I didn’t think it until tonight but there are some brave souls working for the AP. Who would’ve thunk it that they’d factcheck Obama’s infomercial? Here’s the first factcheck:

THE SPIN: “That’s why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.”

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it’s not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

I’m not surprised. The entire Obama agenda is smoke and mirrors. Why shouldn’t we expect him to tell some whoppers?

THE SPIN: “Here’s what I’ll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we’ll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. ”

THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: “The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals.”

Instead of saying “Here’s what I’ll do”, he should’ve modified that statement. He should said something like this: “Here’s what I’d do if I wasn’t facing a huge deficit that both parties created.” The additional truth is that has three options: raise taxes on people making alot less than $150,000, explode the deficit to an unprecedented level or cut back spending in ways that’ll have his extremist base upset with him. My prediction is that he’ll raise taxes on people making $75,000-$100,000.

The Economist liveblogged the event. Some of its obvservations are pretty sharp. Here’s my favorite observation:

8:21: Wow, they are really exaggerating his legislative accomplishments. Did Mr Obama really change the way Washington works in his four years in the Senate?

Sen. Obama: Legend in his own mind? I’ll say this for Sen. Obama: His image of himself is off the charts popular, which is a fancy way of saying that he’s delusional. Here’s another enjoyable observation:

8:06: “Cut taxes for those making less than $200,000”. Didn’t that used to be $250,000?

Answer to the Economist’s question: Yes, the figure used to be $250,000. It also used to be $300,000. It also used to be $150,000. It doesn’t mean a thing. I’m betting that they haven’t finalized their tax policy yet.

I remember an old episode of Hogans Heroes that fits here. Two Nazis are talking about how long the news on the Russian Front will take. The one officer says “It can be as long or as short as we want it to be. We make it all up anyway.” I think Sen. Obama’s numbers keep shifting because he’s making it up. The notion that he’s a tested tax cutter is absurd. He had 94 opportunities to vote for tax cuts. Ninety-four times, he opted not to vote for tax cuts.

I give the AP credit for highlighting some of the whoppers Sen. Obama told. It’s a shame they didn’t do that throughout the campaign.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Leave a Reply