why i vote the way i do

We acknowledge the vital function of government as a principal vehicle for the ordering of society. … We know ourselves to be responsible to God for social and political life (Social Principles 164). The strength of a political system depends upon the full and willing participation of its citizens. (164B) 

I would encourage you to consider your responsibilities as a Christian and as a citizen seriously. 

If someone were to ask me why I vote the way I do, I would have to say that I decided sometime in the mid 1970s. While in high school and college, I engaged in discussions of history, government, and politics. I worked for Humphrey in 1968, but wanted either Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy as the nominee. I voted for McGovern in 1972. However, it was in graduate school that I became acquainted with the National Review, George Will, Bill Buckley, and Milton Friedman. These people led me to read people like John Locke and Adam Smith. I came to realize that I wanted to be in a political tradition that went from the founders as enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights, both of which needed the completion brought by Abraham Lincoln and his speeches. It needed the completion of the women’s right to vote and civil rights. It needed the completion brought by presidents like Eisenhower and Reagan.  

To put it simply, I came to believe that limited federal government was best for the simple reason that politicians cannot know enough. To use a sports analogy, government can set the basic rules and umpire, but we are the ones who must play the game. We play the game by building character and pursue happiness. We play the game by choosing the basic beliefs and values that will guide our lives. We play the game by accepting a vocation and earn a living. We play the game by engaging in economic exchanges. We do so freely. Such a process is self-regulating, to the point where, properly understood, you do not need a large government apparatus.  

Of course, I have left much out. If a state denies individual rights of its citizens, as happened with slavery and the Jim Crow laws of the South, the Federal Government needs to be sure the Bill of Rights are respected. Free enterprise has done more to expand economies, which is the best way to help all citizens, and especially the poor.  

I focus on ideas rather than political parties. Over the course of a few decades, I have read the opposition. Walter Rauschenbusch and the social gospel, John Yoder, Jim Wallis, are the Christian version of politically progressive thought. On the secular side, John Rawls and Michael Walzer would be high on the list.  

With all its imperfections, I value my country. America has continually expanded its vision of freedom to all of its citizens. For me, this is the gift America has to offer the world.  

Yet, this world is a dangerous one. America deserves to be defended from those who would do it harm. The world would be a less free place where it not for America.  

I have problems with what passes for conservatism in this area. I wish conservatism were more conservative in its use of military power. Yes, I am a child of the 60s in that sense. No need to go into details here, but if the nation is to put its troops in harm’s way, it better have a good reason. As the Social Principles (165 I) rightly say, “We also respect those who support the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is clear beyond reasonable doubt ...”  

I share this account primarily because we need to take our role as citizens seriously. I hope you think it through. You may well come to a different conclusion that I do, and that is OK.

Obama-Romney Debate 3

The UM book of discipline 164B says: "The strength of a political system depends upon the full and willing participation of its citizens." In that spirit, I share a few comments regarding the third debate from various authors. 
 
Charles Krauthammer
Obama lost. His tone was petty and small. Arguing about Iran’s nuclear program, he actually said to Mitt Romney, “While we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector.” You can’t get smaller than that. You’d expect this in a city council race. But only from the challenger. The sitting councilman would find such an ad hominem beneath him.

Throughout the debate, Obama kept it up, slashing, interjecting, interrupting, desperate to gain the upper hand by insult if necessary. That spirit led Obama into a major unforced error. When Romney made a perfectly reasonable case to rebuild a shrinking Navy, Obama condescended: “You mentioned . . . that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.”

Such that naval vessels are as obsolete as horse cavalry?

Liberal pundits got a great guffaw out of this, but the underlying argument is quite stupid. As if the ships being retired are dinghies, skipjacks and three-masted schooners. As if an entire branch of the armed forces — the principal projector of American power abroad — is itself some kind of anachronism.

“We have these things called aircraft carriers,” continued the schoolmaster, “where planes land on them.”

This is Obama’s case for fewer vessels? Does he think carriers patrol alone? He doesn’t know that for every one carrier, 10 times as many ships sail in a phalanx of escorts?

Obama may blithely dismiss the need for more ships, but the Navy wants at least 310 and the latest Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel report says that defending America’s vital interests requires 346 ships (vs. 287 today). Does anyone doubt that if we continue as we are headed, down to fewer than 230, the casualty will be entire carrier battle groups, precisely the kind of high-tech force multipliers that Obama pretends our national security requires?

Romney, for his part, showed himself to be fluent enough in foreign policy, although I could have done with a little less Mali (two references) and a lot less “tumult” (five).

But he did have the moment of the night when he took after Obama’s post-inauguration world apology tour. Obama, falling back on his base, flailingly countered that “every fact checker and every reporter”says otherwise.

Oh yeah? What about Obama declaring that America had “dictated” to other nations?

“Mr. President,” said Romney, “America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”

Obama, rattled, went off into a fog, beginning with “if we’re going to talk about trips that we’ve taken,” followed by a rambling travelogue of a 2008 visit to Israel. As if this is about trip-taking, rather than about defending — vs. denigrating — the honor of the United States while on foreign soil. Americans may care little about Syria and nothing about Mali. But they don’t like presidents going abroad confirming the calumnies of tin-pot dictators.

The rest of Romney’s debate performance was far more passive. He refused the obvious chance to pulverize Obama on Libya. I would’ve taken a baseball bat to Obama’s second-debate claim that no one in his administration, including him, had misled the country on Benghazi. (The misleading is beyond dispute. The only question is whether it was intentional, i.e., deliberate deceit, or unintentional, i.e., scandalous incompetence.) Romney, however, calculated differently: Act presidential. Better use the night to assume a reassuring, non-contentious demeanor.

Romney’s entire strategy in both the second and third debates was to reinforce the status he achieved in debate No. 1 as a plausible alternative president. He therefore went bipartisan, accommodating, above the fray and, above all, nonthreatening.

That’s what Reagan did with Carter in their 1980 debate. If your opponent’s record is dismal and the country quite prepared to toss him out — but not unless you pass the threshold test — what do you do?

Romney chose to do a Reagan: Don’t quarrel. Speak softly. Meet the threshold.

We’ll soon know whether steady-as-she-goes was the right choice.

Victor Davis Hanson on the third debate
This week, the third and final debate offered Obama a last opportunity to convince the American people that at least on matters of foreign policy, Romney was either dangerous or ill-informed. That challenge also ensured that Obama would have to crowd into the final 90 minutes near-constant attacks to crack the calm Romney facade. Even or ahead in the polls, all Romney had to do in response was for a third time keep acting presidential and prove that his earlier displays of composure and competence were no flukes -- a no-brainer strategy clear to anyone who had followed the first two debates.
That is precisely what Romney pulled off. As in the second debate, Obama might have done well enough to come away with a tie or even a narrow win on points, but he probably didn't fare well enough to reverse his slide in the polls. If Obama sought to shatter Romney's image as a compassionate and competent captain of industry, he more likely damaged his own once carefully crafted image as a nice guy.

Here is some fact-checking

President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney faced off last night in the third and final presidential debate – focusing on foreign policy – at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Fox News Brainroom provides us with a fact check and in-depth analysis of some of the key claims made by the two men.

---

Topic: Military spending
Obama: “We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.”
PROBABLY TRUE.
* As the Washington Post clarifies, it is REALLY difficult to get (a) reliable and (b) comparable figures:
“However, raw numbers can be misleading. The official Chinese figure of less than $100 billion a year is believed to be dramatically understated; SIPRI pegs it at around $100 billion. The Defense Department believes the real number for the Chinese military to be $150 billion.
Even that doesn’t tell the whole story, because it costs China less money to buy the same goods and services as the United States. Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, who edits a Web page on Chinese military power, says that using a rough calculation of purchasing power parity, the correct figure for Chinese defense spending would be as much as $240 billion.
That’s still less than the United States spends, of course, but it is an indication of how fuzzy some of these calculations can be. The comparison to China also does not include the fact that because it is not a global power, Beijing may actually spend more on its military in the western Pacific than does the United States.
There is also a question of whether one counts just the base military budget or also the spending on the wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An administration official said the president’s statistic was derived from an examination of a classified version of the CIA Factbook, which presumably would show higher levels of spending for countries such as China.
If war spending is included, then the U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next 12 countries combined, the official said. If only base budget outlay is counted, the U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next eight countries. So the White House decided to split the difference, which is why the president said the U.S. budget was larger than the budgets of “roughly” the next 10 countries combined.
[source: Washington Post]

---

Topic: Romney’s investments in a Chinese oil company working in Iran
Obama: “And the fact is, while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector.”
CORRECT. (Romney will say the investment was in a blind trust over which he had no control, despite the fact that the blind trust liquidated these investments right about the time Romney ratcheted up his anti-China rhetoric).
* Starting in October 2009, Romney’s trust made three investments in CNOOC (the Chinese national oil company) with significant dealings with Iran. He sold the investments in August 2011 for a profit of about $11,000.
* As the Financial Times reported on September 24, 2012:
“Mitt Romney’s trust invested in Cnooc at a time when the US was growing concerned about the Chinese oil company’s multibillion-dollar dealings with Tehran, according to the 2011 tax return released by the Republican nominee for president.
…
Mr. Romney has repeatedly said he had no control over the decisions by the blind trust that held the investments, which are controlled by a trustee named R. Bradford Malt.
…
The first investment by Mr. Romney’s trust in Cnooc Limited, in October of 2009, was made about seven months after the group’s state-owned parent company was widely reported to have signed a deal with Iran to develop the huge North Pars gasfield for an LNG export project.
Mr. Romney’s blind trust made two subsequent investments in Cnooc and then sold all the shares – for a profit of about $11,000, in August of 2011.
That was about the same period when Mr. Romney began ratcheting up his campaign rhetoric against China.”
[source: Romney’s China holdings criticized, by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times, September 24, 2012]

---

Topic: The killing of Usama bin Laden
Obama: “Romney said he would not move ‘heaven and earth’ to get bin Laden.”
PARTIALLY TRUE. He used those words, but the quote ignores the larger context.
* As Politifact states:
“An Obama campaign ad suggested Mitt Romney wouldn’t have aggressively pursued Osama bin Laden by citing Romney’s statement that, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”
The Obama campaign is right that Romney used those words, but by cherry-picking them, it glosses over comments describing his broader approach. Romney said he wanted to pursue all of al-Qaida, not just its leaders.”
[source: Politifact]

---

Topic: Trade with China
Obama: “We doubled exports to China since I took office.”
NOT QUITE – an increase of 49% from 2008 to 2011 ($69.733 billion versus $103.94 billion in 2011) and we are on track for an increase to approximately $105 billion in 2012.
* This also ignores that fact that, despite our increase in exports, our trade deficit with China has increased under President Obama (from $268 billion in 2008 to $295 billion in 2011 – an increase of about 10%).
Year Exports to China Trade deficit
2008 $69.733 billion -$268.040 billion
2009 $69.497 billion -$226.877 billion
2010 $91.881 billion -$273.0632 billion
2011 $103.939 billion -$295.423 billion
2012 (thru Aug) $69.9995 billion -$203.1215 billion
[source: U.S. Census]


Topic: Would Romney have let U.S. auto companies go bankrupt?
Romney: “I said that we would provide guarantees, and — and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Of course not.”
CORRECT.
* In his New York Times op-ed, Romney called for a managed bankruptcy, with the federal government providing guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing.
* Here is the relevant part of the op-ed:
“The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”
[source: New York Times op-ed, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," by MITT ROMNEY, November 18, 2008]
* He further clarified that he was not prepared to let the companies liquidate in a November 28, 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer:
Blitzer: Richard Wagoner, the GM CEO says if they were to do any of those things, go into Chapter 11 or file for bankruptcy, it would even make matters worse because people would be reluctant to buy a GM car knowing that they could have problems getting spare parts or warranty guarantees along those lines. Is he right?
Romney: Well actually, him going to Washington and saying that the companies are going to disappear unless they get $25 billion is already a signal to consumers.
Going into Chapter 11, I’m not convinced would have that big of an impact, particularly if Washington were to say quite clearly we’re not going to let these companies go away. We’re going to guarantee the warranties for anybody who buys a U.S. made automobile this time going forward for some period of time.
We’re going to help with the post-bankruptcy financing that allows these companies to thrive and grow. We basically need to restructure them and then help them get back on their feet and make sure that their future is bright. But just putting money into them as is, is not going to help anybody and frankly is going to lead to these companies losing market share long term and perhaps facing liquidation way down the road. That’s the wrong way. That we don’t want to see.
Blitzer: If these companies don’t restructure very, very quickly, are you willing to let the U.S. auto industry, in effect, die?
Romney: Well, I don’t want to see it die, that’s the wrong course and the union and management and the state officials are not going to let that happen. There’s no reason for that to happen. The U.S. automobile industry is making very good cars these days. They’ve been, actually, really remarkable in designing cars like the Chevy Malibu, the Ford Mustang. There are some — you know, the Chrysler 500.
These are really innovative designs, they’re ranked very well. The companies don’t have to go away. But what has to go away is the excess burden we’ve laid on them and that’s the burden that’s the cause of managers that show up in corporate aircraft and eat in executive dining rooms. That spreads the resentment throughout the company that makes it difficult for labor to do what needs to be done on that front. These are companies that are not going to go away. We shouldn’t have them go away. But we should help them get on their feet so they can compete and finally beat back Toyota and Nissan and Honda and BMW, all of whom make cars right here in the U.S.
[source: Interview With Mitt Romney, November, 23 2008, CNN]

---

Topic: The 2009 protests in Iran
Romney said that Obama was “silent” on the protests in Iran.
FALSE. However, similar to Libya, there was an evolving language and response to the protests in Iran by President Obama.
On June 13, 2009, Iran announced that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a landslide victory, prompting mass protests from supporters of the key opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi.
Here is how Obama put it in an interview with CNBC on June 16: “Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as has been advertised. We’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”
Obama finally toughened his stance a week later, on June 23, after more violence erupted.
“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” Obama said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”

---

Topic: How many ships does the U.S. Navy want?
Romney stated that the Department of Defense has asked for 313 ships and President Obama only approved the building of 282.
FALSE
* In February 2006, the Navy presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of 313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. On March 28, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted to Congress an FY2013 30-year (FY2013-FY2042) shipbuilding plan that includes a new goal for a fleet of about 310-316 ships.
The Navy is conducting a force structure assessment, to be completed later this year, that could lead to a refinement of this 310-316-ship plan.
Because of the retirement and decommissioning of some ships and the building process of new ones, the Navy’s size is constantly varying.
The Navy reached even lower levels during the Bush years, hitting a bottom of 279 in FY 2007.
FY
2005………282
2006………281
2007………279
2008………282
2009………285
2010………288
2011………284
With programs like the Littoral Combat Ship increasing production, shipbuilding is higher now than in previous years
FY…………..ships procured/requested
07……………5
08……………3
09……………8
10……………7
11……………10
12……………11
13……………10
President Obama has never said that the Navy’s size should be at 282 ships, and the size of the Navy will increase, not decrease.
[Source: Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, 8/9/2012 CRS]

---

Topic: U.S. troops in Iraq
Did Mitt Romney say recently that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq?
MOSTLY TRUE.
Romney’s Remarks at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, 10/8/2012:
“In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al Qaida, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The president has tried. He tried, but he also failed to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.
The president has also failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.”
[Source: CQ]

---

Topic: The defense budget under Obama
OBAMA: (paraphrase) Defense budgets have gone up every year under my administration.
TRUE. But in the FY2013 request, the base budget will decrease
Defense Base Budgets Under President Obama
…………………
FY2009………513.2
FY2010………527.9
FY2011………528.2
FY2012………530.6
FY2013………524.4 (request)
[Source: Defense Department Comptroller]
2) Obama: “First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it’s something that Congress proposed. It will not happen.”
In fact, the idea may have come in part from Obama’s current chief of staff, Jack Lew. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward reported in his book “The Price of Politics” that Lew, then-Office of Management and Budget director, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors broached the idea of a defense sequester as a threat to Republicans during negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
The resulting Budget Control Act, which allowed the U.S. to borrow more money but set caps on federal spending over the next 10 years, was passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and signed into law by the president. It led to the creation of the deficit-reduction “supercommittee,” which failed to agree on $1.2 trillion in debt reduction and as such triggered the automatic onset of those cuts on Jan. 2 – unless Congress averts them. Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, voted for the Budget Control Act.
Obama’s avowal on sequester that “it will not happen” is the strongest statement that he or any Democrat has made in the more than year-long standoff over the potential cuts, but it wasn’t immediately clear whether Obama was taking his veto threat off the table or expressing confidence that lawmakers could reach an agreement when they return next month.
[Source: Politico]

2012 Presidential Election Predictions

As a United Methodist pastor, I am glad our Social Principles acknowledge that "we know ourselves to be responsible to God for social and political life" in paragraph 164. This brief blog looks at some predictions made by observers of the 2012 presidential election.

When the Republican Party had its primary season, my assumption was that Obama would win re-election. Lately, a few commentators are predicting a Romney win. As I see some predictions, I thought I would post and see how well they do.

Michael Barone: The only way Pennsylvania and Michigan can be close is if Obama's support in affluent Philadelphia and Detroit suburbs has melted away....What we may be seeing, as we drink from the fire hose of multiple poll results pouring in, is a slow motion 1980.The Gallup tracking poll, whose procedure for designating likely voters makes it very susceptible to shifts in the balance of enthusiasm, has been showing Romney ahead by 5 to 7 points.

Ben Shapiro:Obama's presidency reflected his poverty of ideas. Now his campaign does, too.
A small campaign means an unstable campaign. When you're forced to jump topic to topic, debating inconsequential ideas with gusto, your campaign seems to swing unpredictably back and forth. When you're discussing Romnesia one day and binders the next, you're losing. A big campaign, by contrast, has big themes. Obama has no themes because he has no record and no second-term agenda. Romney has themes: economic growth through tax cuts and less burdensome regulation, a foreign policy based on a stronger military. Because he has themes, he seems steady. And that's why he will win. None of this is going to change in the next two weeks. Obama's record will not suddenly allow him to become an ardent advocate of his own job performance. And he won't come up with any bold new plans -- he has nothing left in the tank. The ball is in Mitt Romney's court. And the American people know it.


Hugh Hewitt: The nation is simply finished with a president whose rhetoric has never been matched by his actions, and whose performance has removed Jimmy Carter from the bottom of the rankings of the modern president. Mitt Romney by contrast followed two very strong debate showings with a wonderful set of remarks at the Al Smith dinner, the third time in two weeks that he has reassured those just tuning into the presidential campaign that he will be a steady and reliable force for good in the Oval Office. And what a surge. Romney was up seven points in Thursday's Gallup tracking poll, and even the very partisan Democratic polling firm PPP has Romney ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire on Friday. There is a 1980 landslide forming, and while the MSM is doing its best to pretend it isn't there and that the race is still close. It isn't, and it won't be. The electoral cake is baked.

Dick Morris: Overall: Likely a 5-10 pt Romney win and above 300 electoral votes. His final predictions: In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than 5 points, and Electoral College 325 Romney and 213 Obama.

Karl Rove: My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.

Linda Chavez: they (the American people) like the president personally and wanted to give him a chance to prove he deserved re-election. But he hasn't given a single, convincing reason why he should be, which is why I believe Americans will vote for genuine change Nov. 6.

National syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer believes it will be close, but that Romney will come out with the victory over President Obama on Tuesday.

Michael Barone is forecasting that Romney will defeat President Obama by a wide margin, 315 electoral votes to 223. He predicts that Romney will win nearly every swing state, including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Virginia. Barone admitted, however, that he is going out on a limb with some of his calls.

Rich Galen:  "four years ago Barack Obama was on a crusade; this year he's in a campaign."
Obama won the crusade, but Mitt Romney will win this campaign. I know … I know. The polls are close. The national polls are tied; the state polls tilt toward Barack Obama. I know all that. But, Romney will win.

Election Reflection: Some Perspective

In the movie Napolean Dynamite, “vote for Pedro” becomes a movement. In his speech, he says,  

Hello. I don't have much to say. But I think it would be good to have some holy santos brought to the high school...to guard the hallway and to bring us good luck. El Santo Niño de Atocha is a good one. My Aunt Concha has seen him.

And...and I'd like to see more of that. If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true. Thank you. 

I take my politics seriously. I study the issues. I have developed some political commitments. For some reason, reflecting upon Psalm 146 has helped. In fact, I invite you to read Psalm 146 in light of the election this year for President.

            First, only God deserves praise. Psalm 146 begins with the command,  

"Praise the LORD!

Praise the LORD, O my soul!

I will praise the LORD as long as I live;

I will sing praises to my God all my life long" (vv. 1-2). 

For the most part, politics is not worthy of praise. In contrast, Psalm 146 is a celebration of the eternal sovereignty of God -- a leadership position that has no term limits. This psalm has long been part of daily morning prayer in the Jewish tradition. It is appropriate for use by Christians as well, as we join the psalm-writer in singing "praises to my God all my life long." To praise God is to give credit where credit is due to the Lord who is our creator, redeemer and sustainer. When we offer praise, we are saying that God is God, and we are not.

            Second, put your trust in something eternal. The psalm warns us,  

"Do not put your trust in princes,

in mortals, in whom there is no help.

When their breath departs, they return to the earth;

on that very day their plans perish" (vv. 3-4).  

We take a chance when we rely on political leaders to help us because they are as flawed, weak, biased, transitory and limited as any human beings on Earth. Paul McKay wrote that emotion can get away with us as we invest so much faith in a political messiah. We can develop blind spots that blind us to the mistakes and foibles of the ones we have invested so much faith and trust and emotion in. Eric Hoffer wrote a little book about this, The True Believer. Such emotional investment is powerful.[1]

Inevitably, our political heroes let us down, if we are honest and dispassionate about them. At that point, we might be angry at their human weakness -- and at the same sinful nature we have in common with them all.

            Third, do not expect a candidate to make you happy. With all the energy that goes into a presidential campaign, we can certainly forgive voters for wanting their favorite candidate to bring them joy and satisfaction. However, such an expectation is truly unrealistic and is often a recipe for disappointment. Whether the victor is a Republican or a Democrat, he is going to let down large numbers of his supporters.

            Fourth, vote the Lord's values.

            Sadly, this single thought has been co-opted by both Left and Right. As Nathan D. Baxter put it, we need to remember that Jesus is not a doctrine or political philosophy. Jesus is a life, a teaching, an everlasting witness of divine grace and love -- even unto the cross.[2]

            Psalm 146 says that God is the one  

who executes justice for the oppressed;

who gives food to the hungry.

The LORD sets the prisoners free;

the LORD opens the eyes of the blind" (vv. 7-8).

These are God's values, according to the psalm. Some people will define how compassionate a government is by how many people receive government help. In contrast, others will take the position that limited government, combined with the lowest possible taxes and regulation, will create a rising tide lifts all boats. For them, the best way to help the poor is to have a growing and expanding economy. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. In fact, which side you fall upon is largely a matter of degree. While good Christians will certainly debate the ways that our society can address these concerns, there should be no disagreement about their priority to God. When you enter the voting booth, vote for the candidate who is best aligned with God's priorities. 

• Justice for the oppressed -- fair treatment for those who have been mistreated, shoved aside or ignored.
• Food to the hungry -- access to nourishment, in developing countries and in American inner cities.
• Freedom for prisoners -- both spiritual liberation while incarcerated and work opportunities once released.
• Opening the eyes of the blind -- not only physical healing, but new visions of a better future for us all.

These are God's values, and they undergird what the psalm tells us about God:  

The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down;

the LORD loves the righteous.

The LORD watches over the strangers;

he upholds the orphan and the widow,

but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin" (vv. 8-9).

 

In every time and place, God lifts up the burdened and loves those who are in a right relationship with him. God has special concern for the strangers in our midst and wants to take care of orphans and widows -- those who have no way to provide for themselves. Once again, there are going to be honest disagreements about how best to meet these needs, but the needs themselves are indisputable.

            Fifth, take the long view. If you are joyful on election night, do not get overly elated. If you are disappointed when the election is over, do not get too depressed. The next presidential campaign will begin before you know it, and the political pendulum will begin to swing in the other direction.

As Christians, the most important leader in our lives is Almighty God, and Psalm 146 reminds us that  

"the LORD will reign forever,

your God, O Zion, for all generations.

Praise the LORD!" (v. 10).  

When we give praise to God, we are joining a community of faithful people who are linked together across the generations. The church has seen countless political victories and defeats, as well as numerous times of national celebration and heartache. Election days may be divisive and difficult, but they do not prevent us from looking up to God together and taking the long view of human history.

Frederick Douglass, from a speech celebrating West Indian Emancipation Day, August, 1857, reflected on the symbol of the Statue of Liberty.  

The Statue of Liberty is a familiar icon of American democracy, but few Americans have examined Lady Liberty closely enough to realize she is trampling on a set of broken shackles lying on the ground at her feet. The shackles have a very specific meaning that has been all but lost to popular memory.

It was a French abolitionist, Édouard René Lefèbvre de Laboulaye, who first conceived the idea of the French people giving such a statue to the United States. At the time of the Confederacy's surrender, de Laboulaye rejoiced. At a Paris dinner party, a young sculptor, Frédéric Bartholdi, heard him propose the idea of a massive statue celebrating the Union victory. The statue would eventually be called "Liberty Enlightening the World." It would demonstrate how the abolitionists' hard-won victory was a shining example for all humanity.

With the support of de Laboulaye, Bartholdi became not only Lady Liberty's sculptor, but also her chief fundraiser. A subscription campaign in France paid for the statue, and a corresponding campaign in the United States paid for her massive pedestal -- a significant work of engineering in itself.

Bartholdi's original design called for Lady Liberty to be holding a broken chain, symbolic of the freedom the Union victory had won for the American slaves. Even though the statue's 1886 dedication took place more than 20 years after the Confederate surrender, feelings still ran strong. That aspect of the design was considered too provocative. Bowing to the realities of fundraising, Bartholdi revised his design, placing in Lady Liberty's hand, instead, a tablet symbolizing the rule of law. Yet, he refused to abandon de Laboulaye's original vision of the statue as an abolitionist monument. Bartholdi moved the broken chain from her hand to the ground under her feet.

There the chain and broken shackles remain to this day, a symbol of the vision of liberty for all God's children that thrilled the world at the end of the Civil War.

Liberty continues to be a fragile ideal that must be struggled over, at times even fought for. Going to the polls to vote our conscience is a way of preserving the vision of Liberty's broken shackles.

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. 

If your candidate wins, praise the Lord! If your candidate loses, praise the Lord! If you are excited about the next four years, praise the Lord! If you are worried about what will happen next, praise the Lord! There is nothing that can happen on Election Day that should shift your focus away from giving praise to the God who has created you, redeemed you and sustained you throughout the course of your life.

---

[1] "Do not put your trust in princes," Jitterbugging for Jesus, March 6, 2010. http://jitterbuggingforjesus.com.

[2] --Nathan D. Baxter, Comfort & Challenge: A Pastor's Thoughts for a Troubled Nation (Washington: Washington National Cathedral, 2002), 36-37.

 

Obama-Romney Debate 2

As Chris Wallace said, Obama’s performance stopped the bleeding in his campaign, so Democrats will be happy.  I think Republicans will be happy, too.  Romney came off as knowledgeable and didn’t back down.

Fox News contributor Brit Hume gave his analysis on the candidates during the town hall-style presidential debate. He assessed that President Obama was more aggressive and assertive this time around, whereas Mitt Romney was “basically the same” as he was during the first debate.
Hume said that since the president raised his game in comparison to his first debate performance, he will come out as the winner. He continued, “I will say this though, it was clear time and time again the difficultly the president has in being the incumbent.”
This was apparent when a voter in the audience told President Obama that he’s not as optimistic as he was four years ago. “There’s really no rebuttal to that. There’s no way a good debate performance can get you around that,” Hume said.

Charles Krauthammer reacted to the second presidential debate on tonight’s post-debate analysis, saying of the contentious debate, “this was a boxing match … at one point, I thought they were going to use their mics as weapons,” turning it into a Taiwanese parliament.
“Obama clearly had a good night,” Krauthammer said, asserting that on points, President Obama won the debate. “When Romney went large he did well, when Romney went small [...] Obama got the better of him.”
One area that Krauthammer said offered Romney a “huge opening that he missed” was on the topic of Libya. Krauthammer said the president “was completely at sea” on questions on the Benghazi attack. “He didn’t even try to answer it.”


According to Dick Morris, Romney looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas. When a president gets into a bar room brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.

1.  Romney made very clear the case against Obama's economic record and Obama's rebuttal about 5 million jobs was pathetic. 

2.  Romney injected the China issue, big time, and tapped into a strong public sentiment on the issue.

3.  Romney made the effective case that Obama is anti-oil, coal, and gas and that this has doubled gas prices.

4.  Romney was very effective in differentiating himself from Bush-43 and in establishing that, unlike the GOP of the past, he was for small businesses not big businesses

5.  Romney rebutted the attacks on him over Chinese investments.

6.  Romney explained his tax plan well and to everyone's satisfaction.

7.  Obama erred in trying to make us believe that he always felt Libya was a terror attack. We all heard him blame the movie.

Obama scored points over the 47% statement by Romney, immigration, and by his response to the accusation that he went to Vegas after the murder of the Ambassador.

In another composition, Morris offered the following for believing that Romney is on his way to victory.
Romney:

1)  Explained his tax plan very well.  His suggestion that he would allow up to a flat $25,000 in deductions was excellent.

2)  Recited the statistics of economic decline so well and so frequently that they will be repeated again and again by voters as they contemplate their decision.

3)  Clearly pinned the blame for high gas prices on Obama by enumerating the president's anti-oil, anti-coal policies.

4)  Put the China issue in play big time by explaining Chinese currency manipulation.  In the next debate, Romney should drill down and explain how much Chinese chicanery and hacking costs us jobs and how passive Obama has been in the face of their conduct.

5)  Demonstrated his compassion and heart in his personal stories of his ministry.  He should continue just this kind of argumentation.


Here is some fact checking. 
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney faced off last night in the second of three presidential debates, with just three weeks remaining before Election Day. The town hall forum was held at Hofstra University in New York, and was moderated by CNN’s Candy Crowley.
So where did the candidates get it right and where did they stray from the facts?
Check out this fact check courtesy of the Fox News Brainroom:
1) Romney said Detroit should go bankrupt
Romney: “And one thing that the president said, which I want to make sure that we understand, he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt. And that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and Condell (ph) Airlines and come out stronger.”
TRUE. Romney called for a managed bankruptcy in a New York Times Op-Ed.
This statement is drawn from a headline – “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” – on an opinion article written by Romney for The New York Times. But he did not say that in the article. (He repeated the line, however, on television.)

Although “bankrupt” often conjures up images of liquidation, Romney called for a “managed bankruptcy.” This is a process in which the company uses the bankruptcy code to discharge its debts, but emerges from the process a leaner, less leveraged company.
Romney: And I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.
Crowley: “Let me give the president a chance.”
Obama: “Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn’t true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open. And we would have lost a million jobs. And that — don’t take my word for it, take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney. But they’ll tell you his prescription wasn’t going to work.”
Obama’s statement is FALSE.
[Source: "Fact Check: Letting Detroit go bankrupt," The Washington Post: 17 Oct 2012]
2) Women earn less than men
Question: “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?”
The question posed was slightly INACCURATE.
The Census Bureau, which tracks annual wages, found women who worked full-time, year-round in 2010 made 77 cents for every dollar men earned across the country. This comparison includes all male and female workers regardless of occupation.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses different measures to analyze the pay gap, including weekly wages. In 2010, women working full-time had median weekly earnings of $669, versus $824 for males, according to a BLS report released in 2011. So women earned 81 cents of every dollar earned by men, which has been typical since 2004.
[Source: Politifact]
3) Romney’s 60 Minutes interview
Obama: “Now, Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on 60 Minutes just two weeks ago and he was asked: Is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 year? And he said, ‘Yes, I think that’s fair.’ Not only that, he said, ‘I think that’s what grows the economy.’”
FACT CHECK – Obama took Romney’s words slightly out of context and also misled the audience when he added, “And he said,’Yes, I think that’s fair.’ Not only that, he said, ‘I think that’s what grows the economy.’”
The president’s comments suggested that Romney thinks the economy will grow by virtue of bus drivers paying less than millionaires. But the Republican candidate was really saying that limiting taxes on investment income will encourage people to invest more of their money into the economy.
Note that none of this has anything to do with individual income tax, for which both Romney and Obama have both proposed progressive systems requiring higher earners to pay more than lower earners.
Here’s a transcript of the relevant part of that conversation between Romney and 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley:
Pelley: “You made on your investments, personally, about twenty million dollars last year and you paid fourteen percent in federal taxes. That`s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes fifty thousand dollars and paid a higher rate than you did?
Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as thirty-five percent.
Pelley: So you think it is fair?
Romney: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.”
[Source:The Washington Post: 16 Oct 2012]
4) Obama’s China connection
Obama deflected questions about his own investments in China with a joke. But independent reports have shown Obama holds shares in mutual funds that invest in Apple, Wal-Mart and other U.S. firms with operations in China.
[source: Washington Post -- Fact Check, Debate: Fact Check: China investments, Oct 16, 2012]
The Romney campaign claims that President Obama has money invested in China too, albeit indirectly. The president’s financial disclosure shows he has retirement money in Vanguard mutual funds and the Illinois pension plan. Those funds list investments in some 500 companies, including Apple, Wal Mart, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and General Electric.
Those firms have employees and in some cases, manufacturing facilities in China, which relates to another campaign hot-button issue: outsourcing. However, the companies themselves are based in the U.S. The investments involve domestic, not international, stock purchases.
[source: Politifact - Obama says Romney talks tough on China but puts his money there, Sept 13, 2012]
_____________________
What Romney said last night:
Romney: Yeah. Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in – in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
Obama: (Inaudible) – Candy -
Romney: Have you looked at your pension?
Obama: I’ve got to say – (inaudible) -
Romney: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
Obama: You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it – it doesn’t take as long. The -
Romney: Well, let me – let me give you – (laughter) – let me – let me give you some advice.
Obama: I don’t check it that often. (Chuckles.)
Romney: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension.
Obama: (Chuckles.) OK.
Romney: You also have investments in Chinese companies.
Obama: Yeah.
Romney: You also have investments outside the United States.
Obama: Yeah.
Romney: You also have investments through a Caymans trust, all right?
5) Speaking time
According to a tally by CNN, the president received over three minutes of additional speaking time compared to Gov. Romney. Obama spoke for a total of 44:04 while Romney spoke for 40:50.

Global Warming Stopped in 1997

According to John Ransom, climate experts from United Kingdom’s National Weather Service told the world that while is was not unusual for pauses in global warming that last for a decade to occur once every eighty years or so, there was no way that one could last for 15 years or more according to their climate model.
“The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week,” write the Daily Mail’s David Rose. “The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”
Rose includes a nice graphic, which we have reprinted below, that shows global temperatures remaining stable since 1997, with a statistically insignificant .03 degree rise on the Celsius scale.

Biden-Ryan Debate

Charles Krauthammer said, “If you heard it on radio, Biden won. If you watched it on television, he lost.”

Bernard Goldberg said that this was one of those times when style, I think, will trump substance. So even if there wasn’t a winner, there may have been a loser.
Joe Biden was OK when he was talking – but not when he was listening. That’s when he came off as condescending. Paul Ryan was trying to make a point and the split screen TV shot showed Biden laughing – not because anything was funny; it was Biden’s way of mocking Ryan, his way of saying Ryan didn’t know what he was talking about. There were also the frequent Biden interruptions. He came off as smug, maybe even as a bully, the older guy beating up on the new kid on the block.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace had harsh words for Biden, saying, “I don’t believe I have ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other as Biden was to Paul Ryan.”

Britt Hume, too, discussed Biden’s demeanor, saying, “I thought it was unattractive, I thought it was rude […] It looked like a cranky old man, to some extent, debating a polite young man.”

Democratic strategist Joe Trippi believes that Joe Biden performed strongly, he thinks the performance was “diminished by the smirking.”

Dick Morris offered that Vice president Joe Biden showed that he is not qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. There was no dignity, circumspection, courtesy, civility, or presidentiality in his performance in the debate with GOP contender Congressman Paul Ryan. Biden came over as a windbag and a demagogue. His constant interruptions, his phony and appropriate laughter and his grimace of a smile framed his bombast and looked like a schoolboy making faces at a rival. He had the manners and affect of a longshoreman at a union hall or a brawler in a bar. In his caricature of a politician, Biden made clear how much the Obama Administration survives by a combination of negative attacks and the rawest kind of demagogic appeal. He reduced his arguments for taxing the rich to thuggery and was so obviously pandering to populism as to be disgusting to all but the most committed Occupiers.
In the view of Morris, Paul Ryan was disappointing. He seemed over-awed and often overrun by Biden's antics. He should have been more forceful in denouncing the Administration's actions in Libya. He ought to have challenged the vice president's assertion that the Administration was "following the best intelligence we had," by noting that the State Department said it never believed that the attack was anything other than 9-11 anniversary terrorism. He would have been accurate to have labeled the Obama and Hillary claims that the attack was related to the video as a cover-up to try to head off terrorism becoming an issue against the president in November.  Nor did he do well in attacking Obama-Biden on Iran. He kept repeating two talking points: 1) That they had failed to change the Ayatollah's mind on developing nuclear weapons; and 2) That the sanctions were passed over Obama's objections. OK. But how about hitting them on not supporting the pro democracy demonstrators in Teheran? What about Gen. Dempsey's comments criticizing Israel for contemplating an attack on Iran? Why didn't Ryan just say that he would support Israel if it attacked Iran and Obama won't? Ryan did better on economic policy and was excellent on Medicare and Social Security.

Jonah Goldberg had this disappointment about Ryan: I think Ryan was right not to let Biden bait him into losing his cool. Ryan certainly came across as the more appealing, serious, and decent politician. But he would have done himself and his ticket a great service if he had simply turned to Biden and said something like, “Mr. Vice President these are serious issues and serious disagreements about the future of our country. I don’t find them funny and, frankly, I find your behavior here tonight beneath the dignity of your office.” It would have gelded Biden, elicited spontaneous applause in the audience, and endured as the most memorable soundbite of the whole debate. And, it would have been true.

For those interested in some fact checking, consider the following.
Topic: Iran’s Nuclear Program
1) Ryan: “When Barack Obama was elected, (Iran) had enough fissile material — nuclear material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five.”
FALSE
* Ryan’s claim is misleading. Iran isn’t believed to have produced any of the highly enriched uranium needed to produce even one nuclear weapon, let alone five.
* That point isn’t even disputed by Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored the world at the United Nations last month to create a “red line” at enrichment above 20 percent.
* Iran would have to enrich uranium at much higher levels to produce a weapon.
* There is intelligence suggesting that Iran has worked on weapons designs, but not that it has developed a delivery system for any potential nuclear warhead.
[Source: Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Slips in vice president's debate; 10/11/12]
________________
Follow Fox News Insider, the official blog of Fox News Channel on Twitter and Google+!
_________________
* A March report from the ISIS concluded that the likelihood of Iran attempting to enrich the material to the levels needed to build nuclear weapons is low, because it would be detected and ensure a military strike, and that current sanctions are working:
“Without past negotiated outcomes, international pressure, sanctions, and intelligence operations, Iran would likely have nuclear weapons by now. Iran has proven vulnerable to international pressure. It now faces several inhibitions against building nuclear weapons, not least of which is fear of a military strike by Israel and perhaps others if it breaks out by egregiously violating its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and moves to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.”
[Source: ISIS: PREVENTING IRAN FROM GETTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS: CONSTRAINING ITS FUTURE NUCLEAR OPTIONS; March 5, 2012]
2) Biden: “The ayatollah sees that there are 50 percent fewer exports of oil. He sees the currency going into the tank. He sees the economy going into freefall. And he sees the world for the first time totally united in opposition to him getting a nuclear weapon.”
TRUE
* Shipments from Iran have plunged by 1.2 million barrels a day, or 52 percent, since the sanctions banning the purchase, transport, financing and insuring of Iranian crude began July 1, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Annualized, that would cost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s country about $48 billion in revenue, equivalent to 10 percent of its economy.
[Source: Bloomberg, Iran Loses $133 Million a Day on Embargo, Buoying Obama, Aug 2, 2012]
_________________________
RELATED LINKS:
Check out analysis of last night’s debate:
Krauthammer’s Analysis: If You Heard the Debate on the Radio, Biden Won; If You Watched It on TV, He Lost
Brit Hume: Joe Biden ‘Looked Like a Cranky Old Man Debating a Polite Young Man’
Geraldo: Biden Kept Democrats ‘In the Game,’ But Ryan Held His Own
________________________
* They must now explain to a reeling public how they intend to stabilize an economy slammed by Western sanctions that have cut into oil exports and a deflated currency that lost nearly 40 percent of its value in a weeklong plummet – and why taking to the streets in protests is not the answer.
* Ahmadinejad’s political foes have openly scapegoated him as the cause for the rial’s drop, which hit an all-time low of 35,500 to the dollar on Wednesday and touched off merchant strikes at Tehran’s bazaar and sporadic clashes as police tried to round up sidewalk money changers. The rate was about 10,000 as recently as early last year.
[Source: Washington Post, Iran's currency chaos rattles leaders but fails to threaten grip, Oct 7, 2012]
3) Ryan: “They’ve given 20 waivers to this sanction.”
TRUE
* The U.S. said China and Singapore have “significantly reduced” their purchases of Iranian oil, earning exemptions from U.S. financial sanctions that otherwise would have been imposed.
* China was the biggest importer of Iranian crude last year, and Singapore is Asia’s oil trading and refining hub. The U.S. granted renewable, 180-day exemptions on March 20 to Japan and 10 European Union nations. India, South Korea, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Taiwan won exemptions in June.
“A total of 20 world economies have now qualified for such an exception,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. “Their cumulative actions are a clear demonstration to Iran’s government that Iran’s continued violation of its international nuclear obligations carries an enormous economic cost.”
[Source: Bloomberg, China, Singapore Exempted From U.S. Iran Oil Sanctions, June 29, 2012]
Topic: The Economy
1) Biden: They’re pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families.
Ryan: You know what the unemployment rate in Scranton is today?
Biden: I sure do.
Ryan: It’s 10 percent.
Biden: Yeah.
Ryan: You know what it was the day you guys came in? 8.5 percent.
HALF TRUE
*The unemployment rate in Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area was 9.6% in August 2012, up from 8.4% in January of 2009, according to BLS data.
[Source: BLS]
*However, Ryan was wrong when he said a rise in the jobless rate in Biden’s hometown was “how it’s going all around America.”
*The seasonally adjusted national unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September, exactly the same place it was when Obama took office in January 2009, and down from a high of 10% in October of 2009.
[Source: BLS Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]
Topic: The Auto Industry Bailout
1) Biden: “He just — he said, let it [Detroit] go bankrupt, period. Let it drop out.”
FALSE
* Biden is quoting the headline for a 2008 op-ed written by Romney in the New York Times.
* However, the headline was not written by Romney – it was written by the New York Times.
* Romney actually called for a managed bankruptcy — here is the relevant part of the op-ed:
“The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”
[Source: NY Times]
2) BIDEN: “All this talk — we saved a million jobs.”
TRUE
The Ann Arbor-based nonpartisan Center for Automotive Research released a study in November 2010 estimating that the auto bailout — by avoiding the worst-case scenario with drawn-out bankruptcy proceedings — saved an estimated 1.14 million U.S. jobs, slightly fewer than the earlier estimate of 1.3 million jobs.
[Sources: Politifact: Obama auto rescue saved 28,000 "middle-class" jobs in Wisconsin, 1 million in U.S., ex-Michigan governor says; Center for Automotive Research: The Impact on the U.S. Economy of the Successful Automaker Bankruptcies, November 17, 2010;]
3) Biden: “Two hundred thousand people are working today.”
TRUE, but only if you start counting when auto companies began the bankruptcy process in spring 2009.
In reality, the industry still has about 400,000 fewer jobs than it had at the start of the recession.
[Source: WH: A Look Back at GM, Chrysler and the American Auto Industry; APRIL 21, 2010]
Topic: The Housing Market
Biden: “If they get out of the way and let us allow 14 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside down, but they never missed a mortgage payment, just get out of the way.
FALSE
* September 2012: CoreLogic, a leading provider of information, analytics and business services, released an analysis showing that 10.8 million, or 22.3%, of all residential properties with a mortgage were in negative equity at the end of the second quarter of 2012.
* This is down from 11.4 million properties, or 23.7%, at the end of the first quarter of 2012.
[Source: CoreLogic: CORELOGIC® REPORTS NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN NEGATIVE EQUITY DECREASES AGAIN IN SECOND QUARTER OF 2012]
Topic: Department of Energy
1) Ryan: “Look at just the $90 billion in stimulus. The vice president was in charge of overseeing this. $90 billion in green pork to campaign contributors and special interest groups.”
TRUE
* The approximately $90 billion allocated in the stimulus for “green energy” breaks down to $60.7 billion in spending (relatively immediate) and tax breaks worth $29.5 billion over a 10-year period.
* Of the approximately $90 billion, about $51.9 billion (57.66%) is for projects that are outside what most people would consider the “green energy world” compared to oil & gas companies:
$19.9 billion for energy efficiency programs
$10.5 billion to modernize the electricity grid
$18.1 billion for high-speed rail and transit programs
$3.4 billion for “clean coal”
[Source: White House, Council of Economic Advisors, THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009: SUPPLEMENT TO THE THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT: THE ARRA AND THE CLEAN ENERGY TRANSFORMATION]
2) Ryan: “There are just at the Department of Energy over 100 criminal investigations that have been launched into just how stimulus…”
TRUE
* The claim is based on statements from the agency’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who told Congress last November that he had initiated 100 such investigations into what he called “various schemes, including the submission of false information, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses and other improper uses of Recovery Act funds.”
* Friedman said the investigations had led to five criminal prosecutions and recovery of more than $2.3 million.
* According to an Associated Press account of his testimony, Friedman said the fraud was due in part to the fact that very few “shovel ready” projects were available for government investment at the time the package was enacted. The Department of Energy received more than $35 billion in one-time funds and had no infrastructure and few people to oversee such a massive inflow, the inspector general said.
[Source: Recovery.gov; AP]
However:
* Executive Director Michael Wood, of the Recovery Board, said out of the $276 billion – the amount of taxpayer money allocated for contracts, grants and loans – it’s estimated that only $11.1 million had been lost to fraud.
[Source: Michael Wood, Executive Director, Recovery Board; Press Release: Watching Over $276 Billion; 9/19/12]
Topic: Entitlement Reform
1) Ryan: “Look what — look what Obamacare does. Obamacare takes $716 billion from Medicare to spend on Obamacare. Even their own chief actuary at Medicare backs this up. He says you can’t spend the same dollar twice. You can’t claim that this money goes to Medicare and Obamacare.”
TRUE
* A July 2012 estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase Medicare spending by $716 billion between 2013 and 2022.
[Source: Douglas W. Elmendorf Director, CBO: 7/24/12]
2) Ryan: “If we don’t shore up Social Security, when we run out of the IOUs, when the program goes bankrupt, a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut kicks in on current seniors in the middle of their retirement.”
TRUE
CBO projects that under current law, the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2038:
* Under current law, the DI trust fund will be exhausted in 2016, and the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2038.
* It is a common analytical convention to consider the DI and OASI trust funds in combination.
* CBO projects that, if legislation to shift resources from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund was enacted as has been done in the past, the combined trust funds would be exhausted in 2034.
* However, considerable uncertainty surrounds the various factors that affect the program’s revenues and outlays, and thus the date at which the trust funds would be exhausted.
[Source: CBO: The 2012 Long-Term Projections for Social Security: Additional Information]
3) Biden: “Any senior out there, ask yourself: Do you have more benefits today? You do. If you’re near the donut hole, you have $800 — $600 more to help your prescription drug costs. You get wellness visits without co-pays.”
FALSE
* According to the Congressional Budget Office, for every $500 the law spends on preventive services and prescription drugs, it cuts the rest of Medicare by $7,385.
* That’s a cut-to-spending ratio of nearly 15 to 1.
[Source: Avik Roy, Forbes Magazine: The Ratio of Obamacare's Medicare Cuts to New 'Benefits' is Fifteen-to-One]
4) Ryan: “Their own actuary from the administration came to Congress and said one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this.”
Biden: “That’s not what they said.”
Ryan is right, and Biden is wrong
* The Obama administration’s own Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, has explained that the Obamacare Medicare cuts could make unprofitable 15 percent of hospitals serving Medicare patients:
* It is doubtful that many [hospitals and other health care providers] will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree” necessary to accommodate the cuts, Foster has written:
“Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantial portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable, and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing care for beneficiaries. [Our] simulations…suggest that roughly 15 percent of [hospitalization] providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection as a result of the [spending cuts].”
[Source: The Estimated Effect of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare and Medicaid Outlays and Total National Health Care Expenditures; Testimony before the House Committee on the Budget; January 26, 2011 by Richard S. Foster, F.S.A. Chief Actuary Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]
5) Ryan: “7.4 million seniors are projected to lose their current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That’s a $3,200 benefit cut.”
TRUE
* The Medicare actuary wrote:
“We estimate that in 2017, when the [Medicare Advantage] provisions will be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans will be lower by about 50 percent (from its projected level of 14.8 million under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law).”
[Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Richard S. Foster Chief Actuary: Estimated Financial Effects of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," as Amended; 4/22/10]
* An analysis of the Medicare Advantage cuts by Robert Book of the Heritage Foundation shows that, on average, MA enrollees will lose $3,714 worth of extra services by 2017 due to the MA reductions in Obamacare.
[Source: Reductions in Medicare Advantage Payments: The Impact on Seniors by Region; Robert A. Book, Ph.D., and James C. Capretta; September 14, 2010]
Topic: Mitt Romney Quote from “60 Minutes” Interview
Biden: “Governor Romney on “60 Minutes” — I guess it was about 10 days ago — was asked, ‘Governor, you pay 14 percent on $20 million. Someone making $50,000 pays more than that. Do you think that’s fair?’ He said, ‘Oh, yes, that’s fair. That’s fair.’”
TRUE
Here is the exchange between Romney and Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes:
Scott Pelley: Now, you made on your investments, personally, about twenty million dollars last year. And you paid fourteen percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes fifty thousand dollars and paid a higher rate than you did?
Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as thirty-five percent.
Pelley: So you think it is fair?
Romney: Yeah, I– I think it’s– it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.
[Source: CBS News: Mitt Romney Interview on 60 Minutes - 9/23/12]

Capitalism: A Thought

Capitalism has its weaknesses. But it is capitalism that ended the stranglehold of the hereditary aristocracies, raised the standard of living for most of the world and enabled the emancipation of women. The routine defamation of capitalism by armchair leftists in academe and the mainstream media has cut young artists and thinkers off from the authentic cultural energies of our time.
Camille Paglia

First 2012 Presidential Debate

Jack Kerwick comes up with an interesting image of what happened in this debate. He refers to the illusion under which both Obama and those who seem so devoted to him seem to live. The illusion is what we may call “the Messianic syndrome” (TMS). Obama suffers from TMS, but so do his supporters.Obama’s disciples have also had messianic expectations for their leader to fulfill. In part this is because Obama himself has done everything to give rise to those expectations. Yet it is also partially owing to the fact that his followers—particularly his followers in the media—have been just as diligent in creating those expectations as has Obama himself. The problem, though, is that Obama and his accomplices in the media have been laboring away at this enterprise for so long that they have actually come to believe their own hype. Obama, they are convinced, truly is the Messiah. Because of this, he deserves to be recognized as such by everyone—including his opponents. Messiahs are supposed to be bottomless fonts of wisdom and virtue. Messiahs are supposed to be more intelligent than everyone and anyone else. Messiahs are expected to prevail over all countervailing forces. And this is all because Messiahs are expected to redeem those to whom they have been sent.

As Kerwick sees it, the cold, merciless reality is that their candidate lost, and lost resoundingly, not because he was unprepared or disengaged. He lost because, for at least the first time since he has been in the national limelight, Obama had to square off with a man who is in every respect his superior. Whether measured in terms of intelligence, worldliness, articulation, or even physical appearance, Romney outshines Obama by miles.This is the ugly reality that Obama and his disciples can’t acknowledge.


Romney focused on strong economic issues, developed his philosophy of limited government, and convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is in fact a pro-growth tax reformer who wants to lower the rate, and broaden the base in a revenue-neutral fashion that will actually create jobs and spur the economy. Romney had to correct President Obama on a number of issues, including oil tax breaks, healthcare issues, job training programs in the federal government and even how Obamacare works. Romney’s knowledge base was broad and deep, much broader and deeper than President Obama showed tonight. You could see a man who is for limited government and private enterprise, who wants to make sure that people understood his commitment to those key principles, and he never wavered. On the other side, you could see Barack Obama committed to big government all the way. Also, we have no new knowledge of what President Obama would do if elected to a second term. For almost every question, President Obama had a government solution. For almost every question, Mitt Romney had a private-sector solution. - Larry Kudlow

Fact-Check
. Romney claim: “He has as a model for [cost control] that a board of people at the government, an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of treatment you ought to have.” FALSE.
“The Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose members must be confirmed by the Senate, will make recommendations about Medicare payments to providers, when spending exceeds targets specified in the law. They cannot by law make recommendations about what treatments people get, what people pay in premiums or co-pays, and they cannot “ration” care. Congress can reject their payment recommendations as long as they come up with other savings.”
[source: Politico]
2. Obama claim: “I’ve proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue.”
FALSE: “In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 trillion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. Take those “cuts” away and Obama’s $2.50/$1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in the direction of tax increases.
Obama’s February budget offered proposals that would cut deficits over the coming decade by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion. Of that deficit reduction, tax increases accounted for $1.6 trillion. He promises relatively small spending cuts of $597 billion from big federal benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He also proposed higher spending on infrastructure projects.
[source: AP]
3. Romney claim: “Half of college graduates can’t find a job.” HALF-TRUE (according to a Northeastern study, about 25% of college grads could not find a job- the other 25% were “underemployed” – Romney calls them both “unemployed”)
“Rather than roughly half of recent college grads not being able to find a job, the reality is that about 50 percent of recent college graduates are either unemployed or employed in jobs that aren’t commensurate with their degree. Of this 50 percent figure, about half are unemployed, and about half are in jobs that don’t require a college degree. …
Romney would have been more accurate if he had phrased his claim the way he did on other occasions, when he said “half the kids coming out of college this year … can’t find a job, or a job that’s consistent with a college degree. …
While Romney glossed over details when he spoke with donors, painting a darker picture than supported by the research, he did get the tone right: At 53.6 percent, the number of college graduates unemployed or underemployed is the highest it’s been in at least 11 years.”
[source: Politifact]
4. Obama claim: “Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up – it’s true – but they’ve gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we’re already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you’re already getting a rebate.” FALSE (he conflates premiums – which are rising fairly rapidly – with overall health care spending, which is growing at a slower rate).
“THE FACTS: Not so, concerning premiums. Obama is mixing overall health care spending, which has been growing at historically low levels, and health insurance premiums, which have continued to rise faster than wages and overall economic growth. Premiums for job-based family coverage have risen by nearly $2,400 since 2009 when Obama took office, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent. This year’s 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.”
[source: AP]
5. Obama claim: “The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don’t get.”
FALSE – slightly less than $3 billion in industry-specific tax subsidies in FY 2010. [Note - Romney got this point right in the debate when he referenced $2.8 billion in tax expenditures to oil and gas companies]
* For FY 2010, the Department of Energy estimates that oil & natural gas companies had $2.690 billion in industry-specific “tax expenditures” (i.e., tax subsidies).
* This figure excludes the approximately $3.25 billion in domestic manufacturing deduction tax subsidies in FY 2010 received by energy companies (primarily oil and gas companies) which is available to all manufacturing companies.
[source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration]
6. Romney claim: “And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.”
FALSE – Romney improperly compares loans, grants and tax breaks in the stimulus – a percentage of which goes to coal – to tax breaks for oil & gas companies. The $90 billion is also a 10-year number and he compares it to a single year of oil & gas company tax breaks. This is an apple to orange comparison.
* The approximately $90 billion allocated in the stimulus for “green energy” breaks down to $60.7 billion in spending (relatively immediate) and tax breaks worth $29.5 billion over a 10-year period.
* Of the approximately $90 billion, about $51.9 billion (57.66%) is for projects that are outside what most people would consider the “green energy world” compared to oil & gas companies:
$19.9 billion for energy efficiency programs
$10.5 billion to modernize the electricity grid
$18.1 billion for high-speed rail and transit programs
$3.4 billion for “clean coal”
[source: White House, Council of Economic Advisors]
* If you just look at it from the perspective of tax expenditures, it is $2.7 billion to the oil and gas industry in FY 2010 versus approximately $2.95 billion a year in the stimulus.
[source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration]
7. Romney claim: “[W]e have 4 million people on Medicare Advantage that will lose Medicare Advantage because of those $716 billion in cuts.”
TRUE BUT MISLEADING – although the Medicare Trustees project that the number of Medicare Advantage enrollees will decrease by 4 million between 2012 and 2016, they will still have access to Medicare.
* As Politico explains:
“The Romney campaign says he got that figure from the 2012 Medicare trustees report. That report says the number of seniors in private Medicare plans – the Medicare advantage plans – will drop from about 13.5 million in 2012 to 9.8 million in 2018. That’s close to a drop of 4 million.
But that claim makes it sound like those seniors could lose all Medicare coverage – when it really just means private Medicare plans would make up a smaller share of the market. Over the same period, the trustees say, the total number of people on Medicare would rise from 50.6 million to 60.5 million – an increase of about 10 million. Only the percentage in private Medicare plans would drop.”
[source: Politico]

From Republican Party

Obama Stumbled On The Facts

LIE #1: OBAMA SAYS HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE BECOMING MORE AFFORDABLE

THE CLAIM: Obama Said “Health Care Premiums Have Gone Up — It Is True — But They Have Gone Up Slower Than Any Time In The Last 50 Years.” OBAMA: “The fact of the matter is that when Obamacare is fully implemented, we are going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it is true — but they have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. We are already seeing progress.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: “ For Now, There Is Little Evidence That The Affordable Care Act Has Made Healthcare Any More Affordable For The Vast Majority Of Americans.” “President Obama reiterated a claim that his healthcare law will reduce costs, a promise he made when he started pushing for an overhaul as a candidate four years ago. Then, Obama said he would cut family health insurance premiums by $2,500 by the end of his first term. Today, this stands as one of the president’s biggest unfulfilled promises. In fact, the average employee share of an employer-provided health plan jumped from $3,515 in 2009 to $4,316 in 2012, an increase of more than 22%, according to a survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. The total cost of an average employer-provided family health plan – shared by the employer and the employee -reached $15,745 in 2012. When the law is fully implemented in 2014, some low- and middle-income Americans will qualify for government subsidies to help them afford health insurance. And other provisions of the law could help slow the growth in healthcare costs over the long term. But for now, there is little evidence that the Affordable Care Act has made healthcare any more affordable for the vast majority of Americans.”(Noam N. Levey, “Fact Check: ‘Obamacare’ Hasn’t Yet Reduced Health Insurance Costs,” Los Angeles Times’ Politics Now , 10/3/12)

LIE #2: OBAMA SAYS GOV. ROMNEY’S PLAN IS A $5 TRILLION TAX CUT

THE CLAIM: Obama Said “Gov. Romney’s Central Economic Plan Calls For A $5 Trillion Tax Cut.” OBAMA: “Gov. Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut – on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that’s another trillion dollars – and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for. That’s $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: “Obama’s Claim That Romney Wants To Cut Taxes By $5 Trillion Doesn’t Add Up.” “Obama’s claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn’t add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney’s tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama’s math doesn’t take into account Romney’s entire plan.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/3/12)

• Romney’s “Goal Is A Simpler Tax Code That Raises The Same Amount Of Money As The Current System But Does It In A More Efficient Manner.” “Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years. However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current system but does it in a more efficient manner.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/3/12)

• ABC’s Jon Karl: Obama’s Claim That Romney Has A $5 Trillion Tax Cut Plan Is “Mostly Fiction.” KARL: “Okay, so, the big thing there, and he came back to it several times, is Governor Romney has a $5 trillion tax cut plan. I rate that mostly fiction.” (ABC’s “Your Voice: 2012Presidential Debates,” 10/3/12)

LIE #3: OBAMA SAYS HIS PLAN IS BALANCED IN THE MANNER OF SIMPSON-BOWLES

THE CLAIM: “Obama Often Claims That His Plan Has The ‘Balanced Approach’ Of The Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission Proposal, But The Simpson-Bowles Plan Is Actually Quite Different.” “Obama often claims that his plan has the ‘balanced approach’ of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposal, but the Simpson-Bowles plan is actually quite different, calling for tough spending cuts and substantial tax reforms – not the faux proposals contained in the president’s budget.” (Glenn Kessler, “Fact Check: Obama’s Faux Deficit Plan,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker , 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: “When The Two Plans Are Compared Apples To Apples, Simpson-Bowles Yields About $6.6 Trillion In Deficit Reduction – 50 Percent More Than Obama’s Plan.” “For instance, Simpson-Bowles envisioned $4 trillion in debt reduction over nine years; the president’s plan would spread the cuts over 10 years. A good chunk of the savings from deficit reduction piles up in that last year. When the two plans are compared apples to apples, Simpson-Bowles yields about $6.6 trillion in deficit reduction – 50 percent more than Obama’s plan.” (Glenn Kessler, “Fact Check: Obama’s Faux Deficit Plan,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker , 10/3/12)

• THE FACTS: “Moreover, The Administration Is Also Counting $848 Billion In Phantom Savings From Winding Down The Wars In Iraq And Afghanistan… Independent Budget Analysts Were Not Impressed And Called The Maneuver ‘A Major Budget Gimmick.’” “Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine someone borrowing $50,000 a year for college-and then declaring that they have an extra $500,000 to spend over the next decade once they graduate.) Independent budget analysts were not impressed and called the maneuver ‘a major budget gimmick.’” (Glenn Kessler, “Fact Check: Obama’s Faux Deficit Plan,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker , 10/3/12)

LIE #4: OBAMA SAYS HE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO SIMPSON-BOWLES FOR HIS OWN PLAN

THE CLAIM: Obama Said He Had Made Adjustments To The Simpson-Bowles Commission Recommendations. JIM LEHRER: “Governor Romney, do you support Simpson-Bowles?” MITT ROMNEY: “I have my own plan it is not as Simpson-Bowles. But in my view the President should have grabbed it. If you have some adjustments, make it, take it to Congress, fight for it.” BARACK OBAMA: “That’s what we’ve done. Made some adjustment to it. Putting it before Congress right now. $4 trillion plan.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: When Bowles Simpson Failed To Come To The Floor, “The White House Looked The Other Way.” “Obama, answering a challenge from Romney, said that he did take an adjusted version of the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction framework to Congress, and that he has proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction. Not quite. After the Simpson-Bowles commission failed to get the necessary votes needed to introduce its plan–which would reduce deficits by $4 trillion over 10 years through a combination of discretionary spending cuts, broad tax reform and entitlement savings–to the floor in December 2010, the White House looked the other way. (Meghan McCarthy, Katy O’Donnell, Amy Harder, and Catherine Hollander, “Fact Checking The Presidential Debate,” National Journal, 10/3/12)

LIE #5: OBAMA SAYS HIS PLAN REDUCES THE DEFICIT BY $4 TRILLION

THE CLAIM: Obama: “I’ve Proposed A Specific $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan.” OBAMA: “I’ve proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: Obama’s $4 Trillion Figure Includes Money From Legislation Enacted With Republicans And From War Savings That Would Occur Anyway. “In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 billion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/3/12)

• “Take Those ‘Cuts’ Away And Obama’s $2.50/$1 Ratio Of Spending Cuts To Tax Increases Shifts Significantly More In The Direction Of Tax Increases.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/3/12)

Obama “Twisted The Truth” With The $4 Trillion Figure. “Obama also twisted the truth when he repeated the claim that his proposals would reduce the 10-year deficit by $4 trillion. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that Obama’s budget would increase cumulative deficits by well over $2 trillion over that time period.” (Meghan McCarthy, Katy O’Donnell, Amy Harder, and Catherine Hollander, “Fact Checking The Presidential Debate,” National Journal, 10/3/12)
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reminded Viewers That “The Bipartisan Non-Profit Committee For Responsible Federal Budget Has Called That A Gimmick Because Those Wars Were Deficit-Financed In The First Place.” MITCHELL: “That estimate comes from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. $3.8 trillion to be exact over ten years. The President is counting money saved by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for people making more than $250,000 a year. But he’s also counting $1 trillion in savings over ten years by drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bipartisan non-profit Committee for Responsible Federal Budget has called that a gimmick because those wars were deficit-financed in the first place. And The President is also counting on savings agreed to last year when the White House and Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling. Mitt Romney claimed tonight that President Obama’s health reform would take $706 billion — 16 billion dollars out of Medicare.” (NBC’s “2012 Presidential Debate,” 10/3/12)

LIE #6: OBAMA SAYS HE HAS CREATED 5 MILLION PRIVATE JOBS

THE CLAIM: Obama: “Over The Last 30 Months, We’ve Seen 5 Million Jobs In The Private Sector Created.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)

• THE FACTS: “That Statistic Tries To Obscure The Fact That The Overall Job Record So Far In This Presidential Term Has Been Negative.” “He claimed 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector in the past 30 months; that statistic tries to obscure the fact that the overall job record so far in this presidential term has been negative.” (Glenn Kessler, “Fact Check: Obama’s Jobs Stat,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker , 10/3/12)

LIE #7: OBAMA MAKES FALSE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT GOV. ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC PLAN

THE CLAIM: Obama: “Governor Romney Has A Perspective That Says If We Cut Taxes, Skewed Towards The Wealthy, And Roll Back Regulations That We’ll Be Better Off.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)

• THE FACTS: This Is “A Claim That Earned Him [Obama] Three Pinocchios This Week.” “The President also suggested that Romney would adopt the same policies as the bush administration -cut taxes and roll back regulation-that led to the economic crisis, which is a claim that earned him Three Pinocchios this week.” (Glenn Kessler, “Fact Check: Obama’s Jobs Stat,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker , 10/3/12)

LIE #8: OBAMA SAYS SOCIAL SECURITY IS “STRUCTURALLY SOUND”

THE CLAIM: Obama Claimed That Social Security Is “Structurally Sound.” OBAMA: “Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Said That “But According To The Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Will Run Into Financial Trouble Too.” MITCHELL: “President Obama said that unlike Medicare Social Security does not have to be fixed to remain solvent but according to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will run into financial trouble too. By 2030 the amount Social Security pays out will exceed the tax revenue coming in. So in about 20 years the program will not be able to pay for itself through the payroll tax that’s we all pay in. So Brian, the debate will continue on twitter and everywhere else as these facts are checked and counterchecked.” (NBC’s “2012 Presidential Debate,” 10/3/12)