

Let's take a look at what Carter says -- and see if we can't shed some light on things as we go.

Here's how Carter begins:

It took President George Bush eight years in office, seven years at war, the economic slowdown after 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, the biggest increase in federal education spending ever with No Child Left Behind, the addition of prescription drug coverage to Medicare, the start of the recession in 2008, and the $750 billion Wall Street bailout last fall to rack up $2.75 trillion in federal red ink.

It took President Barack Obama just 38 days to beat that record.

Talk about a dubious beginning. Right off the bat, Carter is either ignorant about a few things, or he's deliberately misleading you.

First, I'm not sure how Carter is concluding that Bush racked up only $2.75 trillion in "federal red ink." He doesn't tell us what kind of math he's using. But if you wanna talk about Bush's "federal red ink," it makes sense to look at the overall federal debt, and how much it grew under Bush, from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009.

According to the official numbers, under Bush the debt grew from $5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. That means Bush racked up approximately $4.9 trillion in "federal red ink." Not $2.75 trillion, as Carter claims.

Playing a little fast and loose with your figures, Mr. Carter? Obama's got nothing on Bush so far, when it comes to big spending. And there's also the fact that Obama's deficits are projected out over the next two years -- Carter's trying to act like Obama already spent all that money in 38 days. (A bit disingenuous of you, Mr. Carter.)

Second, let's not forget that Obama is trying to deal with a massive economic problem he inherited from Bush and the congressional Republicans (who held majorities through most of Bush's time in office).

Remember back in 2002, when the Republicans were trying desperately to claim that the recession at that time was all Clinton's fault -- that Bush had inherited the problem? Bush claimed this himself at the time. Funny how suddenly, when the problem is ten times bigger, GOPers like John Carter want to say that the guy who has been in office for only 38 days is the one we should point fingers at. We're supposed to be mad at Obama after 38 days, for his fast-acting spending proposals (designed to stimulate our economy), while ignoring all the binge spending of the past eight years.

Is this really how you want to begin your argument, Mr. Carter? Sloppy math and shifting the blame?

Carter continues:

Hiring Democrats to straighten out the federal deficit turned out to be the same as hiring Foster Brooks to inventory the liquor store.

Let's ignore the cheap attempt at humor. Notice how Mr. Carter again slyly avoids the hard fact that the federal deficit that needs "straightening out" was created by Bush and Republicans -- including Carter himself! Also, notice that Mr. Carter seems to suggest that Obama and the Dems were supposed to have "straightened out" Bush's deficits in just 38 days -- while also facing an economic collapse of historical proportions!

Do you mind if we give them more than a month to work on this problem you created, Mr. Carter?

Carter says more about Obama's proposed spending amounts, then says:

We are now on a course straight for national bankruptcy and a catastrophic devaluation of the U.S. dollar unless we can turn this around over the next couple years.

Gosh. A "course straight for national bankruptcy"? I wonder, Mr. Carter -- did you ever speak up with such grave concern during those eight years of record-level deficit spending when your man, Bush, was in office? Did you speak out and warn us about "national banckruptcy" back then?

Somehow I suspect the answer is no.

Moreover, Carter doesn't seem to understand some basic economics. Did you know that devaluing the dollar can actually be a good thing -- can actually help the economy in times like these? Think about it: if the dollar is high, we can buy more stuff from other countries, but other countries can buy less stuff from us. That means more imports than exports -- a trade deficit that puts U.S. businesses on the losing side. But if the dollar is low, then other countries can buy more from us -- more exports than imports -- which can help U.S. businesses and potentially revive the economy. (Yes, this is overly simplistic as an explanation -- the point is that a devalued dollar can potentially help recovery.)

Too bad Carter doesn't seem to understand this. Instead, he's just using cheap, misleading scare tactics.

He continues:

And what are we getting for this sacrifice?

The so-called stimulus bill spends less than half of its $787 billion in the next two years to help us out of recession - and contains thousands of earmarks - in spite of the President's statement to the contrary.

Whoa! Wait a sec. This is just too much. There's no way that Carter is merely uninformed here. I think he's being deliberately deceptive.

That's right: John Carter is intentionally misleading us, his constituency.

The stimulus package includes about $400 billion in tax cuts -- tax cuts that will go to the middle class, right here in Williamson County -- starting almost immediately and continuing through the next two years. There's no way that Mr. Carter doesn't know this. That's why the bill "spends less than half of its $787 billion" -- because less than half of the stimulus bill involves government spending in the first place! The rest of it is tax cuts! Carter keeps talking about these high dollar amounts as though it is all "spending," when in fact much of it isn't.

Mr. Carter can't possibly be unaware of this, which means he's being dishonest about it.

Why would you try to distort things like this, Mr. Carter? Don't you want your constituency to know about the tax cuts they'll be receiving? Don't you want to reassure us that help is on the way?

Apparently not. Apparently you're more interested in scaring us. Even if it means misleading us.

And it gets worse. Carter complains about earmarks, and says:

Specific language to pay for a high-speed train between Disneyland and Las Vegas with federal tax dollars might not be an earmark in Chicago, but don't try to sell that to folks in Texas.

Enough. Now I will call you an outright liar, Mr. Carter. You are officially spreading lies. There is no such "specific language" in the stimulus bill. I challenge you to find it and show it to us -- I know it's not there, because people I trust have looked. (Anyone can look at the bill for him- or herself.)

You are the one trying to "sell" something to us folks here in Texas, Mr. Carter. And it's a crock. Now, how can we believe anything else you're going to say in this article?

Yet still, Carter continues:

The White House budget not only is a world-record in deficit spending, it raises taxes in the middle of a recession.

That is the same formula attempted by Presidents Herbert Hoover in 1930 and Jimmy Carter in 1978, with disastrous economic results.

Boy -- I just can't tell anymore whether Carter really doesn't know the full truth, and is innocently misinforming us, or whether he does know the full truth and is deliberately deceiving us. It's hard to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, Hoover raised the highest marginal tax rate to 63% just before leaving office, in 1932. (Not 1930, as Carter claims.) Carter claims this had "disastrous economic results" -- but in fact the economic recovery began shortly thereafter, in 1934. FDR implemented big government spending to stimulate the economy and raised those taxes even higher in 1936, to almost 80% (to offset the big spending). Then, fearing too much deficit spending (and the political wrath of conservatives), FDR cut back and the recovery stalled in '37-'38. Conservatives love to claim that FDR's big spending didn't get us out of the Depression -- that instead WWII did -- but they always fail to explain how WWII accomplished this feat. How did WWII pull us out of the Depression? By eliciting renewed increases in government spending. Big spending was working until FDR cut back (thanks to conservative pressure) -- then spending worked again when FDR charged forward in the run up to WWII.

In other words, big spending works.

Oh, and by the way, the top tax rate was over 90% by the end of the War -- raised again to offset the big spending. And without causing "disaster" as Carter claims.

As for Jimmy Carter in 1978, I'm not sure what Carter's talking about. The highest tax rate stayed constant at 70% throughout Jimmy Carter's term in office. The only tax plan I know of in 1978 was to cut taxes for lower income brackets, and to close some loopholes at the top. But the top marginal rate stayed the same. Are you just making stuff up now, Mr. Carter?

As for "disastrous effects," the poor economy in the late '70s and early '80s had nothing to do with tax increases, as Carter claims. It was all about runaway inflation and oil prices.

We did suffer a recession in the early '80s -- but once in office, Reagan enacted the largest deficit spending since WWII. Yes, he also cut taxes instead of raising them (thereby contributing to the fastest growth of our federal debt the nation had ever seen). There's a big debate over whether the recovery in the mid-'80s was the result of the tax cuts or the big spending. But the bottom line is this: there's no basis for claiming that a tax hike on the highest brackets will be (or ever was) "disastrous."

And there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that big government spending works in times like these. It was the solution in the '30s and '40s, and it was at least part of the solution in the '80s.

Too bad you don't seem to know this, Mr. Carter -- or that, if you do know it, you choose to be dishonest about it.

Still, Carter continues:

The Obama tax plan calls for a new environmental tax, a "cap and trade" system. Under this plan, businesses that produce carbon emissions such as power companies or livestock producers would pay a new federal tax on those emissions.

Only in truth, they won't be paying them - you will, in your power bill, at the grocery store, and at the gas pump, as these businesses pass along these higher production costs in the form of higher consumer prices.

This is so misleading! Cap-and-trade is not a federal tax that will simply be passed on to consumers -- the whole point of the cap-and-trade system is for companies to "trade" these costs with other companies, in contrast to a simple carbon tax scheme. (See here, here, and here.) Moreover, even if costs are passed on to consumers, that is precisely what we should want in a true free market system. We pay the costs either way -- either we pay the costs of unfettered pollution and a ruined environment, or we pay the costs of capped pollution and a saved environment. If we think saving the environment is a worthy goal, then in a free-market democracy we should want to incorporate the costs of saving the environment into the market -- and allow and encourage businesses to freely exchange those costs with one another.

How can we possibly continue to support our representative if he doesn't understand these things? It should be his job to explain this to us, instead of just trying to mislead and scare us.

Carter also tries to claim that cap-and-trade has been a "disaster" in Europe -- but this (again) is not true. (See the links above.) Then he makes this audacious claim:

The final result of this world-record spending spree is that the Obama administration budget and stimulus package creates the largest deficit - using any and all definitions - in U.S. history.

Ummm...no. An extremely common way to measure deficit spending is as a percentage of GDP. And as a percentage of GDP, Obama's deficit would be half the size of the deficit in 1945. So this is just false, plain and simple.

Why would Carter make a claim that is so easily proven wrong? Is that how low his regard is for his readers and voters? He just assumes we won't know any better, and that he can lie with impunity?

Still more:

We needed to pass reasonable legislation to help our economy get back on track, but going on this kind of a spending binge is not the way to do it.

These bills, if left in place, will not only fail to combat this recession, but will kill future job growth, and lead to a permanent loss in the value of the dollar.

Again, where was Carter when Bush was on his spending binge for eight years, back when we didn't have any good reason for such extravagances? Oh yeah: he was in the Republican majority in Congress, approving that binge every step of the way.

And if Carter understood economics, he would understand that the tax increases are designed to offset the spending -- and that any potential longterm harmful effects on job growth will be countered by the expected rise in GDP as the economy recovers. (We've already covered Carter's lack of understanding about the value of the dollar.)

Show us that you actually understand what's going on here, Mr. Carter. And if you oppose it, give us actual reasons for opposing it, instead of scaring us with half-truths and misinformation.

In conclusion, Carter offers his solutions:

We can begin by simply eliminating every earmark - both Republican and Democrat - from both the stimulus bill and the budget.

We should continue by dropping the tax increases, especially the outrageous "cap and trade" proposal.

The finishing touch should be a simple spending freeze on the budget for a year.

Yet every one of these common sense solutions was rejected by House and Senate Democrats.

Hmmm. Am I missing something? It seems to me, here, that Carter's proposal is that we do nothing. All that is left, after you eliminate additional spending and tax increases, is extended tax cuts for everyone.

That's it.

Excuse me, but don't you realize, Mr. Carter, that even with your spending freeze your plan still involves record-level deficit spending? The deficit is already at a record level (Bush put it there). Freezing spending and extending tax cuts for everyone -- including the very wealthy -- will simply keep the deficit at its current record level, while doing nothing to stimulate the economy.

Carter claims deficit spending is the enemy, but he proposes we continue it at record levels. He berates Obama for supposedly doing little to spur a recovery -- while his own proposal is to do nothing.

Is that what you call "common sense," Mr. Carter? Excuse me for being a little confused. I don't think you make any sense.

How many voters here in Williamson County think that the proper response to our economic meltdown is to do nothing?

Again, according to polls, the public trusts the Democrats more than the Republicans to fix the economy. Obviously they have very good reasons for doing so.

Voters in Williamson County have a choice. We can reelect John Carter in 2010, and reward him for his ignorance, scare tactics, and deceptions -- and his do-nothing proposals. (And don't forget the obstructionist politics and hoping for the country to fail.)

Or, we can find someone else who will tell us the truth, treat us with respect, and who will work with the new administration to help us get out of this mess.

I know what my choice will be.

UPDATE: Turns out Carter isn't the first Republican to tell the lie about Obama out-deficit-ing Bush in his first 38 days. This is apparently a new (false) GOP talking point. Read more about just how wrong it is.

UPDATE II: Turns out, in fact, that Obama's budget is actually a deficit reducer, over the long haul. But we can't expect Carter to pay attention to these details, can we? It's much easier for him to just repeat the GOP talking points.