SOTU...Fact Check time

[sirs]

By CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won't just be "one of those Washington gimmicks." Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won't have any teeth.

Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, chief among them that Americans are continuing to lose their health insurance as Congress struggles to pass an overhaul.

Yet some of his ideas for moving ahead skirted the complex political circumstances standing in his way.

A look at some of Obama's claims and how they compare with the facts:

---
OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit - and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.

---
OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted - a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

---
OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage - the majority of Americans under age 65 - in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.

---
OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

---
OBAMA: "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."

THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.

The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."

---
OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign - to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

---
OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."

THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.

---
OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed - far more than in 2008."

THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.


I think we can now dispense with the notion of Obama "walking the walk"

[sirs]

Cato Institute Scholars Analyze the 2010 State of the Union Address

[sirs]

Watching President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader.

Obama not only wasn't contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda -- even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let's see how some of his statements match up with reality.

On health care, he taunted congressmen to "let me know" if any of them have "a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses," as if his own plan would do those things.

Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can't reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan,
- costs would rise,
- quality and choice would decrease,
- care would be rationed,
- millions would remain uninsured and,
- worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives.

Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course.
- Restore market forces through tort reform,
- strengthening health savings accounts,
- abolishing government coverage mandates,
- allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines
- and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers.

A candid Obama would have said, "If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government's role in the health care industry, I'll at least pretend to look at it." "Make no mistake," neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can't abide that. Period.

As for spending, Obama didn't once apologize for his reckless expenditures. Instead, he blamed his soaring deficits on his predecessor, completely misrepresenting the projected deficits under President Bush and ignoring his own deliberate doubling of the national debt over the next 10 years. That's the issue Americans are losing sleep over, and he offers only Band-Aids and smoke and mirrors.

He says he will freeze a portion of the discretionary budget, but as Cato Institute reports, 83 percent of the budget will be off-limits. Other than his "stimulus" insanity, the real explosion in spending is occurring in the entitlements that he refuses to touch. Even his mini-freeze wouldn't begin until 2011 (why wait?), and it would be dwarfed by his planned spending increases for other socialistic projects, including a new "stimulus plan." And how about that assault on personal and fiscal responsibility with his promise to forgive student loans after 20 years?

How Obama can stand before the nation and insist on spending more borrowed money to accomplish something his first "stimulus plan" didn't achieve (job creation), but exacerbated, is beyond me.
How he can blame President Bush for his own broken promise that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8 percent if his "stimulus" bill were implemented is jaw-dropping.
He even said he saved 2 million jobs. Scary delusional! Or scary sinister!

Speaking of chutzpah, did he actually dare to utter the words "transparent" and "accountable"? How about those phantom legislative districts receiving stimulus monies, Mr. President? How about that promise to televise the health care debates on C-SPAN?

He said he hadn't raised income taxes "a single dime" on 95 percent of the people. Yet in almost the same breath, he promised to redouble his efforts on cap and tax, which would increase the average family's energy costs by almost $3,000 per year. I don't believe his campaign promise was limited to income taxes, by the way.

How about his righteous ranting on earmark reform? Sorry, we've been down that twisted road with you before, Mr. President.

Then there was his audacious riff on lobbyists. Been there, done that, too, Mr. President, with your phony promise to keep lobbyists out of the White House.

Obama also railed against "partisanship, shouting and pettiness" as he filled most of his speech with just those things, even castigating the Supreme Court, erroneously, for opening the door to foreign corporations' campaign contributions.

How about his statement that "America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity"? Hmm. Tell that to the Iranian and Honduran peoples. He must have meant once he's out of office.

Then there was his bizarre out-of-body pivot, when he blamed Washington for our problems.

All of this, especially Obama's obvious incapacity for self-doubt, is disturbingly surreal.


There's Obama talking, then there's reality

[sirs]

President Barack Obama's proposed budget relies on a commission without teeth to help his administration wrestle the deficit out of the danger zone. It forecasts stronger economic growth than most economists expect and calls on Congress to cut programs that lawmakers cherish.

All budgets from the White House are leaps of faith of some sort. This one is no exception.

The economic forecasts used in setting spending priorities are in line with independent expectations for now. After that, though, the administration's projections appear ever more fanciful.

A look at some budget assumptions and how they compare with the facts and political realities:

____

BUDGET: Forecasts four years of growth of 4 percent or more and unemployment dropping to 8.2 percent in 2012.

THE FACTS: No one knows what will happen, but the administration's projections are rosier than private economists expect.

For 2010, the administration is projecting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow at an annual rate of 3 percent, when measured from the fourth quarter of last year. That is very close to the 2.9 percent GDP growth forecast from economists surveyed by Blue Chip Economic Indicators.

However, the administration is projecting that growth in 2011 will jump to 4.3 percent and remain at 4 percent-plus for three years, a scenario that is much stronger than the forecasts of private analysts. The Blue Chip consensus is for growth to be more than a percentage point lower in 2011 at around 3.1 percent.

Likewise, the administration's projection that unemployment, currently 10 percent, will end the year around 9.8 percent is in line with the outlook of most private economists. Many are looking for the jobless rate to peak at about 10.5 percent this summer and then gradually decline as the recovery gains strength.

However, for next year, the administration is projecting the jobless rate will drop to an average of 9.2 percent and will average 8.2 percent in 2012, the presidential election year. Many private economists don't believe the jobless rate will improve that quickly, given all the headwinds now facing the economy.

Stronger economic growth and more people working translates into more revenues for the government and less spending in such areas as unemployment insurance and thus a smaller budget deficit. However, private economists reviewing the administration's forecasts said the actual track for the economy is likely to be more sluggish, making future deficits, already expected to be huge, even larger.

"The administration's economic forecast is highly optimistic," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. "This is going to be a half-speed recovery. Usually you get a bigger kick coming out of such a deep recession, but we think there are just too many headwinds out there."

___

BUDGET: Save some $20 billion by cutting programs.

THE FACTS: Congress typically disregards most items on a president's budget-cutting wish list and puts money into the programs anyway. Several dozen of the programs Obama proposes cutting in the new budget were marked for elimination in his budget a year ago.

Obama actually got more than usual on this front in 2009, persuading Congress to go along with more than $6 billion in cuts out of the $17 billion he sought. But he achieved those savings from just a few big-ticket defense and related programs, such as canceling production of the F-22 fighter.

This time, there are fewer massively expensive programs on the list, and it will be an uphill battle trying to get lawmakers to back off on nickel-and-dime spending important to their states.

Although supporting major military systems this time, Obama does want to save $2.5 billion by stopping purchases of the C-17 cargo plane.

The Pentagon tried to cease production of the aircraft before, but lawmakers restored the money to save jobs in their states.

Obama also wants to save $115 million this year and $1.2 billion over 10 years by eliminating payments to states and Indian tribes that have completed cleanup of abandoned coal mines. His reasoning: The job has been finished, so the money should stop.

But he was rebuffed when he tried the same thing last year. Lawmakers from mining states say the money is needed to create jobs and to clean up other mines, and already a half dozen from both parties are vowing to keep the program intact.

Obama also wants to eliminate the B.J. Stupak Olympic scholarship, a $1 million annual program named for the late son of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.

Stupak was a leader of moderate Democrats who won a battle to include language forbidding money in the House health care bill to help pay for abortions, a provision that angered liberals and has been a major stumbling block in completing the legislation. Former President George W. Bush also tried to cut the scholarship, which helps an Olympic training center in Stupak's northern Michigan district.

___

BUDGET: Counts on a presidential commission to help the administration reduce the deficit to 3 percent of the overall economy, a level that private economists generally believe is manageable. That would be a significant improvement from this year's projected record-breaking $1.56 trillion deficit, which would equal 10.6 percent of GDP.

THE FACTS: The commission has yet to be appointed and there's no sure path to having its recommendations considered by Congress.

Even with its proposed partial budget freeze and tax increases on the wealthy, the administration would not achieve its goal of getting the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP, only reaching 3.9 percent by 2015. Achieving that last one percentage point of deficit reduction is where the commission is supposed to come in.

The trouble is that the idea of establishing the commission by law failed last week when senators in both parties opposed it. Republicans expressed worry the commission would open the door to tax increases, even though most budget experts say it will probably take a combination of tax increases and cuts in the government's big spending entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security to get the deficit under control.

Some Republicans are urging a boycott of the panel that will result. Even if Obama manages to get Republicans to serve, it is not at all clear the commission's recommendations, due at the end of this year, would be voted on in Congress.

Democratic leaders of both the House and Senate have committed to such a vote, although it won't come until after the November elections.

But under the agreement brokered by Vice President Joe Biden, the commission's proposals would have to first win support of 60 senators to guarantee the effort would not be blocked by a filibuster.


Article