Because, as we’ve learned over the years, it’s likely either spin, just not true or both.
For instance, we have the President claiming victory for ObamaCare because it has 7.1 million enrollments. Note the word – “enrollments”:
‘The goal we’ve set for ourselves – that no American should go without the health care they need … is achievable,’ Obama declared.
The president took no questions from reporters, but celebrated the end of a rocky six-month open-enrollment period by taking pot shots at Republicans who have opposed the law from the beginning as a government-run seizure of one-seventh of the U.S. economy.
‘The debate over repealing this law is over,’ he insisted. ‘The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.’
And, as is usual with this man, he simply declared he’d won and simply threw out “facts” that haven’t at all proven true. Essentially lies in a bigger lie:
‘“The bottom line is this,’ said Obama: ‘The share of Americans with insurance is up, and the growth in the cost of insurance is down. There’s no good reason to go back.’
Of course the “share of Americans” with insurance isn’t up (over 7 million lost their insurance when their plans didn’t qualify under ObamaCare) and costs are certainly not “down”.
Jay “Baghdad Bob” Carney took it from there (Carney is a perfect name for the position, he’s like a carnival barker):
‘At midnight last night we surpassed everyone’s expectations,’ he boasted, ‘at least everyone in this room.’
While he took great pains to emphasize that the total would grow – saying ‘we’re still waiting on data from state exchanges’ – he dodged tough questions about other statistics that reporters thought he should have had at the ready.
Those numbers included how many Americans have paid for their insurance policies, and are actually insured. Also, he had no answer to the thorny question of how few signups represented people who had no insurance before the Affordable Care Act took effect.
But as usual, when ever they drop something like this in a news cycle, the devil is in the details. For instance, an unpublished RAND study that suggests that relatively speaking, very few of the enrollees were previously uninsured:
The unpublished RAND study – only the Los Angeles Times has seen it – found that just 23 per cent of new enrollees had no insurance before signing up.
And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month’s premiums.
If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298.
So effectively, assuming the numbers are correct, less than a million are newly insured. And, as we’ve read in the past, most of them are Medicaid subscribers.
In other words, we’ve gone through all this hell, all this disruption, the higher costs, the lesser insurance plans, the IRS enforcement, etc. just to enroll 858,298 people – most of whom have ended up on a program that existed prior to this atrocity.
Perhaps the biggest laugh line of all, however, comes from David Axelrod, who declared that ObamaCare was totally going to change “the attitude that government can’t do anything“. Of course he only felt comfortable saying that on MSNBC. One can certainly understand why.
Meanwhile, for the most part, the RAND study goes unpublished and, for the most part, unexamined. The King has declared victory – the big lie has been established – debate over.
It’s true that to be a progressive, one has to have the ability to believe nine impossible things before breakfast. But, surely even progressives have some limits to credulity. I’d like to think so, but then I see something like this, that even the barely literate should recognize as foolishness.
President Obama has lately been pushing a number of policies that he says will create jobs, including extending unemployment benefits. This is puzzling, since new benefits obviously will not create jobs for unemployed people, who after all are the ones who need work. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained Thursday that paying out unemployment checks “is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it, they’re going to spend it.” True, they probably will spend the money, on their mortgages, on food, and other necessary expenses. But Mr. Carney attributed miraculous qualities to these government handouts, saying “every place that, that money is spent has added business and that creates growth and income for businesses that leads them to decisions about jobs, more hiring.”
Of course, unemployment benefits do none of those things.
Quite apart from anything else, unemployment benefits are usually far less than than, say, an actual paycheck from an actual job. The very best that might be said about unemployment benefits is that they cause job losses overall to be slightly less severe than they might otherwise be, as the distribution of said benefits ameliorates the chain reaction of job losses as unemployed workers receive some money, rather than no money at all. And, of course, it prevents the jobless from going completely under financially.
But to believe Mr. Carney, one must believe that larger numbers of people receiving and spending substantially less money creates more economic growth. This is magical thinking. If it were true, the obvious solution would be to completely shut down the productive economy, and provide every inhabitant with a government dole check. No doubt economic growth would explode if Mr. Carney were correct, although who would then be available to fill the millions of new jobs is quite beyond me.
Further, it could be argued that for low-skilled—hence, low-income—workers, extended unemployment benefits are a positive disincentive to get a job at all. After all, why work 30 hours a week delivering pizzas, if, in return for an abundance of leisure time, you can simply cash a government check every week? And, perhaps, do a little work under the table to help get by.
It also ignores the reality of where the money for these government benefits is actually coming from. It either has to be extracted from the productive economy in the form of taxes or it has to be borrowed. If it’s the former, it means less money is available in the private sector to, say, invest and create jobs. If the latter, then it adds more debt to the economy, which may not be the most practical solution if the problem is too much government debt in the first place, crowding out private investment and hindering growth.
Seriously, at what point does even the sheep-like herd of White House correspondents rise from their supine positions and tell Mr. Carney that some arguments are too stupid to be presented to their readers with a straight face?
Debt limit talks — DC Math and political theater mask the lack of seriousness concerning out-of-control spending
Speaker of the House Boehner’s plan for deficit and debt reduction was shown to be an exercise in “DC Math”. The CBO scored the proposal and determined that the 1.2 trillion “savings” over 10 years actually cut only $1 billion in actual spending next year.
The first installment of $900 billion is contingent on enacting 10 year caps on annual appropriations which the leadership had hoped would save well over $1 trillion. But CBO late Tuesday came back with a report showing the legislation would reduce deficits by $850 billion when measured against the agency’s most current projections for spending.
Yeah, I think we want significantly deeper cuts in spending than that. And of course, keep in mind most Democrats were even opposed to that.
But at least Boehner actually had a plan CBO could score. From Jim Geraghty’s “Morning Jolt” we learn of this conversation in the White House press room (Weekly Standard):
[Chuck] Todd asked Carney about the White House’s reluctance to release its plan to deal with the national debt and raising the debt ceiling. Carney acknowledged the White House was playing games. "We’re showing a lot of leg," he said. When Todd pressed for details — "Why not just release it?" — Carney seemed surprised. "You need it written down?"
What a difference two years makes. In the spring of 2009, with Republicans in the minority in the House of Representatives, the White House and its Democratic allies were demanding specifics. The House GOP had to produce an alternative budget, the White House demanded, in order to show that they were serious about governing.
Geraghty also points to a wonderful rant by Guy Benson over at Townhall concerning the demand for an actual plan:
Yes, actually, we do need "something printed." Since his unmitigated failure of a budget was unanimously defeated in the Senate, this president has refused to offer a specific plan of his own on virtually anything at all. Instead, he talks about "visions" and "contours" and "frameworks" — and tries to blame his opponents when his poor leadership is exposed. Over the last five days, the president has (a)undermined a bargain with John Boehner by introducing an unacceptable eleventh-hour condition, (b) rejected "out of hand" a bipartisan compromise that he found to be politically unpalatable, and (c) delivered a speech that painted his opponents as the intractable extremists. In light of this behavior, it’s entirely reasonable for Americans to wonder what, precisely, Barack Obama’s proposed solution might be. Today, the White House dismissively waived off that question as a GOP talking point and condescendingly inquired if the journalist who dared to ask it was capable of taking notes.
I’ll close with an unsolicited word of advice, and a friendly reminder from the CBO director. The advice: When you’re already plumbing new depths of unpopularity, dialing up your arrogance isn’t a winning strategy. Even David Brooks finds it unseemly.
By the way, Harry Reid’s plan is purported to show about $2 trillion plus in savings by assuming the wars we’re involved in will cost hundreds of billions a year for 10 years, knowing full well that those wars are wrapping up and wrapping up soon (well except for Libya which seems to have shifted from “weeks not months” to “months not years” at this point).
In other words the usual nonsense from Washington DC. Math tricks which say to anyone who is on to them, “these guys aren’t serious”.
I think this is about 39 seconds or so, but at its end it’ll be clear why it is entirely appropriate for a guy named "Carney" to be the spokesperson for this president.
“Vastly”. That belongs right up there with “gutsy”.