Since the Obama administration came into office, Republicans have been hypocritically trying to pin it with responsibility for long-term budget deficits, despite the fact that it was the GOP that turned a surplus into record deficits while setting the economy up for a crash (necessitating deficit spending as a response).

But writing on The Hill’s Congress Blog, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) took this to a new level, claiming that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (i.e. the economic stimulus package) is somehow responsible for our long-term deficits:

The deficits created by the stimulus are not only unsustainable in the long-term, but have grown so large they threaten economic stability today. As the big-government approach has predictably let Americans down, it’s time for a new approach. That’s why, working with my Republican colleagues, I have introduced a pair of measures that would pull the plug on the ill-fated stimulus.

Economic stimulus is, by definition, short-term, so Price’s notion really makes no sense. But if Price is honestly interested in where the long-term deficits come from, he should take a look at this report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). CBPP wrote that “some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. But those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit,” including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush tax cuts (which are the largest culprit). Here’s a nice chart that CBPP prepared:

Notice how little of the 2012-2019 deficits are due to the stimulus. Price wasn’t around to vote on the Bush tax cuts or the wars, but would he have exhibited such concern about deficits then?

And since we’re on the subject, the stimulus isn’t even primarily responsible for this year’s increase in spending. As Michael Linden pointed out, only 18 percent of the spending increase from 2008 to 2009 is due to the stimulus. The rest is mostly TARP, the rescues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and increased spending on unemployment benefits and entitlements. Again, the report comes complete with a handy chart (at right).

As Steve Benen wrote, “this isn’t just about pointing fingers for self-satisfaction or partisan vanity. It’s important for the public to realize who’s responsible, in large part because it’s important for the public to weigh policymakers’ credibility. If GOP lawmakers embraced policies that are almost entirely responsible for the deficit those same lawmakers are now complaining about, it’s a relevant detail.” And maybe The Hill should start fact-checking these pieces before publishing them.

Bank of America has been getting a lot of grief recently (some of it from me and my colleague Andrew Jakabovics) for its shoddy performance on the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). BofA has consistently trailed behind the other major banks in its progress getting borrowers into the program, and in eight months has completed fewer than 100 permanent modifications.

The bank has taken to blaming its lackluster stats on its borrowers’ inability to file documents, which made me ask if the bank thinks its borrowers are somehow more irresponsible than those at other large institutions. This week, the bank organized a conference call, and the answer to my question is evidently yes, BofA does think it has a worse set of borrowers:

[Bank of America] defended its performance in the federal foreclosure relief program, saying that far fewer of its customers are eligible for the plan than government estimates indicate…Only about 340,000 of the 1 million delinquent borrowers identified by Treasury are likely to survive the qualification process, Jack Schakett, Bank of America’s credit loss mitigation strategies executive, said….”We’re being [judged] as below average, and we really aren’t when you look at the numbers,” he said. “On average we have more customers that fail the eligibility requirements than competitors.”

But let’s think about this for a second. Even if we grant BofA’s pulled-out-of-thin-air assertion that two-thirds of the borrowers Treasury deems eligible for the program somehow aren’t, that leaves 340,000 perfectly eligible borrowers, only 98 of whom have received permanent modifications. That’s still a wildly unacceptable .03 percent of eligible borrowers having their mortgage modified permanently.

And then there are reports like this one today in McClatchy, where Kevin Hall took a look at some borrowers who should qualify for HAMP, but are still having their homes sold out from under them. And guess which bank pops up:

In late August, Smith signed and returned paperwork in a prepaid FedEx envelope to Bank of America that said it had received the contract needed to modify the adjustable-rate mortgage he originally took out with the disgraced lender Countrywide Financial, which Bank of America bought last year…The deal favors the lender, but Smith, 55, jumped on it because it kept him in the home. Armed with what he thought was “a permanent modification,” Smith returned a notarized copy of the agreement and made subsequent payments on time. In return, he got a surprising notice from Bank of America saying that his house would be auctioned off on Dec. 18.

Back in October, I wrote that the fatal flaw in HAMP would be trying to incentivize banks into completing modifications, without any consequences for failure. Stories like the one above only confirm that thesis.