October 30, 2008
Obama infomercial debunked (with tax hikes, too)
Although the media continues in its role as the (un)official Press Office of the Obama campaign, there are a few surprising pockets of integrity and impartiality.
The Associated Press' Calvin Woodward picked through the dung heap deposited on the living room floors of those Americans who chose to tune in to the Obamessiah's primetime infomercial, and found -- Surprise! -- that the candidate is as "trustworthy" as any other cable-access guy flacking for some shady product in a 30-minute ad.
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.
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years - and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
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."
Did you catch that last bit?
I told you just the other day that we only had Obama's word that tax hikes would be limited to Americans making more than $250,000; running-mate "Slow" Joe Biden added another gaffe-tastic remark to his list when he said that the tax hikes would only slam people making more than $145,000.
And now we have the guy at the top of the ticket announcing -- Hey, it's no bid deal, really! When I'm through with you, no one should be making enough to be rich! -- that $250,000 was too high.
Remember, a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate means Pelosi, Frank and Reid can pass as many redistributive tax bills as they can dream up -- and there's nothing to stop them from landing on the President's desk for signature.
The only factor -- the only factor -- determining whether Americans are defended with a Presidential veto or unceremoniously de-pantsed and relieved of their hard-earned money is which candidate is wielding either the veto pen or the lets-screw-the-rich-people-who-contribute-more-to-society-than-they-take-from-their-neighbors pen.
Posted by Mike Lief at October 30, 2008 07:30 AM
| TrackBack