AP SOTU FACT CHECK: Obama and His Imbalanced Ledger

[Peter Pan]

Lots of hot air this evening and the President does not want to cut spending, as there were no specifics


AP SOTU FACT CHECK: Obama and His Imbalanced Ledger
Posted on January 25, 2011 at 10:37pm by Scott Baker Print » Email » WASHINGTON (AP) — The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other. Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech.

He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed “we redouble these efforts.“ He coupled this with a call to ”freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.”

But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

For example, he said he wants to eliminate “billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.” Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

A look at some of Obama’s statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit “means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit.”



THE FACTS: The idea that Obama’s health care law saves money for the government is based on assumptions that are arguable, at best.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office’s analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there’s little reason to think that will change.

___

OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include “earmarks,” pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. “Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.”

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.

It’s a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: “Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that‘s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination,” he said then.

___

OBAMA: “I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.

Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to study the issue.

Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.

___

OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration’s diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government “faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before.”

THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama’s promise one year ago that Iran would face “growing consequences” if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn’t say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jim Drinkard, Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

[Exotix]

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama’s health care law saves money for the government is based on assumptions that are arguable, at best.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office’s analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there’s little reason to think that will change.

Let me know how Paul Ryans Healthcare coupons work out for you ... you can get up to 25% off your $13,000 hospital bill should you be able to get a private healthcare policy ... all part of balancing the budget by cutting $2.5 Trillon starting with programs that throw grandma out on the street ... or Death Panel ...

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Let me know how Paul Ryans Healthcare coupons work out for you ... you can get up to 25% off your $13,000 hospital bill should you be able to get a private healtcare policy ... all part of balancing the budget by cutting $2.5 Trillon starting with programs that throw grandma out on the street ... or Death Panel ...

You are so full of hot air, lets take this on Healthcare, I pay for mine and this year when I had a serious car accident, that was more than my car policy, you know what it worked and the insurance company is not dropping me. I have chosen to carry HC prior to needing it. Even with my business in the dumps I chose to cut back on other items and keep my HC and not ask for Govt assistance with my situation. Oh what I see everyday in my business is someone who calls me and wants to buy insurance that does not carry any and 50% of the time it is when they become sick. So what they want is to not carry any when healthy and when they have an issue is to call the insurance carrier and be insured for there pre-x. This is kind of like when I wrecked my car, (I carried car insurance) I call USAA or any other insurance carrier and say I need insurance and BTW I totaled my car please fix it or replace it.

I do believe that those that carry HC should be able to shop other carriers and switch and buy insurance with pre-x covered if done with no gap of 63 days. Other wise they need to only go into the National Risk Pool, offered in Texas and this policy suc%s at best, the individual needs to stay there. This will work great as the individual will be responsible for lots of there HC, oh this is the Obama law on the current plan.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

You are so full of hot air, lets take this on Healthcare, I pay for mine and this year when I had a serious car accident, that was more than my car policy, you know what it worked and the insurance company is not dropping me. I have chosen to carry HC prior to needing it. Even with my business in the dumps I chose to cut back on other items and keep my HC and not ask for Govt assistance with my situation. Oh what I see everyday in my business is someone who calls me and wants to buy insurance that does not carry any and 50% of the time it is when they become sick. So what they want is to not carry any when healthy and when they have an issue is to call the insurance carrier and be insured for there pre-x. This is kind of like when I wrecked my car, (I carried car insurance) I call USAA or any other insurance carrier and say I need insurance and BTW I totaled my car please fix it or replace it.

I do believe that those that carry HC should be able to shop other carriers and switch and buy insurance with pre-x covered if done with no gap of 63 days. Other wise they need to only go into the National Risk Pool, offered in Texas and this policy suc%s at best, the individual needs to stay there. This will work great as the individual will be responsible for lots of there HC, oh this is the Obama law on the current plan.

Don't take my word for it ... Here's what (R) reforms looks like ... known as socialism ...



A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

[Peter Pan]

The plan ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure affordable health plans that best suit their needs, and shifting the ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals

What is Socalist about this statement? Looks like choice, not Govt run

[Y2Kvert4me]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Don't take my word for it ... Here's what (R) reforms looks like ... known as socialism ...

If that's your definition of Socialism, then you'll agree the current rendition we are currently fuk'd with is Communism.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

The plan ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure affordable health plans that best suit their needs, and shifting the ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals

What is Socalist about this statement? Looks like choice, not Govt run

Originally Posted by Y2Kvert4me

If that's your definition of Socialism, then you'll agree the current rendition we are currently fuk'd with is Communism.

I like this statement ...

• Equips states with tools like auto-enrollment programs and high-risk pools, so affordable health coverage can be accessed by all.

I have no idea what this means but it sounds socialist ... like, how does a bankrupt state set up this program ... sounds like a logistical nightmare that will end up like a medicare clinic ... let me guess, tax breaks for privatized health care and charge it to the deficit ...

[Y2Kvert4me]

Originally Posted by Exotix

I have no idea what this means

Unlike the Prez, Paul Ryan didn't come from a bankrupt state that experienced the natural result of decades of self-serving political corruption.

[VITE1]

Vite 1 to BHO

You lie
Again and again and again.