Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Whoppers of 2012
1 view
Skip to first unread message
TheWa...@here.now
Nov 2, 2012, 2:11:36 PM11/2/12
to
Whoppers of 2012
The biggest falsehoods from the presidential campaign.
Summary
With only days to go until Election Day 2012, we look here at the most
egregiously false and misleading claims from the entire presidential
campaign. Some examples:
¦President Barack Obama claimed Mitt Romney is planning to raise
taxes by $2,000 on middle-income taxpayers and/or cut taxes by $5
trillion. Neither is true.
¦Romney claimed Obama plans to raise taxes by $4,000 on middle-income
taxpayers. That’s not true, either.
¦It’s also not true that Obama plans “to gut welfare reform by
dropping work requirements,” as Romney claimed.
¦Equally untrue is the Obama campaign’s repeated claim that Romney
backed a law that would outlaw “all abortions, even in cases of rape
and incest.”
So many false and twisted claims were made in the early months that we
issued an “early edition” of our annual wrap-up of political whoppers
in July. We noted then that the campaign had been nasty, brutish and
long.
And it’s only gotten longer, not more truthful.
We also found whoppers on popular topics such as the federal health
care law, jobs and the debt:
¦Romney has repeatedly claimed that health insurance premiums have
gone up $2,500 under Obama. That’s wrong. Family premiums for
employer-sponsored insurance have gone up $1,975 from 2010 to 2012.
That’s the total paid by employer and employee, and the reports on
this from the Kaiser Family Foundation said the amount paid by
employees hadn’t gone up much. Besides, experts told us the federal
health care law was responsible for a 1 percent to 3 percent increase,
due to more generous coverage requirements.
¦Obama said his policies were responsible for “about 10 percent” of
the deficits “over the last four years.” But two of the laws he
signed, the stimulus and 2010 tax cut, account for nearly a third of
the cumulative four-year deficit of $5.2 trillion. Obama was referring
to a Treasury analysis covering 2002 to 2011, including all eight
years of the Bush administration but excluding the 2012 fiscal year
that just ended Sept. 30. He also was referring not to cumulative
deficits but to the difference between the Congressional Budget
Office’s projected surpluses and the deficits that actually happened.
¦An ad in Florida from the conservative American Crossroads reminded
us of the notorious “death panel” falsehood. The ad said Medicare
benefits could be “rationed” and seniors denied treatment by the new
health care law. But the law specifically forbids rationing or a cut
in benefits.
¦Obama has said that he would return the top two tax rates to the
“same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president.” But that’s not
right. While Obama does want to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those
earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for couples) — which would
put the top marginal rates back to where they were under Clinton — the
Affordable Care Act put additional taxes on these earners. Next year,
they’ll face an additional 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax, and a 3.8
percent tax on investment income.
¦A Romney ad wrongly claimed that “your share of Obama’s debt is over
$50,000.” That’s attributing all of the $16 trillion total federal
debt, most of which was accumulated under previous presidents. The
total public debt was $10.6 trillion when Obama took office; plus, he
inherited a deficit that was already running at $1 trillion-plus on
the day he took office.
¦Obama has tried to make job growth in his term look better than it
actually is by saying that “this country has created over half a
million new manufacturing jobs in the last two-and-a-half years,” and
claiming that he has added 5.2 million new jobs. Manufacturing jobs
have rebounded by 512,000 since hitting a low point a year after Obama
was inaugurated. But all told, there are still 582,000 fewer
manufacturing jobs than there were when Obama took office. As for the
5.2 million new jobs claim, those are private-sector jobs only, and
growth only since February 2010. Total jobs — private and government
jobs — are up about 325,000 since Obama’s inauguration.
¦Romney, too, puffed up his record on jobs as governor of
Massachusetts. A campaign ad said he “reduced unemployment to just 4.7
percent.” That’s true — Massachusetts’ unemployment rate declined from
5.6 percent to 4.6 percent — but the state’s rate was lower than the
national rate when Romney took office and about the same when he left.
¦Romney was wrong when he said 47 percent of Americans pay no federal
income taxes and are “dependent on the government.” The true figure is
46.4 percent. More important, most of those Americans work, but don’t
make much money. Twenty-two percent are seniors, and 15.2 percent
receive tax credits for children and the working poor that bring their
income tax liability to zero.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/whoppers-of-2012-final-edition/
The biggest falsehoods from the presidential campaign.
Summary
With only days to go until Election Day 2012, we look here at the most
egregiously false and misleading claims from the entire presidential
campaign. Some examples:
¦President Barack Obama claimed Mitt Romney is planning to raise
taxes by $2,000 on middle-income taxpayers and/or cut taxes by $5
trillion. Neither is true.
¦Romney claimed Obama plans to raise taxes by $4,000 on middle-income
taxpayers. That’s not true, either.
¦It’s also not true that Obama plans “to gut welfare reform by
dropping work requirements,” as Romney claimed.
¦Equally untrue is the Obama campaign’s repeated claim that Romney
backed a law that would outlaw “all abortions, even in cases of rape
and incest.”
So many false and twisted claims were made in the early months that we
issued an “early edition” of our annual wrap-up of political whoppers
in July. We noted then that the campaign had been nasty, brutish and
long.
And it’s only gotten longer, not more truthful.
We also found whoppers on popular topics such as the federal health
care law, jobs and the debt:
¦Romney has repeatedly claimed that health insurance premiums have
gone up $2,500 under Obama. That’s wrong. Family premiums for
employer-sponsored insurance have gone up $1,975 from 2010 to 2012.
That’s the total paid by employer and employee, and the reports on
this from the Kaiser Family Foundation said the amount paid by
employees hadn’t gone up much. Besides, experts told us the federal
health care law was responsible for a 1 percent to 3 percent increase,
due to more generous coverage requirements.
¦Obama said his policies were responsible for “about 10 percent” of
the deficits “over the last four years.” But two of the laws he
signed, the stimulus and 2010 tax cut, account for nearly a third of
the cumulative four-year deficit of $5.2 trillion. Obama was referring
to a Treasury analysis covering 2002 to 2011, including all eight
years of the Bush administration but excluding the 2012 fiscal year
that just ended Sept. 30. He also was referring not to cumulative
deficits but to the difference between the Congressional Budget
Office’s projected surpluses and the deficits that actually happened.
¦An ad in Florida from the conservative American Crossroads reminded
us of the notorious “death panel” falsehood. The ad said Medicare
benefits could be “rationed” and seniors denied treatment by the new
health care law. But the law specifically forbids rationing or a cut
in benefits.
¦Obama has said that he would return the top two tax rates to the
“same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president.” But that’s not
right. While Obama does want to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those
earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for couples) — which would
put the top marginal rates back to where they were under Clinton — the
Affordable Care Act put additional taxes on these earners. Next year,
they’ll face an additional 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax, and a 3.8
percent tax on investment income.
¦A Romney ad wrongly claimed that “your share of Obama’s debt is over
$50,000.” That’s attributing all of the $16 trillion total federal
debt, most of which was accumulated under previous presidents. The
total public debt was $10.6 trillion when Obama took office; plus, he
inherited a deficit that was already running at $1 trillion-plus on
the day he took office.
¦Obama has tried to make job growth in his term look better than it
actually is by saying that “this country has created over half a
million new manufacturing jobs in the last two-and-a-half years,” and
claiming that he has added 5.2 million new jobs. Manufacturing jobs
have rebounded by 512,000 since hitting a low point a year after Obama
was inaugurated. But all told, there are still 582,000 fewer
manufacturing jobs than there were when Obama took office. As for the
5.2 million new jobs claim, those are private-sector jobs only, and
growth only since February 2010. Total jobs — private and government
jobs — are up about 325,000 since Obama’s inauguration.
¦Romney, too, puffed up his record on jobs as governor of
Massachusetts. A campaign ad said he “reduced unemployment to just 4.7
percent.” That’s true — Massachusetts’ unemployment rate declined from
5.6 percent to 4.6 percent — but the state’s rate was lower than the
national rate when Romney took office and about the same when he left.
¦Romney was wrong when he said 47 percent of Americans pay no federal
income taxes and are “dependent on the government.” The true figure is
46.4 percent. More important, most of those Americans work, but don’t
make much money. Twenty-two percent are seniors, and 15.2 percent
receive tax credits for children and the working poor that bring their
income tax liability to zero.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/whoppers-of-2012-final-edition/
TheWa...@here.now
Nov 2, 2012, 2:15:57 PM11/2/12
to
An ad from the Romney campaign mocks President Obama’s proposal to
create a “Secretary of Business,” but misrepresents the president’s
proposal.
The ad says that “his solution to everything is to add another
bureaucrat.” But in fact, Obama’s plan actually seeks to consolidate
more than a half dozen agencies, trim the federal workforce by as many
as 1,000 to 2,000 employees and save $3 billion. In short, it
specifically seeks to reduce bureaucracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mFH2fowIc0Q
According to the narrator in the video: “Barack Obama says he may
appoint a Secretary of Business. His solution to everything is to add
another bureaucrat. Why not have a president who actually understands
business? … Mitt Romney understands business, knows how to create jobs
and get our economy moving.”
The ad is a response to a comment that President Obama made in an Oct.
29 interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show (ironically in the context
of talking about initiatives he thinks could garner bipartisan
support). As the full comments make clear, Obama’s proposal to create
a secretary of business is part of a plan to consolidate several
federal programs in order to eliminate some bureaucracy.
Romney reiterated the campaign ad’s jab in a speech in Roanoke, Va.,
on Nov. 1 (later passed around by the Romney campaign in a press
release), saying that Obama is “trying to figure out some way to
suggest he’s got some new ideas” and that he “came up with an idea
last week, which is he’s going to create the department of business.”
“We don’t need a secretary of business to understand business,” Romney
said. “We need a president who understands business, and I do.”
It’s not true that Obama “came up with [the] idea last week.” Back in
January, Obama called on Congress to reinstate the president’s
authority to reorganize the government and announced that his first
action with that power would be to consolidate six agencies — U.S.
Department of Commerce’s core business and trade functions, the Small
Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency — into one department “to
promote competitiveness, exports and American business.”
“For too long, overlapping responsibilities among agencies have made
it harder, rather than easier, for our small businesses to interact
with their government,” according to a White House press release.
“Those redundancies have also led to unnecessary waste and
duplication.”
The White House plan came after a March 2011 report from the
Government Accountability Office — titled “Opportunities to Reduce
Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and
Enhance Revenue” — found a number of redundant and overlapping
government programs including 52 programs in four agencies — Commerce,
HUD, SBA and USDA — that can fund “entrepreneurial efforts.” (page
42)
The White House says it expects its plan will save $3 billion over 10
years, with 1,000 to 2,000 positions eliminated through attrition.
In February, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and Democratic Sen. Mark
Warner introduced the Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of
2012.
“Any plan a president proposes under this legislation must decrease
the number of executive agencies and result in cost savings,”
Lieberman told the Washington Post in March.
Obama’s plan got at least some bipartisan support. The Washington Post
story quoted Republican Sen. Tom Coburn as saying that he was “fully
supporting the president’s idea.” Nevertheless, while hearings were
held on the bill, it stalled in committee.
Some may take issue with Obama’s plan to add another Cabinet-level
position for a secretary of business — as the Wall Street Journal‘s
editorial board did on Oct. 29 — but to mock it as simply “add[ing]
another bureaucrat,” ignores the very intent of Obama’s plan, which
seeks to consolidate redundant government programs and shrink
government bureaucracy.
http://factcheck.org/2012/11/campaign-funny-business/
create a “Secretary of Business,” but misrepresents the president’s
proposal.
The ad says that “his solution to everything is to add another
bureaucrat.” But in fact, Obama’s plan actually seeks to consolidate
more than a half dozen agencies, trim the federal workforce by as many
as 1,000 to 2,000 employees and save $3 billion. In short, it
specifically seeks to reduce bureaucracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mFH2fowIc0Q
According to the narrator in the video: “Barack Obama says he may
appoint a Secretary of Business. His solution to everything is to add
another bureaucrat. Why not have a president who actually understands
business? … Mitt Romney understands business, knows how to create jobs
and get our economy moving.”
The ad is a response to a comment that President Obama made in an Oct.
29 interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show (ironically in the context
of talking about initiatives he thinks could garner bipartisan
support). As the full comments make clear, Obama’s proposal to create
a secretary of business is part of a plan to consolidate several
federal programs in order to eliminate some bureaucracy.
Romney reiterated the campaign ad’s jab in a speech in Roanoke, Va.,
on Nov. 1 (later passed around by the Romney campaign in a press
release), saying that Obama is “trying to figure out some way to
suggest he’s got some new ideas” and that he “came up with an idea
last week, which is he’s going to create the department of business.”
“We don’t need a secretary of business to understand business,” Romney
said. “We need a president who understands business, and I do.”
It’s not true that Obama “came up with [the] idea last week.” Back in
January, Obama called on Congress to reinstate the president’s
authority to reorganize the government and announced that his first
action with that power would be to consolidate six agencies — U.S.
Department of Commerce’s core business and trade functions, the Small
Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency — into one department “to
promote competitiveness, exports and American business.”
“For too long, overlapping responsibilities among agencies have made
it harder, rather than easier, for our small businesses to interact
with their government,” according to a White House press release.
“Those redundancies have also led to unnecessary waste and
duplication.”
The White House plan came after a March 2011 report from the
Government Accountability Office — titled “Opportunities to Reduce
Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and
Enhance Revenue” — found a number of redundant and overlapping
government programs including 52 programs in four agencies — Commerce,
HUD, SBA and USDA — that can fund “entrepreneurial efforts.” (page
42)
The White House says it expects its plan will save $3 billion over 10
years, with 1,000 to 2,000 positions eliminated through attrition.
In February, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and Democratic Sen. Mark
Warner introduced the Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of
2012.
“Any plan a president proposes under this legislation must decrease
the number of executive agencies and result in cost savings,”
Lieberman told the Washington Post in March.
Obama’s plan got at least some bipartisan support. The Washington Post
story quoted Republican Sen. Tom Coburn as saying that he was “fully
supporting the president’s idea.” Nevertheless, while hearings were
held on the bill, it stalled in committee.
Some may take issue with Obama’s plan to add another Cabinet-level
position for a secretary of business — as the Wall Street Journal‘s
editorial board did on Oct. 29 — but to mock it as simply “add[ing]
another bureaucrat,” ignores the very intent of Obama’s plan, which
seeks to consolidate redundant government programs and shrink
government bureaucracy.
http://factcheck.org/2012/11/campaign-funny-business/
Mark Hill
Nov 2, 2012, 2:19:57 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 12:11 PM, TheWa...@here.now wrote:
> Whoppers of 2012
> The biggest falsehoods from the presidential campaign.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/28/father_of_navy_seal_killed_in_libya_a_pack_of_lies_from_the_obama_administration.html
> Whoppers of 2012
> The biggest falsehoods from the presidential campaign.
WOODS: This news that he disobeyed his orders does not surprise me. My
son was an American hero. And he had the moral strength to do what was
right, even if that would professionally cost him his job, even if it
would potentially cost him his life. He was a hero who was willing to do
whatever was necessary, to respond to their cries for help. If, in fact,
those people from the White House were as courageous and had the moral
strength that my son, Ty, had, immediately, within minutes of when they
found there was the first attack, they would have sent, they would have
given permission, not denied permission for those C130s to have gone up
there {…] I don’t know much about weapons, but it’s coming out right now
that they actually had laser targets focused on the mortars that were
being sent to kill my son and they refused to pull the trigger, they
refused to send those C30s.
To me, I’m an attorney. This may not be the legal test of murder, but to
me, that is not only cowardice, but those people who made the decision
and who knew about this decision and lied about it — are murderers of my
son. That is a very strong statement for me to make, but for their
benefit, they need to clear their conscience. They need to stand up and
they need to change the direction of their lives. I want to say right
now, you know who you are. I totally forgive you, but I hope years from
now, you change the direction of your life.
KELLY: Charlie, do you feel like you are getting straight answers from
the administration on this?
WOODS: This is all a pack of lies. That is one thing as the father whose
son who was killed, I do not appreciate lies. I do not appreciate
cowardice, and I do not appreciate lies. I’m a loving person. I love my
son and I want to honor him, and I hope I’m not speaking too strongly,
but I am very glad the facts are coming out right now. The reason I am
even speaking up, our family had made the decision not to say anything,
but after the facts came out that in real-time, the White House, minutes
after the first bullet was fired, they watched my son, they denied his
pleas for help. My son violated his orders in order to protect the lives
of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero. I wish that
leadership in the White House had that same level of moral courage and
heroism that my son displayed with his life.
Mark Hill
Nov 2, 2012, 2:21:25 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 12:15 PM, TheWa...@here.now wrote:
> An ad from the Romney campaign mocks President Obama’s proposal to
> create a “Secretary of Business,”
He already HAS a secretary of Commerce, you unrelenting statist enemy of
> An ad from the Romney campaign mocks President Obama’s proposal to
> create a “Secretary of Business,”
the people!
http://online.wsj.com/
The brain trust behind President Obama's re-election campaign has a new
idea, and what a revelation it is. A week from Election Day, Mr. Obama
has disclosed to the voters that in a second term he'll create more
private jobs by creating . . . one more government job.
Specifically, and all of a sudden, Mr. Obama wants a new Cabinet-level
post that will be known as the Secretary of Business. "I've said I want
to consolidate a whole bunch of government agencies," he said Monday, in
a performance that captured his Presidency in miniature. "We should have
one Secretary of Business, instead of nine different departments that
are dealing with things like getting loans to SBA [the Small Business
Administration] or helping companies with exports. There should be a
one-stop shop."
Mr. Obama then blamed Republicans for opposing this inspiration that no
one had ever heard of until he disclosed it to the hosts of MSNBC's
"Morning Joe." He said his re-election "clears away a lot of the
ideological underbrush," and that the GOP will then join him to "start
looking at a whole bunch of issues, as I've said, has historically not
been that ideological."
Mr. Obama said Republicans haven't wanted to streamline government
because they're supposedly "protective about giving up their
jurisdiction over various pieces of government." This will be news to
Paul Ryan and the tea party.
Maybe Republicans would have opposed the Secretary of Business if they'd
learned about it somewhere besides cable news, but who knows? The
reasons could include turf, but also the fact that the government
already has an agency with a "focus on expanding the American economy
and job creation" and that "invests in America's long-term growth and
competitiveness"
It's called the Department of Commerce, with its very own Secretary, and
the quotes in the preceding paragraph are how the White House describes
its mission in its 2013 budget. Mr. Obama wants to expand Commerce
spending by 5% to some $8 billion annually. Extra credit goes to anyone
who can name the acting Commerce Secretary. No Googling.
Perhaps nobody knows who Rebecca M. Blank is because the real Secretary
of Business in Mr. Obama's first term has been Valerie Jarrett, his Hyde
Park confidante turned White House fixer. Ms. Jarrett knows nothing
about business or the economy, with the possible exception of the
political economy of the Chicago wards, which may explain why the
Administration's idea of helping business has been to dispense subsidies
and other favors to politically favored donors and their green energy firms.
As for real CEOs, they started out giving the President the benefit of
the doubt but grew disillusioned as Mr. Obama unleashed a torrent of new
regulations and pursued his liberal social agenda instead of nurturing
an economic recovery.
As CEO complaints grew, the White House famously challenged the Business
Roundtable and Business Council to identify pending rules that were
harming job creation and economic growth. The lobbies responded in
summer 2010 with a 54-page compendium, but they got no substantive
response. Even after Republicans took the House in 2010, the White House
did virtually nothing as Mr. Obama chose to campaign for re-election as
the populist scourge of rapacious capitalists.
But now, after four years, he wants a Secretary of Business. Believe it.
TheWa...@here.now
Nov 2, 2012, 2:21:39 PM11/2/12
to
Hawaiian Whopper
An ad by Republican Senate candidate Linda Lingle in the Aloha State
is telling a real whopper � about us.
Her ad says that FactCheck.org rated a claim made by her opponent as
�the worst political deception of the year,� and it shows our logo
with a headline reading �Whopper of the Year.� The fact is we have
never run a headline saying that, and have never singled out any one
political falsehood as the worst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wlqFHkfxwLs
Lingle�s ad takes aim at a claim made in an ad by Rep. Mazie Hirono,
her Democratic opponent � that Lingle�s plan would turn Medicare �into
a private-insurance voucher program that could raise seniors�
out-of-pocket health care costs over $6,000.�
It�s true that we�ve criticized such claims when made by President
Obama and other Democrats. And it�s also true that we have included
that claim among several Democratic and Republican �Whoppers of 2012�
� although that was an article we posted Oct. 31, several days after
Lingle�s ad started, and it was not on our list in 2011 as the Lingle
ad claims. Nor was it the �Lie of the Year� that our friends at
PolitiFact.com singled out in December 2011, if that is what the
Lingle campaign was thinking.
�Whopper of the Year�?
On Oct. 15, the Hirono campaign released a TV ad comparing Lingle�s
Medicare plan to one proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, and embraced by GOP
presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
The ad says, �Mitt Romney and Linda Lingle, turning Medicare into a
private-insurance voucher program that could raise seniors�
out-of-pocket health care costs over $6,000.�
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LR1egXAeCI&feature=player_embedded
The Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare involves giving future Medicare
beneficiaries the option of choosing either traditional Medicare or a
private health insurance option through a health care exchange. The
beneficiaries would buy their insurance with the help of a
�premium-support payment� from the federal government. Lingle has said
that her Medicare Choice plan for beneficiaries would work in a very
similar fashion.
But the claim that this could raise seniors� health care costs �over
$6,000? is based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Ryan�s
2011 proposal, which is now outdated. The current Romney-Ryan plan
ties the government subsidies to the cost of the second-cheapest plan,
which can�t rise faster than GDP plus 0.5 percent. That�s a more
generous offering than Ryan�s original proposal. And while the CBO
said that it was possible �beneficiaries might face higher costs�
under the new plan, it didn�t attempt to say how much due to some
uncertainty.
In response, the Lingle campaign released an ad saying that Hirono�s
claim had been labeled the �worst political deception of the year.�
The citation for that claim is our �The Whoppers of 2011� article. But
the campaign got ahead of itself because the claim about the potential
for rising health care costs for seniors was not on our list in 2011.
It made our list of the �Whoppers of 2012, Final Edition,� which was
published more than a week after the Lingle ad first aired on Oct. 20.
Democrats� claim that Republicans would �end Medicare� made our 2011
list, which is a completely different claim.
Furthermore, we didn�t call either claim the �worst political
deception of the year,� or the �whopper of the year,� as the ad
suggests that we did. Our whoppers lists are a roundup of the most
egregious claims during a campaign season. We don�t single out one
particular claim over another.
The Lingle ad also repeats the misleading claim that the Affordable
Care Act, which Hirono voted for, cuts Medicare funding by $716
billion. The �cuts� are actually reductions in the future growth of
Medicare spending � not benefits � over a 10-year period. The Obama
administration hopes to achieve its goal by reducing the growth of
payment levels to hospitals as well as Medicare Advantage. Those
spending reductions are projected to extend Medicare�s solvency
through 2024.
An ad by Republican Senate candidate Linda Lingle in the Aloha State
is telling a real whopper � about us.
Her ad says that FactCheck.org rated a claim made by her opponent as
�the worst political deception of the year,� and it shows our logo
with a headline reading �Whopper of the Year.� The fact is we have
never run a headline saying that, and have never singled out any one
political falsehood as the worst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wlqFHkfxwLs
Lingle�s ad takes aim at a claim made in an ad by Rep. Mazie Hirono,
her Democratic opponent � that Lingle�s plan would turn Medicare �into
a private-insurance voucher program that could raise seniors�
out-of-pocket health care costs over $6,000.�
It�s true that we�ve criticized such claims when made by President
Obama and other Democrats. And it�s also true that we have included
that claim among several Democratic and Republican �Whoppers of 2012�
� although that was an article we posted Oct. 31, several days after
Lingle�s ad started, and it was not on our list in 2011 as the Lingle
ad claims. Nor was it the �Lie of the Year� that our friends at
PolitiFact.com singled out in December 2011, if that is what the
Lingle campaign was thinking.
�Whopper of the Year�?
On Oct. 15, the Hirono campaign released a TV ad comparing Lingle�s
Medicare plan to one proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, and embraced by GOP
presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
The ad says, �Mitt Romney and Linda Lingle, turning Medicare into a
private-insurance voucher program that could raise seniors�
out-of-pocket health care costs over $6,000.�
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LR1egXAeCI&feature=player_embedded
The Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare involves giving future Medicare
beneficiaries the option of choosing either traditional Medicare or a
private health insurance option through a health care exchange. The
beneficiaries would buy their insurance with the help of a
�premium-support payment� from the federal government. Lingle has said
that her Medicare Choice plan for beneficiaries would work in a very
similar fashion.
But the claim that this could raise seniors� health care costs �over
$6,000? is based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Ryan�s
2011 proposal, which is now outdated. The current Romney-Ryan plan
ties the government subsidies to the cost of the second-cheapest plan,
which can�t rise faster than GDP plus 0.5 percent. That�s a more
generous offering than Ryan�s original proposal. And while the CBO
said that it was possible �beneficiaries might face higher costs�
under the new plan, it didn�t attempt to say how much due to some
uncertainty.
In response, the Lingle campaign released an ad saying that Hirono�s
claim had been labeled the �worst political deception of the year.�
The citation for that claim is our �The Whoppers of 2011� article. But
the campaign got ahead of itself because the claim about the potential
for rising health care costs for seniors was not on our list in 2011.
It made our list of the �Whoppers of 2012, Final Edition,� which was
published more than a week after the Lingle ad first aired on Oct. 20.
Democrats� claim that Republicans would �end Medicare� made our 2011
list, which is a completely different claim.
Furthermore, we didn�t call either claim the �worst political
deception of the year,� or the �whopper of the year,� as the ad
suggests that we did. Our whoppers lists are a roundup of the most
egregious claims during a campaign season. We don�t single out one
particular claim over another.
The Lingle ad also repeats the misleading claim that the Affordable
Care Act, which Hirono voted for, cuts Medicare funding by $716
billion. The �cuts� are actually reductions in the future growth of
Medicare spending � not benefits � over a 10-year period. The Obama
administration hopes to achieve its goal by reducing the growth of
payment levels to hospitals as well as Medicare Advantage. Those
spending reductions are projected to extend Medicare�s solvency
through 2024.
jo...@rhosos.not
Nov 2, 2012, 2:25:04 PM11/2/12
to
Republican Mailers Mislead in New Mexico
New Mexico’s Republican Party misleads in two mailers attacking the
state’s Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, two-term Rep. Martin
Heinrich.
¦One mailer states that “New Mexico workers have a jobs problem.” But
the state’s unemployment rate is 6.4 percent, well below the national
rate, or the 8 percent figure the flier displays.
¦Another flier claims that Heinrich voted for the Bush-era tax cuts
to expire for “everyone.” Heinrich actually supported a bill that
preserved the tax cuts for everyone except high-income taxpayers. What
he opposed was a compromise measure that also extended the tax cuts
for those at the top.
¦The same mailer claims: “Raising taxes, as Heinrich wants to do,
would cost another 4,300 jobs in New Mexico.” That prediction is based
on a business-backed study that assumes the government will increase
spending if it lets tax cuts expire for high-income taxpayers.
Heinrich said he wants to reduce the deficit with that money, a course
of action the study did not examine.
¦A mailer fails to tell the whole story when it claims Heinrich’s
vote for the stimulus allowed insurance company AIG to award executive
bonuses using bailout money. Heinrich never had a chance to vote up or
down on the bonus issue. A Senate version of the stimulus bill banned
AIG from awarding bonuses. But that ban was removed before the bill
returned to the House for final passage.
Heinrich holds an eight-point lead over Republican opponent Heather
Wilson, according to the Albuquerque Journal’s latest poll. Wilson
previously held Heinrich’s seat in Congress, serving five terms before
she ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2008. Heinrich and
Wilson are vying for the seat held by Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico’s
senior U.S. senator, who is retiring.
Jamie Dickerman, communications director for the Republican Party of
New Mexico, told us in an email that the organization “stands behind
the facts presented and the citations given” in the mailers.
Our thanks to Allen Stenger of Alamogordo, N.M., who uploaded the
mailers to our Spin Detectors page, through which we ask our readers
to help us monitor political claims and campaigns across the country.
Stenger, who is active in his local chamber of commerce, said he knew
the mailer misled when it claimed that New Mexico has a “jobs problem”
but cited the national unemployment rate.
New Mexico’s Republican Party misleads in two mailers attacking the
state’s Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, two-term Rep. Martin
Heinrich.
¦One mailer states that “New Mexico workers have a jobs problem.” But
the state’s unemployment rate is 6.4 percent, well below the national
rate, or the 8 percent figure the flier displays.
¦Another flier claims that Heinrich voted for the Bush-era tax cuts
to expire for “everyone.” Heinrich actually supported a bill that
preserved the tax cuts for everyone except high-income taxpayers. What
he opposed was a compromise measure that also extended the tax cuts
for those at the top.
¦The same mailer claims: “Raising taxes, as Heinrich wants to do,
would cost another 4,300 jobs in New Mexico.” That prediction is based
on a business-backed study that assumes the government will increase
spending if it lets tax cuts expire for high-income taxpayers.
Heinrich said he wants to reduce the deficit with that money, a course
of action the study did not examine.
¦A mailer fails to tell the whole story when it claims Heinrich’s
vote for the stimulus allowed insurance company AIG to award executive
bonuses using bailout money. Heinrich never had a chance to vote up or
down on the bonus issue. A Senate version of the stimulus bill banned
AIG from awarding bonuses. But that ban was removed before the bill
returned to the House for final passage.
Heinrich holds an eight-point lead over Republican opponent Heather
Wilson, according to the Albuquerque Journal’s latest poll. Wilson
previously held Heinrich’s seat in Congress, serving five terms before
she ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2008. Heinrich and
Wilson are vying for the seat held by Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico’s
senior U.S. senator, who is retiring.
Jamie Dickerman, communications director for the Republican Party of
New Mexico, told us in an email that the organization “stands behind
the facts presented and the citations given” in the mailers.
Our thanks to Allen Stenger of Alamogordo, N.M., who uploaded the
mailers to our Spin Detectors page, through which we ask our readers
to help us monitor political claims and campaigns across the country.
Stenger, who is active in his local chamber of commerce, said he knew
the mailer misled when it claimed that New Mexico has a “jobs problem”
but cited the national unemployment rate.
Mark Hill
Nov 2, 2012, 2:26:38 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 12:21 PM, TheWa...@here.now wrote:
> Hawaiian Whopper
Or why Obama knows he's out of office come January 2013:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose/
SECRET RETIREMENT PLANS: DOES OBAMA EXPECT TO LOSE?
Insider reveals internal polls, luxury Hawaii estate ready for January
Are Obama insiders secretly making retirement plans for the Obamas with
the expectation the president will lose his bid for re-election in November?
Very quietly, Obama’s chief financier, Penny Pritzker, has entered the
Hawaii housing market to buy a retirement home for the president and his
family that will be available not in 2016, but in January 2013,
according to a confidential source within Pritzker’s Chicago organization
Pritzker, a wealthy Chicago business executive and heiress to the Hyatt
Hotels fortune, served as national finance chairman for Obama’s 2008
campaign and is the co-chairman of his 2012 effort.
The source told WND that highly confidential internal polls conducted by
the Obama campaign indicate Obama cannot win re-election, despite public
surveys that show him in the lead.
“The public polls are mostly political,” the source argued. “Obama
radicals want Romney supporters to feel discouraged and give up. Truth
is that Romney’s winning.”
Fed up with Obama? Get your personally autographed copy of the New York
Times bestseller “Fool Me Twice” exclusively from WND!
The source further told WND that Pritzker is experiencing frustration in
her fundraising efforts, as wealthy donors who contributed generously to
Obama in 2008 are not even returning her phone calls.
The source said Pritzker is “reminding everyone how generous to their
supporters the Clintons were when they left office.”
“Everything is for sale. Ambassadorships, government grants, stimulus
money – you name it,” the source told WND.
“There’s nearly three months between the Nov. 6 election and the Jan. 20
inauguration – plenty of time to hand out goodies to friends from the
Oval Office.”
Aloha
Pritzker is telling potential donors that the Obamas have no intention
of returning to Chicago when they leave the White House, according to
the source.
> Hawaiian Whopper
Or why Obama knows he's out of office come January 2013:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose/
SECRET RETIREMENT PLANS: DOES OBAMA EXPECT TO LOSE?
Insider reveals internal polls, luxury Hawaii estate ready for January
Are Obama insiders secretly making retirement plans for the Obamas with
the expectation the president will lose his bid for re-election in November?
Very quietly, Obama’s chief financier, Penny Pritzker, has entered the
Hawaii housing market to buy a retirement home for the president and his
family that will be available not in 2016, but in January 2013,
according to a confidential source within Pritzker’s Chicago organization
Pritzker, a wealthy Chicago business executive and heiress to the Hyatt
Hotels fortune, served as national finance chairman for Obama’s 2008
campaign and is the co-chairman of his 2012 effort.
The source told WND that highly confidential internal polls conducted by
the Obama campaign indicate Obama cannot win re-election, despite public
surveys that show him in the lead.
“The public polls are mostly political,” the source argued. “Obama
radicals want Romney supporters to feel discouraged and give up. Truth
is that Romney’s winning.”
Fed up with Obama? Get your personally autographed copy of the New York
Times bestseller “Fool Me Twice” exclusively from WND!
The source further told WND that Pritzker is experiencing frustration in
her fundraising efforts, as wealthy donors who contributed generously to
Obama in 2008 are not even returning her phone calls.
The source said Pritzker is “reminding everyone how generous to their
supporters the Clintons were when they left office.”
“Everything is for sale. Ambassadorships, government grants, stimulus
money – you name it,” the source told WND.
“There’s nearly three months between the Nov. 6 election and the Jan. 20
inauguration – plenty of time to hand out goodies to friends from the
Oval Office.”
Aloha
Pritzker is telling potential donors that the Obamas have no intention
of returning to Chicago when they leave the White House, according to
the source.
Mark Hill
Nov 2, 2012, 2:28:10 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 12:25 PM, jo...@rhosos.not wrote:
> Republican Mailers Mislead in New Mexico
So as an Arizona RVr you think this belongs in any of these other groups?
> Republican Mailers Mislead in New Mexico
Here, a clue : nm.general, nm.ads, nm.jobs
HTH
HAND
...you paid Dem shill....
Mark Hill
Nov 3, 2012, 12:20:15 AM11/3/12
to
On 11/2/2012 12:25 PM, jo...@rhosos.not wrote:
> New Mexico has a “jobs problem”
So does the entire nation - thanks to OBAMA!
http://online.wsj.com/
Negative $4,019
The Obama years have been brutal on middle-class incomes.
In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and
shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household
income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted
for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real
income, a little less than a month's income every year.
0 new messages