-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
As promised last night, I want to correct the record on a few of President Obama’s misleading statements — and yes — outright lies from last night’s news conference. (Full transcript here.) I will update it as I gather more information throughout the day.
Obama Statement #1:
First of all, let’s understand that when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, that we had already inherited. We had to immediately more forward with a stimulus package because the American economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth.…
Then we had to pass a budget, by law, and our budget had a 10- year projection — and I just want everybody to be clear about this. If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in your budget, you’d have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we’ve made, it’s going to be 7.1 trillion (dollars).
Now, that’s not good, but it’s $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in.
But here is what the Congressional Budget Office had to say about Obama’s budget:
The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the President’s proposals would total $9.3 trillion, compared with a cumulative deficit of $4.4 trillion projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO’s baseline.
So in other words, Obama said his cumulative deficit is “$2.2 trillion less than it would have been,” but the CBO says the deficit is actually $4.9 trillion more than it otherwise would have been.
Obama Statement #2:
And we know that we’re spending, on average — we here in the United States — are spending about $6,000 more than other advanced countries where they’re just as healthy. And I’ve — I’ve said this before. If you found out that your neighbor had gotten the same car for $6,000 less, you’d want to figure out how to get that deal. And that’s what reform’s all about, how can we make sure that we are getting the best bang for our health-care dollar.
I’m guessing that when he said “we’re spending, on average…about $6,000 more than other advanced countries” he was referring to the gap between the the per person cost of health care in the United States and in other nations. While it’s true that Americans pay more than any other country, the actual health care costs per person in the U.S. were about $6,000 in 2007, according to a CBO report. So for Obama’s claim to be true — that is, that other countries are spending $6,000 less, on average — you’d have to believe that it costs every other advanced country zero dollars to provide all of their citizens with health care.
For further study, here’s how we compare to other OECD nations.
UPDATE: My $6,000 figure is from this CBO report. The OECD pegs the number at $7,290, but Obama’s number still doesn’t add up. See more here.
Obama Statement #3:
I am very appreciative that people like Chuck Grassley on the Finance Committee, in the Senate, people like Mike Enzi, people like Olympia Snowe have been serious in engaging Democrats in trying to figure out, how do we actually get a system that works? And even in those committees where you didn’t see Republican votes, we’ve seen Republican ideas.
So, for example, in the HELP committee in the Senate, 160 Republican amendments were adopted into that bill, because they’ve got good ideas to contribute. So the politics may dictate that they don’t vote for health-care reform because they think, you know, it’ll make Obama more vulnerable. But if they’ve got a good idea, we’ll still take it.
But Enzi, who Obama favorably cites, said last week: “In 12 days of mark-up, we had 45 roll call votes on Republican-sponsored amendments, and only 2 prevailed.”
Why is there such a discrepancy? I posed that question to Enzi spokesman Craig Orfield, who explained in an email:
The 160 refers to what we call technicals - these are amendments drafted to either correct technical errors in the bill language - and that can be anything from an amendment which cites the wrong section and paragraph of existing law (ex: Section 302 when we meant section 304) to errors in punctuation or transposed words.
Moreover, the vast majority of these were so non-controversial that the majority didn’t even demand a vote - they were simply adopted by unanimous consent.
As you note from Sen. Enzi’s remarks only 45 GOP amendments, which we consider to have made substantive changes or improvements, were allowed a vote. 2 of those were agreed to.
POTUS is echoing the same nonsensical line on this as Axelrod and Emanuel last week.
Agreement on technical amendments is no pedigree of bipartisanship.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/23/fact-checking-obamas-news-conf
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
ame| 7.23.09 @ 7:45AM
Thanks for the insight, but it did not go deep or far enough. I really depend on analysis from site I trust to tell me the true story because I DO NOT and WILL NOT listen to Obimbo-in-chief because all he EVER does is lie - equivocation and dissembling thug lies, prompted by Rahm the Slime Emanuel and David the Sly Axelrod, among other leftist Fascist socialist anti-American cronies of Obambi. AMERICANS MUST REJECT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE COMMUNIST TAKE OVER OF OUR FREEDOMS - OUR CONGRESS AND OBOMBI ACT AS IF THEY ARE THE REICHSTAG - OBAMACARE REEKS OF NAZI GERMANY - POPULATION CONTROL, KILLING OF THE UNWANTED, EARLY DEATH TO THE ELDERLY, COMMUNIST CHINESE DICTATED ABORTIONS - When the government does not have to abide by the laws it sets for the citizens of the country - congress, government employees, unions are all EXEMPT from Obamacare - then you know D.C. is a rotten bog of traitors.
WAKE UP, AMERICANS, AND BURY CONGRESS IN REVOLT!
VOTE THE BUMS OUT ALSO IN 2010 and 2012 - they are corrupt and selling out the United States for personal power and money.
JP| 7.23.09 @ 8:45AM
According to the WSJ, Sen Grassley may be the Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of the Health Care Bill. Those two Maine Senators crossed the aisle and provided politcal cover for the Stimulus Package. Right now, Senator Baccus (D) Montana is attempting to get Grassley on-board. If he is successfull, other "moderate" GOP Senators would follow, and BINGO the GOP would rescue Obama and the Dems. If even a half dozen GOP Senators cross over and vote for the bill, the Senate Democratic Blue Dogs will have the political cover they need to vote for this travesty. Once that is done, the bill returns to the House for reconcilliation, and whatever compomises that were made in the Senate would be gutted. It would nearly impossible for the Senate Bluedogs to renege. Obama would have his bill.
Pingback| 7.23.09 @ 9:00AM
Fact-Checking Obama’s News Conference links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 7.23.09 @ 12:52PM
Philip -- while the thrust of your comments are certainly right, your numbers have flaws. First of all, Obama's defict number baseline is based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would remain and not expire. Under a Republican administration, that probably would be true. However, in that respect the Obama numbers are a bit misleading.
Secondly, your annual health care number per capita is from 2005 (I actually looked at your reference). With the approximately 12% per year rise in cost, the 2009 number is actually closer to $9500 today. Thus your comparison is a bit misleading. However, given that other industrialized countries have an expense of about 10% versus our 16%, it would suggest (as a rough measure) that their number would be about $3500 less per capita. This is a lot less than $6000 but certainly much more than zero.
But your point about bi-partisanship is directly on point. Just as I dislike understatements from people on the right like you, I dislike overstatements from the Obama administration. What I'd really like is someplace we can go to get the truth. I'm tired of the rhetoric -- as a mathematician, I want to see the numbers and understand how they are biased.
I don't believe for a minute that the Obama plan will provide the decrease in cost as promised. There is a long history of all politicians overstating their cases. With the media being either right or left wing, there is no real check on the numbers. What Republicans should support is a CBO type organization, funded by the government but overseen by a bi-partisan citizen commission that goes over these numbers and tells us the truth -- on both sides -- so that the electorate can make an informed vote.
Violette| 7.23.09 @ 2:42PM
Obama's 11+% unemployment numbers will doom his presidency: It's already being proven out by Obama's failure to pass his deceitful health care garbage plans. Thank you, God.
Curtis Smay| 7.23.09 @ 3:06PM
Since the republicans have proved beyond a doubt that they are a terror group and are outwardly trying to destroy our institutions and even the Constitution.Now why would anyone in their right mind want to talk to these people or include there criminal amendments to any bill.They were voted out because the people reject their traitorous ,dangerous , terror oriented purpose.Put them in jail where they belong not on a health care committee.By partisan to a republican means surrender.
Jon Myers| 6.20.10 @ 9:31AM
My read on your statements seem to more aptly describe the current administration. Are you living in a fish bowl?
Roxanne Cochran| 7.23.09 @ 4:31PM
I call all Americans to call your house and Senate rep's. I have called everyone of them in state of Fla. Some said that they did not repesent me and to call my local rep I demanded to be heard by saying I live in Fla so stand up and call everyone of them. Obama lies and tell them all they will be out in the next election. Now I am working my way across America let our voices be heard
Roxanne| 7.23.09 @ 4:39PM
curtis you are a sorry person if you belive that for they stand for the constitution get your facts right Obama wants to trash it
Big D| 7.23.09 @ 10:44PM
Why is it that whenever government-run socialized medicine programs are compared and the liberals tout them, they never talk about how the Canadians or Europeans pay for their plans. For example, Canada pays for its plan with a large-sized VAT tax of about 15%. Take a trip to Canada and watch how fast this tax is applied to your souvenirs. In much of Europe, money for these social programs are added in terms of taxes on motor fuels. Wonder why gasoline is so expensive in Europe? Half the cost is contained within those taxes. But not the Obama group they respond with their mantra of tax the rich and small business people while providing free services to his "brothers"! If everyone had to pay for the "free" or "improved" health insurance, the plan would likely have less than 20% support. There is no free lunch.
Trackback| 7.24.09 @ 1:21AM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fact-Checking Obama’s News Conference, on pligg.com, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Wendell| 7.24.09 @ 12:34PM
Curtis Smay,
Please find for all of us, the "Constitutional" authority for the Federal Government to oversee or provide health coverage for the nation. Please indicate where the Constitution mandates that prisoners captured in foreign lands are entitled to American jury trial while our soldiers get military tribunals. Calling the Republican party a terror organization is hyperbole at best and a slanderous lie at worst. You sound like an unhinged libtard, and a would be tyrant yourself.
Pingback| 7.25.09 @ 8:21AM
Why Democrats Should Worry | Lux Libertas - Light and Liberty links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.27.09 @ 1:16PM
Obama’s Health Care Fibs links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: