Somebody needs to 'fess up. Who put truth serum in Calvin Woodward's coffee this morning?
Whoever it is, they're in a heap of trouble, as Woodward produced a fact-checking critique of Barack Obama that is so good you'd swear most of it was ghostwritten by a conservative talk host.
It will be interesting to see how much distribution it gets. I would suggest not counting on too much, but being open to a pleasant surprise.
Regardless of its distribution, you'd better believe they've read it in the White House, and they're wondering what in the world happened.
Here are key paragraphs from Woodward's rundown, which is really, seriously, a read (and save) the whole thing item (it is saved at my host for future reference; HT to Mark Levin, who excerpted the report on his show tonight):
FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape
“That wasn't me,” President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.
It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
Are we having fun yet?
..... 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 ....
..... OBAMA: “Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me.
..... THE FACTS: Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
..... 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.” — in Missouri.
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.
The main criticism I have of Woodward's report is that he doesn't understand that there has always been a correlation between Social Security taxes paid and Social Security benefits received during retirement. Thus, he sees making the payroll tax apply to incomes higher than $102,000 (the 2008 upper limit) strictly as a revenue raiser, without realizing that a failure to increase benefits commensurately, which would almost certainly not happen, would break that historic link and officially turn Social Security into a welfare program (astute readers already know that it already is a welfare program, in the sense that it is an intergenerational transfer from current workers to current retirees, because there really is no "Trust Fund" with real assets).
But there are enough zingers in one place to talk down Obama's 100-day defenders with ease.
Enjoy it. Just don't delude yourself into thinking a lot of people will see it, or that it marks any kind of general change in direction at AP.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The inherited budget lie...
April 29, 2009 - 23:22 ET by dasherThe Democratically controlled congress did not pass a final budget bill because they wanted lots of extra spending in it, and they thought Bush would veto it. So they waited until Obama's inauguration, and that was the $410 Billion bill with the 9,000 earmarks. A bill in a normal year that should have been voted on before Sept 31.
"Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P.J.O'Rourke
I just read this
April 29, 2009 - 23:54 ET by justmearticle through a link on Drudge and was amazed it made it out.
Re Calvin
April 29, 2009 - 23:55 ET by slickwillie2001Hope Calvin has paid all his property taxes, has no child support outstanding, and can withstand an IRS audit. Right now Barney Fwank is trying to find his home address so the ACORN goons and union thugs can make a little visit in their government funded short bus. He's in deep doo.
sw... Oh yeah, you got that
April 30, 2009 - 00:24 ET by bigtimersw...
Oh yeah, you got that right...you can count on it...that he is, deep doo indeed!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
A Clue to the future
April 30, 2009 - 00:14 ET by pickerseniorThis promoter of health care for all, redistribution of wealth, and self made Robin Hood leads to the world of "Soylent Green". Popular movie released in 1973.
He doesn't have a clue to the type of world he is trying to organize.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4702649_what-soylent-green.html
"If liberals didn't live it, it doesn't exist."
Pickersenior
It's PEOPLE, ... PEOPLE!!!!!
April 30, 2009 - 07:54 ET by Tom PaineIt's PEOPLE, ... PEOPLE!!!!!
I actually came upon this
April 30, 2009 - 00:57 ET by PewahI actually came upon this article on Yahoo's main page! I ended up reading it twice because I absolutely couldn't believe what it was saying. Can you even imagine the kind of flack this guy is going to be taking from the left?
same here
April 30, 2009 - 07:06 ET by ginagwen7I was astonished that it popped up there.
Career is Over
April 30, 2009 - 02:06 ET by Sabre16Career <Sound of a Flushing toilet>
But we could always use more people thinking like us. Maybe this guys is waking up.
We can only hope.
One thing they could do is
April 30, 2009 - 04:48 ET by BlackwaterOne thing they could do is GET RID OF SOCIAL SECURITY! SS is the
biggest load of crap ever put onto Americans. It was enacted in 1938
with the retirement age of 62/65 depending. The average life
expectancy at the time was less then 62 years old! It was simply
another way to tax the American people; so of course it was thought of
by a Democrat. We would save BILLIONS if not TRILLIONS by getting rid
of SS. I'd rather have that money to invest myself then fork it over
to the government to waste.
I believe that financialy smart people get screwed over by SS. They
put in a lot and get no where close to that amount in return. While
someone else who barely puts any to none reaps the benefits.
This is one of many ideas I have for easy reform of our monsterous
economic problems. If any of you would like to read the others and
tell me what you think email me at pjh72987@gmail.com I'd like to hear
some constructive feed back since I'm only 21 and pretty much all my
friends could care less lol
Agreed
April 30, 2009 - 06:07 ET by JustAlThe Libertarians have said this for years. Sell all of the government owned land and other assets not directly related to the government's Constitutional responsibilities and it's more than enough to pay off obligations to current SS recipients and refund everyone else's "investment" in this massive vote buying pyramid scheme.
Of course the Republicans don't have the nads to do it as they become more and more Democrat lite. The two party system, as someone once said, one stupid, the other evil.
One thing I don't understand is....
April 30, 2009 - 09:11 ET by kirch66If you look at the CDC stats on life expectancy between the races, you see that black males are only expected to live to about 68 whereas white males are expected to live to around 75. Since the retirement age for full retirement benefits is 70, than means that statistically the black males are getting screwed most out of paying into the SS fund over their working lifetime. So why is this such a highly supported government program??? It's inherently racist in its setup. If it weren't, the retirement age would be around 65 so as to include MORE black males, who out of the four top categories (#1 white females, #2 black females, #3 white males and #4 black males) are the least likely to get their full SS benefits back!!!
(Data source)
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
won't make a dent...
April 30, 2009 - 09:08 ET by jackie3Dropping SS won't make a dent in the budget. We are stretched too thin. We are committed to Iraq for the next 20 years. We have a world wide empire and have bases all over the globe...in some places were we are not even needed.
We pay the most fees to the useless UN of all the nations. We send more money off shore than we spend on helping our own people. We give SS to immigrants who never dropped a dime into the program. We buy military jets at the tune of 22 million dollars a piece. We have 12 aircraft carriers...more than any other nation by 4 fold.
We spend money on useless studies...such as "can worms have sex?"
If we want to seriously bring the budget and the dollar back under control the very first thing we need to do is decide what is a needed expense and what is frivolous.
The USA is bankrupt! It's over, done. When a person goes bankrupt they don't spend all their money on parties, gifts and new cars. Why should the government?
Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican government. Real liberty is
never found in the despotism or in the extremes of a Democracy."
Obama Thinks You're Stupid
April 30, 2009 - 10:22 ET by Reaganite RepublicanObama thinks everyone is as stupid as the people that voted for him. He makes the loosest, most general statements possible, to attempt to imply that Bush is responsible for all the rampant spending, because it started under him. He lies and changes his story at will on everything from his cabinet's ethics to if he met with Blago to discuss his senate seat, while the press is occupied with stories on his puppy vetting process and how Barack likes to play basketball.
Obama wants the state to be your mother and father- and it's his right to lie to you if he wishes... just like your parents when you were five. Government will be one you come to for money, ask permission when you want to think or speak, and who handles all your finances for you since you can't be trusted.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Tom.. indeed, a surprising piece by the AP
April 30, 2009 - 12:20 ET by Gary HallI saw this yesterday and could not believe what I was seeing. All of your points are well taken, indeed, but I'd add that Calvin Woodward didn't look back far enough in the larger picture - not that Obama was there in person - but he was there in spirit. He is on record in supporting the Massive ($Trillions in guaranteed loans for low income, targeting minorities) HUD folly of the Clinton era that helped forge the roots of this housing bubble - which led to, and is an integral part of this crisis. He's also eluded to the fact that it didn't work out the way he'd envisioned it. Had he been there in the late 90's, he surely would have been cheering it on, and had he been there, would anyone doubt that he wouldn't have been standing by the side of Franks, Meeks, Dodd, etc., in protecting the bubble as it spiraled out of control?
And of course along the way, he would have supported spending $hundreds of billions more on just about everything under the sun.
Bush, and the R's get their due as well of course, but the other major item which still gets censored from the American public, is that Bush did not cause the silly projected paper surpluses to dissapear and drive the budget deep into deficits. That almost entirely occured as a function of the collapse of the Clinton era dot.com bubble and the deep downturn which followed. 9/11 added to the pain there, as well.
(;~> gary
Gary, Obama was a player ....
April 30, 2009 - 21:50 ET by Tom Blumer.... and a direct one, in the CRA-driven decline in lending standards.