Response to Washington Post FactChecker Column of Sept. 30th by Glenn Kessler

The Washington Post Fact Checker Column today was about the upcoming Presidential Debates and holding the two candidates to the truth... I am not a fan of the column, mainly because I find that it has a tendency to equate minor miss-statements with bold face lies in a misguided attempt to achieve balance by reporting the same number of events on both sides of the aisle regardless of which side is lying more, and more blatantly. For this reason I have reprinted the column in its entirety below and will be addressing it piece by piece in a feature I may attempt to make a regular feature of this blog. My comments will be in bold...

There has been a campaign to arrange for independent fact-checkers to be present at the presidential debates. We’re not sure what that would accomplish. Would we be like Olympic judges, holding up signs after each exchange with a numerical score for truthiness? No, it would not be some system of Olympic judges, but would I think simply be the ability of the moderator to say, “that is not entirely true, this is why, would you like the opportunity to re-answer so as not to be a dirty liar,” or perhaps as that might be a little hard to accomplish and harsh, a running commentary, or perhaps immediately following the debate, a segment laying out the untruths put forward, and naming the untruths as what they are, either possibly innocent misstatements, those which might be a mistake in wording or debatable interpretation of facts, or as LIES, which we can all identify and should not let our leaders get away with. I am in favor of this because aside from Fox News which I do not trust and which has been proven to be a purveyor of lies on enough occasions, I have never heard any source describe a statement out of the Obama administration as something which would qualify as an out and out lie. This is the source of the conservative claim that the media has a liberal bias, the fact that it calls the right on more lies than it does the left, a direct result of the right lying more than the left along with the fact that the facts the media reports support the liberal world view more than they do the conservative, the reason for the right needing to lie more than the left... And having read the comments below I believe that will continue to be true. Although I do admit to living in a Liberal echo-chamber which from what I can tell from sticking my head outside is much closer to reality than is the conservative echo-chamber of my opponents.

But we do applaud the idea of keeping the conversation grounded in facts, with either the moderator or the candidates themselves challenging misstatements, half-truths and exaggerations that have appeared in campaign ads and speeches throughout this election season. All too often, neither man has been directly challenged about their misleading statements. So here are some questions we would like to see.

Budget

Romney to Obama: You claim to have a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, but every nonpartisan analyst has said that figure is based on suspect accounting. In particular, you claim $800 billion in savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for nation-building at home, even though you have repeatedly criticized President George W. Bush for running those wars on a credit card. Aren’t you simply claiming a nonexistent peace dividend in order to keep running up the tab on the same credit card?

The money spent in improvements here instead of overseas are an investment in our future rather than in the future of other nations which would not need so much building had me not needlessly bombed and invaded them... I don't know if the Obama administration intends to spend all $800 Billion here at home but any money we can stop spending on these pointless and at least in the case of Iraq immoral wars will be worth-while. As much as I would like to see my side using unquestionable numbers the fact is that any future predictive accounting is by its nature suspect, further any accounting which included an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would include these savings, and Romney has not said anything about his intentions in Afghanistan and has expressed regret over the end of the war in Iraq...

Obama to Romney: You claim to have a plan to greatly reduce the size of government while boosting defense spending and reversing a needed slowdown in Medicare spending, yet every nonpartisan analyst has said the numbers don’t add up unless you are willing to cut to the bone any non-security-related function of government. Since you have given few details of your cuts, I have been free to speculate they will be draconian. Here’s your chance: What will you specifically cut, and by how much, in order for your numbers to add up?

The only reason this has not come to light as a point of complete failure and dishonesty for Mitt Romney is the fact that he has completely refused to provide any sort of detail which might be investigated or questioned to reveal how completely false his entire plan actually is.

Romney to Obama: You earned Four Pinocchios last week for claiming that 90 percent of the deficit on your watch comes from policies promoted by President George W. Bush. PolitiFact and FactCheck.Org also rated that claim “false.” We all know you took office during a poor economy, but when will you take responsibility for the actions that happened on your watch? Is there any decision you regret making regarding the economy?

If you read the Politifact analysis you learn that the numbers as Obama has explain them show that the 90% claim only works for the past 10 years not for the past 4... So that looks bad but maybe we can give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he misspoke or mixed up two sets of facts, I would like to think I would give the same treatment to my opponents and in fact believe I have, though to be honest no specific examples jump to mind... Well if the truth Obama was covering up with his possible misstatement is bad enough we can know he was trying to mislead us... So what was the split for the 4 years? 83% is Bush... oh ok that isn't bad at all that isn't worth lying about... so I would suspect that Obama misspoke rather than lied, 7% hardly seems like enough to lie about... The other point on which they criticize him in the article is on the policies which both he and Bush supported... well to me that's no problem at all, because his point is that the other side is attacking him when they are complicit. He is not saying it is all their fault only that they were digging a whole for 8 years and then the minute they were out of power started screaming about the size of the whole we were in and criticizing Obama for not having gotten us out over night... There were a lot of things the Bush Administration did which should not have been done but once done cannot be just reversed... The country would be much better off if the surpluses had continued for the past 11 years and had been invested in moving the country forward rather than being squandered on tax cuts, but in the state the country is in now it would not be good to raise middle-class taxes. Also Obama takes responsibility for the spending programs he instated to respond to the economic collapse the Bush Administration caused... In reality that spending could rightly be counted against the Bush Administration rather than Obama as it is a direct result of Bush's policies but I respect Obama for taking it on his tab... Ultimately I think the only correct answer to this question about what decision he regrets is having not pushed for and gotten more spending in the recovery package which would have gotten us out of the Bush Depression much faster.

Obama to Romney: You have attacked me repeatedly for looming defense cuts that congressional Republicans, including your running mate, supported as part of a budget deal that was designed to spread the pain and force hard choices on the budget. Will you concede that both parties are responsible for this dilemma — and you have offered no plan to resolve it?

I have to admit I thought the sequestration scheme was one of the dumbest things I had heard in a really long time but ultimately it is not Obama's responsibility, it is the result of congressional Republicans absolute refusal to make responsible decisions on the budget. The entire idea was to put a time bomb out there in the future so bad that both sides would be forced to act responsibly and make a better plan before it came to blew up. The safety net cuts were the incentive for Democrats and the Military cuts were the incentive for Republicans. We can hold the Democrats responsible for the domestic social program cuts which are about to happen, and we should, because they were the ones who were supposed to compromise to avoid them, but conversely it is the Republicans who are responsible for the defense cuts because it was them who were supposed to be scared in compromising on that side. Further the real mistake was in not putting tax increases into the time bomb as it has been shown that the only thing Republicans care about is lowering taxes... This was our one chance to make the Grover Norquist pledge work for the benefit of the nation and we squandered it.

Taxes

Romney to Obama: You have long said you want to raise taxes on Americans making more than $250,000 a year while retaining the Bush tax cuts for people making less than that. But that’s not going to raise nearly enough money to fix our budgets woes, even with your rather vague “Buffett Rule.” Can you admit that’s the case?

Yes he can and he has. He combines his upper bracket tax increases with spending cuts and cost saving measures, and while those all together probably do not add up to enough to fix all out problems they come a lot closer than does Romney's plan and once the economy has recovered more having asked the top to contribute more gives us the position to look at those who have benefited from our policies and are now once again in a stable comfortable position and ask them to contribute more as well and eventually return to the boom time tax rates of the the 1990's. Some might attack Obama for not announcing now that some time down the line he might be forced to increase more people's taxes... but given the workings of our national politics he can hardly be blamed for down playing future possible sacrifices the size of which and timing of which cannot possibly be estimated and which might need to be undertaken by his successors not him...

Obama to Romney: You expanded your tax plan in the midst of the Republican primaries, and clearly no one on your team double-checked the math. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that there was no way you could keep it revenue-neutral, as you promise, without eliminating tax deductions that will force taxes up for middle-class families. Don’t bother claiming that five other studies say otherwise, because they don’t. Will you concede that the numbers don’t add up — or at least explain which tax deductions are actually off the table.

The Romney Tax Plan is one big lie. Or maybe it is not, as it includes absolutely no facts which can be said to be untrue. It is essentially a description of a magic trick which passes the Magicians Code test by not revealing in anyway how it supposedly works. Romney will cut rich people's taxes and close loopholes which might be used by rich people and middle-class people alike, and the total amount of money at the end of the process will be the same without the middle-class paying any more... When you close loopholes used by everyone you have to assume it effects everyone... Plus thanks to Republican tax policy the majority of loopholes and deductions go to the middle-class, also whatever loopholes and deductions exist after the changes will be exploited disproportionately by the rich as they will have the benefit of using knowledgeable accountants to find them.

Medicare

Obama to Romney: You have promised to reverse what you call $700 billion in Medicare cuts, even though your running mate adopted virtually the same cuts in his budget plan. I realize his excuse is that he was going to use the money to save Medicare, not expand health care to Americans, but let’s face it, government money is fungible. Besides, don’t you agree we need to look for savings in Medicare in order to get our budget in shape?

Firstly the savings are there in both plans as this question states, but the Ryan budget does not use them to “save medicare” it uses them to lower taxes on the rich moves forward the bankruptcy date of Medicare by 8 years from 2024 to 2016 and then should we somehow manage to keep the program alive an extra couple years dismantles it in favor of a coupon system which caps the government responsibility for senior citizen's health-care at $6000 a year so that if it costs them more than $6000 to save their life they can either pay the extra out of pocket or die... oh well that's what's called Personal Responsibility....





Romney to Obama: You keep running attack ads claiming my running mate’s Medicare plan is going to raise annual costs for seniors by $6,400. But when you spoke at the AARP convention, you conceded that this number — which is only a guesstimate far in the future — was based on an old version of the plan, not the more generous current version that adopted the same growth path as your budget. Will you stop using that figure?

Hmmm, it is an estimate and if there is more than one estimate as long as the estimates are judged to be approximately equally reliable and accurate I see no reason why ether side should use the estimate most favorable to their opponent... I do like the idea of presenting the best contradictory argument in order to strengthen your own but I don't necessarily expect either side to disarm unilaterally. I would love for my side to be the one which acts better but after years of doing so and getting our asses kicked by the liars and game players on the other side I also want my side to push as hard as they can to win because ultimately once in office I trust them to do he best job. And yes I recognize that this is an argument frequently used by creeping fascism but the other side really is creeping fascism and it is using this approach so lets fight fire with fire.

Health care

Obama to Romney: You keep saying that health insurance premiums have gone up by $2,500, as if “Obamacare” had anything to do with it. You know most provisions of that law have not gone into effect yet, so experts say that only a small portion of the increase is because of the law. Your number is also wrong. Insurance premiums have gone up, by about $1,300, but that is largely because of higher health-care costs. So, why blame me for something that is not my fault?

The real mistake of Obamacare, and I am proud to use that term as in 20 years whatever is left of the Republican Party will be campaigning on saving Obamacare... , is that it does not include a public option which could be used to force prices down. Instead of using as his template the program Romney was forced to sign by the people of Massachusetts, Obama should have used the single payer program from Vermont. I say that knowing almost nothing about the Vermont program except that it was based on the Canadian system which works very well.



Romney to Obama: You keep claiming that health-care premiums will go down for people in the individual and small group markets. But isn’t it correct that, because of a variety of provisions in the law, premiums are going to go up for young Americans and healthier individuals? In fact, a survey of states found that many expect premiums will go up for individuals, although tax subsidies might mitigate some of the increased costs. Why haven’t you been straight with Americans about the trade-offs inherent in the law?

He has been straight with us. As a younger healthier person I have known the entire time that the system as he proposed it was going to cost me more money most likely. Prior to the introduction of the mandate I knew that if rates went up more than I wanted I had the option of gambling on my good health and going uninsured. I supported his system of getting everybody in the pool of participants not because it would lower my own personal rates but because it would make the system work better for the most people. I won't be young and healthy forever and eventually I will move from my slightly higher rate, compared to before Obamacare on to a rate which, while higher than the one I was paying when I was young and healthy, will be significantly lower than it would have been without Obamacare. My generation supported Obamacare more than any other generation not because it would lower our own personal insurance rates, many of us had no insurance costs, but because unlike our parents' generation we are not selfish and believe in the idea of personal sacrifice for the good of the whole society as well as for our own future.