Associated Press Analysis Of Obama TV Appearance 29 April
His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.
He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
A look at some of his claims Wednesday:
OBAMA: "We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs." - from news conference.
THE FACTS: This assertion is flawed on several levels. For starters, the U.S. has lost more than 1.2 million jobs since Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if Obama's stimulus bill saved or created as many jobs as he says, that number is dwarfed by the number of recent job losses.
OBAMA: "We must lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that's exactly what this budget begins to do. It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training; new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and new savings that will bring down our deficit." - news conference.
THE FACTS: While the budget does set a roadmap for achieving the president's goals, it says nothing about how to pay for his health plan, expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And while the deficit, under the plan, would drop to $523 billion in 2014, it achieves it with unrealistic assumptions, such as projections that spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will amount to only $50 billion a year.
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. ... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years."
THE FACTS: Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, controlled the purse strings that led to the deficit Obama inherited. A Republican president, George W. Bush, had a role, too: He signed the legislation.
Obama supported the emergency bailout package in Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term."
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax."
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.
Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.
Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.
OBAMA: "My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we'll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier."
THE FACTS: Obama has indeed expressed hope for a health care plan that has support from Democrats and Republicans. But his Democratic allies in Congress have just made that harder. The budget plan written by the Democrats gives them the option of denying Republicans the normal right to block health care with a Senate filibuster. The filibuster tactic requires 60 votes to overcome, making it the GOP's main weapon to ensure a bipartisan outcome. The rules set by the budget mean that majority Democrats could potentially pass health care legislation without any Republican votes, sacrificing bipartisanship to achieve their goals.
Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo, Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
A look at some of his claims Wednesday:
OBAMA: "We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs." - from news conference.
THE FACTS: This assertion is flawed on several levels. For starters, the U.S. has lost more than 1.2 million jobs since Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if Obama's stimulus bill saved or created as many jobs as he says, that number is dwarfed by the number of recent job losses.
OBAMA: "We must lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that's exactly what this budget begins to do. It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training; new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and new savings that will bring down our deficit." - news conference.
THE FACTS: While the budget does set a roadmap for achieving the president's goals, it says nothing about how to pay for his health plan, expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And while the deficit, under the plan, would drop to $523 billion in 2014, it achieves it with unrealistic assumptions, such as projections that spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will amount to only $50 billion a year.
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. ... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years."
THE FACTS: Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, controlled the purse strings that led to the deficit Obama inherited. A Republican president, George W. Bush, had a role, too: He signed the legislation.
Obama supported the emergency bailout package in Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term."
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax."
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.
Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.
Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.
OBAMA: "My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we'll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier."
THE FACTS: Obama has indeed expressed hope for a health care plan that has support from Democrats and Republicans. But his Democratic allies in Congress have just made that harder. The budget plan written by the Democrats gives them the option of denying Republicans the normal right to block health care with a Senate filibuster. The filibuster tactic requires 60 votes to overcome, making it the GOP's main weapon to ensure a bipartisan outcome. The rules set by the budget mean that majority Democrats could potentially pass health care legislation without any Republican votes, sacrificing bipartisanship to achieve their goals.
Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo, Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
24 Comments:
To Kent Allard/Allen Barrett
Realizing when Kendrick McPeters began this blog after the previous one ceased to exist, Kendrick wanted topics "of interest to the people of Giles County" to be dicusssed and he did not state national partisan politics were not allowed, and yes, some are of interest to the citizens of this county, I am sorely disappointed you have strayed from topics of local problems. When I began to read that something may be starting with Pulaski city government I was elated. We should concentrate on local problems and try to band together to do something about it. It is a complete turnoff when you get into Democratic and Rebulican politics. I know you will assume I am a Democrat which I am not Lets drop it and get on with the problem of Speer and co.
Amen! Amen! to 12:17 ... hard to focus on everything at once.
I'm sorry if I disappoint you but I truly believe the people of Giles County can deal with more than one subject at a time, especially when they are being lied to and put into debt in the five trillion dollar range. Such things as the presidents cap and trade proposals will by a conservative estimate cost each household between 1500 and 2000 dollars more each year in their energy bills. The proposal will add approximately two dollars per gallon for gas.
I realize that the local paper doesn't cover much in national politics but I believe most people here watch the evening news on TV including national issues thus there is an interest.
We are on the brink of this nation becoming a socialist nation with a communist enforcement and you think people should not speak about it? This is not about being a republican or democrat, I couldn't care less whether you are either one or the other for me they have become so blended together you can't hardly tell one from the other, but being an American who is disgusted with what is happening to our country.
As with everything else on this blog if there is a topic you don't like just don't read it but please don't try to censor it from everyone else.
I am a conservative, a Christian, a military veteran, a firm believer in the Constitution, own firearms, believe marriage is between a man and a woman and disagree with perverted sexual practices, each of these things make me a potential terrorist according to the radical liberals now running the country and I believe more in this county agree with me on this than disagree.
It's time for open debate about those we send to represent us both in Nashville and D.C., not about whether they are republicans or democrats but whether they are really representing us or themselves. Lincoln Davis keeps getting elected and voting in lock step with Nancy Pelosi the most radical liberal in the House of Representatives do you actually believe her ideas are reflective of Giles County.
No, at least for now I will continue to post things I find interesting and important to me and hope they will also be of interest to others. Allen Barrett
WAB under another topic you post about home rule for city of Pulaski What do you know about it like what would it do for the people. Are the same people doing this for Pulaski that are doing the county thing.
Mr. Barrett, Obama is what the "People" wanted. Everyone must live with it at least for 4 long years. This is one reason why "what the people want" scares me even locally.
Can't wait to see WAB post the facts and "fiction" on Little Bush. It will take up ALL the space on our computers. Or are you one of those who don't see the WRECK he and his cronies left our country in. Obama could do absolutely nothing and be a better president than shrub.
Look at the number of comments on the first 8 or so topics. Those that had comments building have stopped. Second topic has zero comments 24 hours later. WAB you should realize that only your negative personality shines through and if you want to keep this blog alive you need to stick to the local concerns. Thats the kind of discussions people want to contribute to.
Could it be you just want to run WAB down. Don't matter what he puts on here, you will complain.
I thought Bush was a bad president, but it's not better it's worse. Running down our nation is what makes it so bad.
Obama was what some people wanted, so they have to live with it same as I do. Don't have to like it.
Yes, we need to stick to local government.
Speer and Vanzant are two of a kind!
Both lie about anything and say it is for the good of the people.
Notice that neither miss a photo opt!
Local government will not get better until both are gone for good!
Obama didn't get this country in this smess. "W" was the cause of it. Talk about lieing, who has lied more than "W". Every time "W" or your Mayor lips move they are lieing.
Do the lies of W make the lies of Obama any less or more lies. Face it Obama has screwed us even more than W and Speer combined.
Man, that heading was way too long to read.
To May 13. That was the problem with the budget so no senator or representative read it and look at what we have as a result. Same thing happens when people are too lazy to pay attention to the details.
Well, I've been off this blog for sometime and just came back on to see if it was just more of the same old namecalling, character assassination of select inidividuals, etc. It hasn't changed. And one of the first things I read is someone taking wab to task like I used to do. But I finally decided that it was useless for two reasons. Firstly, he always denied anything I could nail him on. And secondly, there were always those who would defend him regardless of what he said or how he behaved. So......it's moot point.
Well, carry on good people. This same old negativity is not for me any longer.
141 Sticking you head back in a hole sounds good to me. Do it enough times & you'll be the official orficer of the county!
9:42
There you go again with that anal fixation. Next you will be talking about fecalism? You guys just never quit, do you? Get a life!
830 One thing about it - you know what you are.
The economy is like a big storehouse. Everybody puts stuff in it & in turn takes their prorated share out of it.
If everyone puts in more than they take, the pot gets bigger, the nation is secure, and we can make it through bad times. It's been like that since the beginning of time. If you don't believe in the Bible, consider yourself lucky if you can read and learn from the recorded history it contains. mankind has gone through the same malaise over and over again because they think they are too smart to learn & too dumb to listen and believe.
In the simplest of terms, our global benefactors "within" and drug head liberals have gutted the productive resources of this country. Globalists have pillaged our legacy of productive capability. There will be no knowledge or process capability to pass on to future generations. It's a process of blind hatred for the foundations of this country - God, morality, freedom, and the ability to harvest the rewards of
a good and productive life.
The seeds of destruction are always sown with deception. We have a population that hears and believes jobs and prosperity are being created, while their eyes see the last of industrial capability dismantled and sent out of the US. We're going to build roads and bridges to nowhere for citizens who will not be able to afford cars, fuel, or the comforts of home. Is the loss of another 600,000 jobs good because it wasn't 700,000? Do you feel reassured and good because one new job was created for an illegal alien while 600,001 were snuffed & sent to China & Mexico?
Back to the storehouse. The good news is abundant treasures, goods, and wealth in a storehouse (we don't own). The bad news is, we have nothing to contribute and no way to make something of value to contribute to a storehouse that demands you contribute or do without. The bad news says you will sell (deplete) whatever you have, until there is no more - a very common situation throughout the planet.
PS. Those who have nothing can't wage war. (wonderful?) Those who can't protect themselves will perish, including those who defy God. If it consistently happens over the total history of man, it's fact, not opinion. Liberals should really spend some significant productive time in a place like Somalia. Maybe a sabbatical in Iran would help understand tolerance, compassion, and diversity. maybe a day or two doing somethng productive would help.
Very well said 17 May 12:42. Allen Barrett
11:28
No, tell me what you think I am.
Who cares what you are?
Apparently, you do. What a silly person you are.
Chrysler is dead. GM is in hospice. Ford is bleeding profusely, but the vampire is thirsty. Steel plants aren't polluting because the were sent to China. All manufacturing was sent to China and elsewhere because they are too dangerous and tend to pollute. Beef is on a banna peel because we don't have the capability to produce a fart catcher suitable to PITA and the bulls they represent. (might get the thing in the wrong thing)
Fortunately the starve & femine threat of over populization is getting solved by homogenealization of diversity. Homoflexiballizion of the far right is all that's left!
We need to eliminate leaps & bounds & concentrate on bowing & humility. We need more text messages, maybe the texting neutrons & gigabytes will frighten the locusts .
9:44 What???????
Post a Comment
<< Home