Mitt Romney's jobs speech was one of the most inauthentic and politically dishonest efforts to mischaracterize Obama's so far during the primary race. Romney's infamous chart showed the period of 2007-2009, the so-called "Great Recession", under the auspice of "Obama's Recovery" (two years of which were before he even took office.) Furthermore, Romney characterizes Obama's administration as racking up more federal debt ($6.7 trillion) that in the previous 200+ years of presidential administrations combined. Of course, Romney's assertions, which were parroted by the other GOP contenders during last night's debate, are flagrantly misleading. Here's why.

The statement made over and over again during the Reagan Debate in California last night was that President Obama has run up $6.5 trillion in debt during his single administration, compared to $6.3 trillion in debt created by all previous 43 presidents combined...a pretty astonishing statement. Of course, that's the purpose. They want you to take that statement at face value and not question its legitimacy. Here's what happens when you dig a little deeper. This table from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) breaks down national debt increases by presidential administration going all the way back to FDR in the 1930's (the middle of the Great Depression). The first thing that you will notice is that there are fluctuations within the trillions of dollars of national debt; some administrations racking up lots of it (FDR, Reagan, George W., Obama) and others paying it down again. Over the course of 222 years those fluctuations left $6.3 trillion in debt when Obama took office. Of course, Romney portrays this as a linear phenomenon, with each administration only adding a little each time. If you look at the chart where FDR, saddled as he was with both the Great Depression and World War II, our national debt skyrocketed to deal with those challenged, but was paid down by subsequent administrations. A point of interest; it has been primarily Democratic presidents that have successfully lowered the nation debt/GDP ratio, an indicator of economic health.

The other area in which Romney and Republicans have mischaracterized Obama's record on national debt is in the actual amount that he is responsible for. That number, $6.5 trillion in debt, includes appropriations for entitlement programs that were in placed before he took office. In addition, almost a third of that six and a half trillion is incurred as interest on debt the Bush administration took out to pay for two wars. Thus we're only left with about $3 trillion in spending that President Obama may be responsible for, the majority of which was incurred as federal stimulus spending to encourage growth; a move economists largely agree prevented the recession from becoming a true economic depression.

Romney, and other GOP candidates, attempt to characterize this most recent recession as deeper, broader, and slower to recover because of Obama's response to it. However, the recession happened two years before Obama took office, and had very different origins than those form the seventies, from the 80's with Reagan, or in 2001. The recession of 2007 is actually much closer in origin to the Great Depression of 1929; an economic collapse that took a decade and massive infrastructure changes from a world war, from which to recover. In comparison, Obama's stimulus was fairly modest, which could be why the recovery has been so slow. However, it is misleading and unethical to characterize Obama as such a flagrant and unrepentant federal spender.