Factchecking Obama's news conference

[TitanTiger 22,249]

FACT CHECK: Examining Obama's job, pork claims

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

Tue Feb 10, 4:05 am ET

WASHINGTON – At least Route 31 is a road to somewhere. President Barack Obama had it both ways when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana and later at a prime-time news conference. He bragged in Indiana about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills.

Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.

In recent years, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska came to symbolize the worst excesses of congressional earmarks, a device that allows a member of Congress to add money for local projects in legislation, practically under the radar.

Nothing so bold, or specific, as that now-discarded bridge project is contained in the stimulus package. That's not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he'd come to fill potholes.

A look at some of Obama's claims in Elkhart, Ind., and the news conference called to make his case to the largest possible audience:

OBAMA: "Not a single pet project," he told the news conference. "Not a single earmark."

THE FACTS: There are no "earmarks," as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork — tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other "priority procurements" by the Coast Guard.

Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added, "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

Titan's take: I don't have a problem with any of the above items except the icebreakers. The clean-coal plant, canal building and investment in better hybrid batteries not only can provide jobs but are good investments in clean energy and infrastructure.

The Coast Guard stuff needs to be in its own bill instead of one intended for stimulus.

___

OBAMA: "My bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs?" he told the news conference.

He said in Indiana, "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

___

OBAMA: "They'll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives."

THE FACTS: The economic stimulus bill would allocate about $20 billion to help hospitals and doctors transition from paper charts to electronic health records for their patients. Research has shown that in some instances, electronic record keeping can eliminate inappropriate services and improve care, but it's not a sure thing by any means. "By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings," the Congressional Budget Office reported last year.

Titan's take: It doesn't appear the cost savings are as significant as Obama is touting. A good idea, but again, probably belongs in its own bill rather than tacked on to a stimulus bill.

___

OBAMA: "I've appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. ... I made a mistake. ... I don't want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules."

THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for health and human services secretary and Nancy Killefer as Obama's chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes.

Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees.

That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else.

Titan's take: Obama has handled the right way. Daschle's problems were inexcusable. Geithner's were more complex and it's understandable that some confusion over whether the taxes were paid or not would be there.

___

OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

THE FACTS: This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s — yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January — the most in nearly 35 years — and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.

And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

Titan's take: Lay off the exaggerations. The situation is bad enough. No need to gild the lily to scare people into compliance with your initiatives.

___

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Jim Kuhnhenn, Kevin Freking and Anne Gearan contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_...act_check_obama

[au2004ece 30]

All these separate items belong in their own bill to be debated and voted on separately. Multiple item bills are a large part of the reason for corruption in DC. Shouldn't each of these items be debated separately on their own merits instead of saying we have to pass all or none?

[RunInRed 19,610]

OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

THE FACTS: This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s — yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January — the most in nearly 35 years — and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.

And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

Titan's take: Lay off the exaggerations. The situation is bad enough. No need to gild the lily to scare people into compliance with your initiatives.

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

[jared52 4,358]

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

There's no doubt about that, but is it the governments job to get everyone who wants one a job? What Article is that in?

[RunInRed 19,610]

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

There's no doubt about that, but is it the governments job to get everyone who wants one a job? What Article is that in?

So we can assume you are in the "do nothing" crowd?

[jared52 4,358]

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

There's no doubt about that, but is it the governments job to get everyone who wants one a job? What Article is that in?

So we can assume you are in the "do nothing" crowd?

I'm in the "follow the laws of the land crowd". Instead of taking people's money and spending it, how about letting people keep their money? Oh right, becauseyou can't buy votes with true tax cuts.

[RunInRed 19,610]

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

There's no doubt about that, but is it the governments job to get everyone who wants one a job? What Article is that in?

So we can assume you are in the "do nothing" crowd?

I'm in the "follow the laws of the land crowd". Instead of taking people's money and spending it, how about letting people keep their money? Oh right, becauseyou can't buy votes with true tax cuts.

You do realize that almost half the current "spending package" is tax cuts, correct?

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

Nothing you posted undercuts a thing the article said. No one is saying this isn't a bad situation. But words mean things and carry significant connotations in people's minds. Using the phrase "Great Depression", when you know good and well that we're not even at the levels of unemployment from the last couple of recessions is gross exaggeration.

Again, what the article said:

This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s — yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January — the most in nearly 35 years — and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.

And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

The point stands. There is plenty of legitimate space to occupy between gross exaggeration and slight over estimation. No one is asking him to under-estimate it.

[jared52 4,358]

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

There's no doubt about that, but is it the governments job to get everyone who wants one a job? What Article is that in?

So we can assume you are in the "do nothing" crowd?

I'm in the "follow the laws of the land crowd". Instead of taking people's money and spending it, how about letting people keep their money? Oh right, because you can't buy votes with true tax cuts.

You do realize that almost half the current "spending package" is tax cuts, correct?

That's not what Obama was touting at the Dem gathering last week. His who "What do you think stimulus is?" It doesn't have to be waistful government spending.

And the tax cuts amount to about $300B of the $900B so not quite half. There's some bones to the middle class ($250 or so rebate to new car buyers, some home buyer credits, etc.) but they don't amount to much.

[Tigermike 4,240]

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

The unemployment rate for the years 1923-29 was 3.3 percent. In 1931 it jumped to 15.9, in 1933 it was 24.9 percent. It then steadily decreased until 1941 when it stood at 9.9%. In 1942, after U.S. entry into World War II, the rate dropped to 4.7%.

Source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm

U.S. Unemployment Rate Jumps To 7.2 Percent

January 9, 2009

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=99151718

Nothing like a little overestimation to put the fear into folks is there.

[autigeremt 7,537]

Just a bit of "fact check." Even if I were to cede your point, I would rather the President over estimate this problem rather than under estimate it. There are a lot of people hurting.

There's no doubt about that, but is it the governments job to get everyone who wants one a job? What Article is that in?

So we can assume you are in the "do nothing" crowd?

I'm in the "follow the laws of the land crowd". Instead of taking people's money and spending it, how about letting people keep their money? Oh right, becauseyou can't buy votes with true tax cuts.

You do realize that almost half the current "spending package" is tax cuts, correct?

How much of a tax cut will you get in say.....5 years? How in the hell do you think the government is going to balance the budget? Robbing Paul to pay Peter is one of the reasons we are in the this mess. No?

[autigeremt 7,537]

Besides....Obama is a liar!

Using Japan as an example was STUPID! Of course, 90% or more of Americans have no clue about the lost decade, when Japan spent 9.7 trillion in one year alone, only to hand all the government backed business over to the private sector because they couldn't handle it, as the GDP grew a -2.5% over a 10 year period. WOW! Obama pulled that one out of the hat!

LOST!

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Given all the money they're pumping into lenders and other financial institutions and such, wouldn't it be even more "stimulating" to just pay off everyone's mortgage rather than give the money directly to the banks and mortgage lenders? Probably wouldn't cost as much and you'd get the double effect of the lenders having a new bundle of cash and no bad debt on the books, plus the American people would all have anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a month back in their pockets since their mortgages are now paid for.

Voila! Major stimulus problems solved!

[Tigermike 4,240]

Comparing this recession to the last five

Wait a minute, we’re not even in as bad a shape as the ‘74 recession and haven’t yet approached the ‘81 recession, have we? Hmmm.

But wait, guess what there’s more. Economist William J. Polley takes us back to WWII:

link

Oh my goodness. So it would appear, at the moment, we’re kind of in a middling recession (when you go all the way back to ‘48).

But there is a lesson to be learned.

Beware of politicians with charts and an agenda.

Hope and change. Hope and change. Hope and change.

[DKW 86 8,204]

Rob, the graphs would mean far more if they were in % rather than in raw numbers. Our nation's population is significantly higher now than just 20 years ago. I get your point, but it would just look a lot less scary and more accurate based in % points.

[RunInRed 19,610]

So let me get this straight...many of you want to give President Obama a hard time for peddling unnecessary fear at a time when we are bleeding half a million jobs a month? And the statistical justification behind this message coming from the Right is that our unemployment rate has not reached the levels (yet) of prior recessions? Would you rather him sit back, do nothing and just wait until things detoriate to a point that officially qualifies this as the worst economic time since the Great Depression? (BTW, if current unemployment trends continue, we will be at depression levels around the second week of March)

Personally, I like the fact that he's ringing all the bells and sounding every horn and calling this a "crisis with the potential to be a catasophre if action is not taken." Even more, I like the fact that he is listening, mobilizing, and putting his words into actions.

One other thought -- some thing that has really not been mentioned when examining the mulititude of charts now floating around is it has taken much longer to recover from the last three recessions than those that came before. I'm guessing it's because of the nature of the jobs lost. Earlier recessions comprised mostly laying off production line workers; when demand increased, production line workers were brought back to ready-to-start production lines.

Between each of those recessions, and between the last and current recessions, American businesses have been diligently shipping jobs overseas, either actually, or effectively, e.g., by purchasing foreign-made goods rather than American-made ones.

As a result, there are fewer and fewer "ready-made" positions readily available to be filled when demand increases. Instead, job creation has to be done de novo, and it becomes successively more difficult to re-create a job market when jobs vanish.

Having said all that, I think the last recession was idiosyncratic, in that it was caused in part by the release of a huge tech bubble (remember the run-up to Y2K and all of the computer and networking infrastructure investment in the late '90s in anticipation of it? And the then-emerging saturation of the cellphone market?), and the effects of 9/11, both of which were one-time events.

Of course, by that logic, the current recession is even more idiosyncratic, as it is being caused by the release of a huge real estate bubble in connection with the (still-unfolding) release of an even huger financial bubble... We are going to have an incredible number of people in the housing and financial services sectors out of work and looking for jobs that have been shipped overseas - it may take a decade to re-create those jobs.

If they can be re-created.

[Tigermike 4,240]

,,,

,,,

Personally, I like the fact that he's ,,,

,,,,

You could have left out all the BS and we would have known what you were thinking and how you felt.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

So let me get this straight...many of you want to give President Obama a hard time for peddling unnecessary fear at a time when we are bleeding half a million jobs a month? And the statistical justification behind this message coming from the Right is that our unemployment rate has not reached the levels (yet) of prior recessions? Would you rather him sit back, do nothing and just wait until things detoriate to a point that officially qualifies this as the worst economic time since the Great Depression? (BTW, if current unemployment trends continue, we will be at depression levels around the secocnd week of March)

See, you're already careening off the rails, taking swings at imaginary bogeymen. To summarize (as I stated earlier) these are not our only two choices:

-- Make wild exaggerations.

OR

-- Do nothing

Figure out the middle ground.

[RunInRed 19,610]

See, you're already careening off the rails, taking swings at imaginary bogeymen. To summarize (as I stated earlier) these are not our only two choices:

-- Make wild exaggerations.

OR

-- Do nothing

Figure out the middle ground.

I hear you but I also hear the clamor from some that we can do nothing and the free markets will sort all this out. So my response was not just geared at you.

With that said, this so called middle ground (no real idea what you are describing here) does not exist in reality. President Obama already has the votes he needs to get this passed. We differ on this point but I still maintain that I never saw any sincere attempt by the GOP to find some middle ground. They had a "my way or the highway" approach from the get go and if you look at any of the compromising that actually happened, it was the Democrats giving up spending and upping the ante on tax cuts.

[Tigermike 4,240]

See, you're already careening off the rails, taking swings at imaginary bogeymen. To summarize (as I stated earlier) these are not our only two choices:

-- Make wild exaggerations.

OR

-- Do nothing

Figure out the middle ground.

I hear you but I also hear the clamor from some that we can do nothing and the free markets will sort all this out. So my response was not just geared at you.

With that said, this so called middle ground (no real idea what you are describing here) does not exist in reality. President Obama already has the votes he needs to get this passed. We differ on this point but I still maintain that I never saw any sincere attempt by the GOP to find some middle ground. They had a "my way or the highway" approach from the get go and if you look at any of the compromising that actually happened, it was the Democrats giving up spending and upping the ante on tax cuts.

That isn’t the first lie you have told today is it?

“They had a "my way or the highway" approach from the get go,,” --- Obama: “I won!” rr: “Get on the boat and get with the program.”

As I have said before the only reason the dims wanted this monstrosity to be called bi-partisan is because they needed three votes and to give themselves cover. If and when it doesn't work they can and will point back at the Republicans RINOS and say they pushed it over the top, it wouldn't have worked without their support and input.

[RunInRed 19,610]

So you think if this fails Democrats will blame it on the three Republicans who supported it? That is a pretty ridiculous statement. No one will buy that "crapola", not even me

However, if it works, I will be glad dance around all the idiots who continue to cling to the neocon philosophy of no government. And do not fool yourself, if the economy rebounds, these obstructionist will pay a price come the next election cycles.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

See, you're already careening off the rails, taking swings at imaginary bogeymen. To summarize (as I stated earlier) these are not our only two choices:

-- Make wild exaggerations.

OR

-- Do nothing

Figure out the middle ground.

I hear you but I also hear the clamor from some that we can do nothing and the free markets will sort all this out. So my response was not just geared at you.

With that said, this so called middle ground (no real idea what you are describing here) does not exist in reality. President Obama already has the votes he needs to get this passed. We differ on this point but I still maintain that I never saw any sincere attempt by the GOP to find some middle ground. They had a "my way or the highway" approach from the get go and if you look at any of the compromising that actually happened, it was the Democrats giving up spending and upping the ante on tax cuts.

Truth be known, my concern for middle ground really has nothing to do with spending vs tax cuts. As Obama said in his book The Audacity of Hope most people aren't so interested in whether we have big government vs small government, but whether we have effective government or ineffective government. Applied to this, it's not should we spend or should we cut taxes, it's what is effective spending and effective tax cuts. I contend there is still a ton of ineffective spending in this bill. There are probably some ineffective tax cuts too, but I think the spending part is much worse in this regard.

So let's get beyond this GOP vs Dem game of blame ping-pong and discuss ideas. For instance I threw out the idea that this stimulus bill would be more targeted and effective if it were split into a handful of bills addressing specific categories: Infrastructure and education, Clean and future-tech energy initiatives, etc. I think middle ground would come organically from such a process because it forces Congress to deal with things on an issue by issue basis rather than dealing with a colossus bill where people can hide wasteful BS and play poison pill or "sweeten the pot" to get this Senator or that Congressperson on board. It would also prevent people from holding up the entire spectrum of stimulus initiatives over one specific area of disagreement. Thus, Gov. Crist's worries about the money for states would largely be alleviated. The infrastructure and education bill could move on through while we debate the merits of some tax cuts or other non-stimulus spending.

[Tigermike 4,240]

So you think if this fails Democrats will blame it on the three Republicans who supported it? That is a pretty ridiculous statement. No one will buy that "crapola", not even me

However, if it works, I will be glad dance around all the idiots who continue to cling to the neocon philosophy of no government. And do not fool yourself, if the economy rebounds, these obstructionist will pay a price come the next election cycles.

You never get tired of misstating do you.

Who is going to pay for this boondoggle? Judging by Obama's cabinet picks, not the dims, they don't even pay taxes.

[RunInRed 19,610]

Good points but again you appear to be putting the cart before the horse. There is no way to know at this point whether these tax or spending programs will be (non)effective or (in)efficient.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Good points but again you appear to puttingthe cart before the horse. There is no way to know at this point whether these tax or spending programs will be effective or efficient.

We can make reasonably educated guesses. For instance, it was pretty easy to say that billions of dollars for contraceptives isn't effective as an economic stimulus plan. We can draw up some criteria such as job creation (now and in the next decade), putting money into American's hands and so on and measure spending against that criteria. Tax cuts could be looked at the same way...does this promote investment and smart lending and get people shopping again and such?

This isn't an impossible task. Group a few of the no-brainers like infrastructure and education (both of which improve the country and create jobs) together and get those through. Go over this other stuff much more closely instead of just flinging money around like a horny sailor on shore leave.