Posts Tagged ‘deceitful’

Fact-Checking Obama’s Bogus Bullpuckey Stimulus Claims

February 19, 2010

Obama’s fearmongering Congress into rushing the stimulus through so fast that no one in Congress could even read it was utterly demagogic.  His continuous dishonest claims since about the “success” of this pork-ridden slush fund have been deceitful and despicable.

Obama doesn’t just lie, he tells giant lies.  Big Lies, to cite a phrase from history.

Here’s one of the Big Lies that Obama told during his stimulus anniversary media blitzkrieg:

“And economists from across the political spectrum warned that if dramatic action was not taken to break the back of the recession, the United States could spiral into another depression.”

But Obama’s claim that economists “across the political spectrum” had sided with him was an utterly contemptible lie a year ago, and it is an even bigger lie now.  Last February I preserved the following.  Please note the title:

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

And there were a whopping load of economists who signed on to that statement – at least a couple hundred, just at a glance.

That’s 200 economists saying, “YOU LIE!”

The truth was rather this: “‘Economists across the Spectrum’ Continue to Flee Stimulus bill.”

Obama supporters provided exactly two names of conservatives whom they claimed constituted their “across the spectrum.”  Both claims were bogus.

Another Big Lie was the invention of the never-before-seen category of “saved or created” jobs.  It’s a load of rotting baloney.  Harvard economics Professor Gregory Mankiw has said, “There is no way to measure how many jobs are saved.” Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University has said “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?” If George Bush had EVER tried to use this same “saved or created” category, he would have been simultaneously mocked as a fool and attacked as a criminal who was trying to deliberately deceive the American people.  But a liberal Democrat did it, so the mainstream media has merely duly reported the totally-made-up self-serving “statistic” as though it weren’t a frankly horrifying lie.

Now, according to a CBS/New York Times poll, only six percent of the people believe that the stimulus has actually created any jobs:

No matter what the truth is about the stimulus act, public perception is the real battle Democrats have to fight politically as 2010 elections loom. And they are fighting that battle hard, based on the amount of e-mail traffic and stimulus promoting events Democrats are holding across the country today. It’s not going to be easy based on a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week that showed just 6 percent of the American public thinks the stimulus created jobs. Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steele ran with that figure yesterday saying that more people believe that Elvis is still alive than believe the stimulus is working.

For the record, Michael Steele is correct: 7% believe that Elvis is alive.  About the same percentage who believe space aliens anally probed them, I imagine.

Unfortunately, that six percent largely consist of the mainstream media.

It’s nice to see someone in the media take him on over some of his claims, particularly an economist with the prestige of a John Lott.  He apparently limits his takedown to the content provided during one particular interview.  But it is still a devastating, point-by-point, presentation of an administration that could care less about the truth, or about reality:

Updated February 19, 2010
Fact Checking Team Obama’s Stimulus Claims
By John Lott
– FOXNews.com

A look at what the White House said about the stimulus and what they didn’t say…

On Wednesday, Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer interviewed Austan Goolsbee, the chief economist for the White House Recovery Board, on the one-year anniversary of the stimulus.

Here is a simple fact check of Mr. Goolsbee’s claims:

Hemmer: “What does the White House predict a year from now?”

Goolsbee: Let’s remember, you’re citing the claim that the unemployment rate wouldn’t go above 8 percent, but if you remember in that same projection they said that if we didn’t pass the stimulus it would only go to 9 percent, and it was above that before the stimulus even came into effect. What the administration and everyone else missed was the depth of the recession that was in place at the end of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009 when the President came into office.

In April, President Obama was busy touting the stimulus as having “already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” Press releases from the administration were already being sent out claiming saved jobs on April 1. Even well before that, on January 25, Lawrence Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, promised that the benefits from the stimulus bill would be seen “within weeks” after passage. Yet, despite Mr. Goolsbee’s claim, the unemployment rate did not rise above 9 percent until May, well after these claimed jobs were supposedly being created.

As for the statement that the president was “surprised” by how bad the economy was, during his first radio address to the nation on Jan. 24, Obama claimed, “We begin this year and this administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action.” In Obama’s first national press conference he talked about the United States finding itself in a crisis *12 times* and also took pains to emphasize that it was an “unprecedented crisis.” Given that the unemployment rate in 1983 reached 10.7 percent, if the president believed that we were indeed in an “unprecedented crisis” or at least the worst shape since the Great Depression, it is hard to see how the unemployment numbers could surprise him or those on his team.

The Obama administration has frequently claimed that they didn’t realize how bad the GDP numbers for the 4th quarter 2008 were when their first unemployment predictions were released, but the February 28 estimates were released well after the GDP numbers were out.

Mr. Goolsbee states that the economy was worse than he expected it to be. But there is another alternative explanation and that is that the stimulus created higher unemployment. In fact, my columns in this space predicted that during at the beginning of February 2009 that would be the case. Moving around a trillion dollars from areas where people would have spent it to areas where the government wants to spend it will move a lot of jobs away from those firms that are losing the money to those who are now favored by the government. Since people won’t instantly move from one job to another, there will be a temporary increase in unemployment.

But there’s still more. Here’s this from Hemmer’s interview:

Hemmer: “So you are saying that you are standing by the numbers and you guys were right all along.”

Goolsbee: What I’m saying is that the impact of the stimulus is very much what they predicted it to be. What they missed — and what everyone missed — was the depth of the baseline that was in place as the president came into office, yes.

Two graphs illustrate Obama’s promises versus what actually happened. Whether one uses the president’s predictions when he came into office or his later predictions as provided on February 28, the actual unemployment rate lies well above either of those predictions.

See the figure here.

If one looks at both the number of people unemployed and the number who have left the labor force, “I can’t see any [employment] benefit from the stimulus,” Professor Stephen Bronars, a labor economist at the University of Texas at Austin, told me.

See the figure here.

And then there’s this from Hemmer’s interview with Goolsbee:

Hemmer: [What if you] Use the unspent stimulus of $514 billion to pay down the national debt?

Goolsbee: Well, Bill, I got to tell you when the people who burned down the back half of the house are complaining about how much it costs to rebuild it, I think we’re in a bit of a strange spot. As you know, the deficit was projected, before the president took office, to be $1.3 trillion, and that’s because we were teetering on the edge of a depression and we needed to put the focus — as we did — on getting us away from the abyss. If we hadn’t done that the deficit would be catastrophically worse even than it is this year and than it was projected to be when the president came in. We should not reverse the second half of the stimulus. It’s needed to get us out of the woods. Look out the window, the unemployment rate is near 10 percent. Now, the stimulus was never capable of restoring the 8 million jobs hole that was created by the recession beginning in 2007. It did part of it and the private sector needs to the rest.

During the middle of October, 2008, after the bailout bill had been passed, then-Senator Obama claimed (during the third presidential debate): “we are now looking at a deficit of well over half a trillion dollars.” Virtually all of the huge 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion has been blamed on the Bush administration — as if Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus (over two years) and his $410 billion supplemental spending bill in March had nothing to do with it. Mr. Obama also asked for $350 billion in TARP money to be released by the Bush administration immediately before he entered the White House. Bush had no plans to spend that money, but, by releasing it before he took office, Mr. Obama is able to claim that the spending should be counted towards the Bush administration.

Then there was this:

Hemmer pointed out that the White House is starting a pushing to focus on the deficit. Isn’t that a contradiction from this administration?

Here’s the response:

Goolsbee: [No.] Because you’re getting confused between the short term and the long term. What we need is to put a focus on deficit reduction in the long term. Everyone agrees with that, [and] the president wants to put a focus [on it]. The reason the budget commission failed, as you know, is because 7 Republicans that sponsored the bill turned around and voted against it when it became clear it was going to pass.

Actually, it isn’t clear how the administration can blame Republicans for the defeat of the budget commission. Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate at the time, and they could have approved the commission without a single Republican vote. Sixteen Republicans did vote for the commission (along with 37 Democrats), but 23 Democrats and 23 Republicans voted against the commission. The Republicans voted against it because they worried that the commission would rely heavily on new — and higher — taxes to reduce the deficit.

This came next…

Hemmer noted that a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that only 6 percent of Americans think that the stimulus has created jobs and 48 percent think that it will never create jobs.

Goolsbee: Well, look, that may be true. I’m just a policy guy. I’m not an expert on spinning and convincing. What I would say is if you go get the data from the private sector forecasters, from the non-partisan congressional budget, or you look at Recovery.gov or the reports coming out of the Council of Economic Advisers, you see they are all hovering around the creating or saving of 2 million jobs thus far. And so the key is [that] the hole was extremely deep. This brought us part of the way up out of this abyss hole. But we need to do more. The president has never said that this is sufficient.

It is a bit of an exaggeration that everyone is in agreement with these claims. Cary Leahey, an economist and senior managing director with Decision Economics, one of the forecasters surveyed by The Wall Street Journal, provided me with one explanation for why the stimulus increased unemployment: “With transitional moves in government spending [from the stimulus], there will be dislocations in the economy that will lead to higher unemployment.” But he emphasized that he thought those effects would be “short-lived, six to nine months, definitely not more than a year.” Of the other three sources, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, or if you look at recovery.gov or the reports coming out of the Council of Economic Advisers, all are controlled by Democrats.

Then there was this…

Hemmer raised the point that only two places in the country have gained jobs during the last year: North Dakota and Washington, D.C.

Goolsbee: Well, certainly, if they’re going to be treated to the kind of rationale that you’re describing, it’s going to be very tough. But if you look at what, as I’m trying to describe, the recession began in 2007 – 8 million jobs were lost. If you restore 2 million jobs, that’s 2 million people who are at work, who would have been out of work had we not done that. But that doesn’t fill the entire 8 million hole. And so for you to say they only created jobs in North Dakota, you’re making the mistake of saying, well, the stimulus should have created more than 8 million jobs or else it didn’t have an impact. But that’s just logically incorrect.

Mr. Goolsbee simply isn’t answering Hemmer’s question. Hemmer was asking about the change in jobs since the beginning of last year to evaluate the impact of the stimulus, while Goolsbee is also discussing job losses from the end of 2007. There was nothing “logically incorrect” with Hemmer’s question.

There is also a simple math error in Mr. Goolsbee’s statement. He claims that things would have been even worse than the 8 million drop in jobs if the stimulus hadn’t been passed. What he may have meant to say is that without the stimulus 10 million jobs would have been lost (the 8 million that were lost plus the 2 million that were saved by the stimulus and would have been lost without it). But if the Obama administration really believes this, the unemployment rate in January would have been 11 percent, not 9.7 percent, and the Obama administration never predicted that the unemployment rate would go to 11 percent without the stimulus.

In any case, Goolsbee’s reluctance to explain why jobs, since the beginning of last year, have only increased in the District Columbia, where a lot of government jobs have been created, and North Dakota is understandable.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of “Freedomnomics.”

The first article that Lott linked to in the link titled “” has the following graph.  I leave you with it, as it pretty much shows at a glance just what a whopping load of failure Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus truly was:

Health Care: Democrats Upset That Republicans Would Hold Them Responsible For Their False Promises On Taxes

October 3, 2009

Not raising taxes on the middle class was one of Obama’s signature pledges.  In fact, let’s go back and review it:

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

And Obama repeatedly claimed to the cheering crowds that if he was elected their taxes wouldn’t go up a single dime.

In point of fact, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the same sort of mandates he wants to impose on the American people now.  He even ran a huge ad campaign demonizing her for doing the very thing he is now doing.

Remember George H.W. Bush’s now famous pledge, “Read my lips, no new taxes?”  Congressional Democrats who controlled the House and Senate forced Bush the elder to raise taxes – and then demagogued him for having raised them.  In the case of Barack Obama, no rival party is manipulating him; he’s breaking his promises all on his own.

Senate Republicans pointed out yesterday that Democrat health plans would make Obama’s promise to the American people a cynically deceptive and incredibly manipulative lie:

John ensign (R-NV), Senate Finance Committee:  “[Obama] said, ‘But let me be perfectly clear: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime.'”

Mike Crapo (R-ID), Senate Finance Committee:  “If we can’t do health care reform without taxing people in the middle class – and the lower income categories – then we’ve got the wrong plan in front of us.

Republicans pointed to several tax provisions – one clearly labeled an ‘excise tax’ in Sen. Baucus’ plan – would fine a family as much as $1,900 if it didn’t buy health insurance.  And if one failed to pay the tax, the IRS would take more even more drastic action:

Sen. Ensign:  “We heard that the other day.  The effect is, up to a $25,000 fine and one year in jail.”

One blogger backs up the tax increases in the Democrats’ plan by citing their own bill:

All the Democrat bills include tax penalties, administered through the Internal Revenue Service, for individuals and families who do not purchase “government-approved” coverage. Page 29 of the Baucus bill would subject families with incomes higher than three times poverty to an “excise tax” of up to $3,800 per year. Likewise, page 167 of the introduced version of House Democrats’ government takeover of care (H.R. 3200) includes the following language:“There is hereby imposed a tax” on individuals who do not purchase “government-approved” insurance-and neither the House nor the Senate bills exempt those with incomes under $250,000 from the penalties. How is what the legislation plainly calls a new tax on all Americans not purchasing “government-approved” insurance not a tax increase on the middle class?

So Republicans, serving as the guardians of the president’s pledge on taxes (and who ELSE is serving as guardians of the presidents’ pledges on anything?), offered amendments to exempt most taxpayers.

Sen. Crapo:  “It will remove all taxes,fees, and penalties from the bill that apply to families earning less than $250,000 per year.”

The Democrats have chosen to embark upon an incredibly deceitful and false assertion that what is clearly a tax someone isn’t a tax.  Give it up; it’s a TAX (see this also).  And in fact it is a tax with penalties imposed by the iron-gloved hand of your ever-friendly and compassionate Internal Revenue Service.  BECAUSE IT’S A DAMN TAX.

And in point of fact both taxes that the Senate Finance Committee is debating would fall heavily on those who make less than that magical $250,000 a year. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for instance, 71% of those families facing the tax for refusing to buy health insurance make less than $110,000 a year. The change in deductibility would hit most heavily at even lower incomes.

Democrats didn’t dispute the impact of the taxes, but rather – and amazingly – simply accused Republicans of simply making political points:

Sen Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman, Senate Finance Committee:  “Basically what you’re saying is you want to, you want to gut the president’s program.  More than that, you want to gut health reform.”

It’s an interesting – and yet all too typical – tactic from the Democrats.  They’re liars.  They have broken their word to the American people.  They got themselves elected by making one false promise on top of another.  But Republicans are the ones to blame, because Democrats have put on their “Carnac the Magnificent” hats and read the hearts and minds of Republicans’ motives in exposing the Democrats’ lies.

The fact is, the Democrat’s reform efforts depend on getting more healthier young people, for instance, to buy insurance and spread the risk.  And Sen. Baucus didn’t apologize for forcing them to do so:

“If we’re serious about making sure that Americans have health insurance, we have to have shared responsibility.  We all have to participate.”

And outside the committee, Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) suggested there is very likely no way around higher taxes:

“I’m prepared to go to my constituents and tell them there are tough choices to be made.”

Maybe Ron Wyden is prepared to force millions of people to pay high taxes that Barack Obama promised them that they would never have to pay, but what about the people who are going to now have to pay those taxes?

This is a question of lack of honesty, or lack of competence: were Democrats so clearly incompetent that they truly didn’t know that they wouldn’t be able to cover 45 million more people for less money?  Did they truly believe that their promises not to raise taxes on the middle class could even possibly be fulfilled given their massive government spending?

But that’s okay.  Because they’re going to make you pay for their broken promises.

The amendments to halt any tax increase failed by only one vote – with, of course, only Democrats voting against it.  Their vote is a cynical admission that the Democrats are dishonest thieves who will lie to your face about being on your side even as they prepare to rob you blind.  Just the two provisions debated yesterday would raise taxes by over $35 billion over ten years.  And yes, people making under $250,000 would be forced to pay higher taxes – in spite of President Obama’s word to the American people.

If you thought Republicans were bad, Democrats are proving that they are the worst kind of dishonest, arrogant, and cynical hypocrites imaginable.  The Party that self-righteously proclaimed its “transparency” have voted against amendments that required them to read the bills they pass – and even mocked bothering to read such bills, and then said there’s no point to bothering to read the bills they vote on.  If it’s bad enough that Democrats won’t bother to read their own damn bills, they now refuse to allow YOU a chance to read them either, essentially claiming that you are too stupid to understand them.  Moreover, Democrats have ave voted against even bothering to require that bills even be written before they are voted upon.

It’s long past  (and I mean two years of false campaign promises in addition to the last nine months past) holding Democrats accountable to their past promises and demanding that they live up to their rhetoric.  And if they can’t pass their legislation without breaking their campaign promises, then they are offering false and depraved legislation that should never be allowed to pass.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 525 other followers