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.
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.
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.
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 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
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)
Thomas Sowell shows that during the Warren Harding administration, in 1921,
Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon advocated tax rate cuts, which
were enacted into law by Congress. Afterward, there was rising output;
unemployment plummeted; and the resulting higher income produced greater
federal tax revenues, even though the tax rate had been lowered. There
were somewhat similar results in later years after high tax rates were cut
during the John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
administrations.
The facts about the 1920s tax rate cuts are unmistakably clear for
those who bother to check the facts. In 1921, when the tax rate on people
earning more than $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government
collected a little more than $700 million in income taxes, of which 30
percent was paid by those earning more than $100,000. By 1929, after the
tax rate had been cut to 24 percent on incomes higher than $100,000, the
federal government collected more than $1 billion in income taxes, of
which 65 percent was collected from those with incomes higher than
$100,000.
In 1962, Democratic President John F. Kennedy pointed out that "it
is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues
are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is
to cut the rates now." Both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
made similar arguments, and the tax rate cuts had the effect of
stimulating economic growth while increasing federal tax revenue and
shifting a greater percentage of the tax burden on to wealthier
individuals.
One very insightful part of Sowell's paper is the discussion about
what Mellon called the "gesture of taxing the rich" -- namely, tax-exempt
securities that he tried unsuccessfully to put an end to. Tax-exempt
securities and other tax breaks are valuable tools in the politics of
class warfare and envy. Politicians have it both ways. They get votes by
raising taxes on the wealthy -- or threatening to do so -- and at the same
time provide the wealthy with a way out of high taxes through tax-exempt
securities. This explains how President Obama can raise tens of millions
of dollars in campaign contributions from Hollywood millionaires and Wall
Street's rich and powerful. "Tax cuts for the rich" demagoguery is simply
the height of deceit perpetrated on the gullible people and useful idiots.
