Romney Lies, President Misleads
Fact Checking Results:  Obama 1 Romney 0

The New York Times did a great job fact checking the first debate...a must read.  I provide an overview of it here.

Perhaps the most startling statement came in the first exchange.  Everyone knows that Romney has promised a tax cut, and that his only real specific has been it will include a 20% reduction in all marginal tax rates (and that part alone will result in a $5 trillion tax cut).  The question has always been how would he pay for it, since he also promised to do this without increasing debt.  Romney’s startling response:  my tax plan does not include a $5 trillion tax cut!  And these are not the droids you are looking for.  Is there no electoral penalty for such hubris?

Romney’s claims about an unelected Medicare board were incorrect and, since Congress can block any action by the board, even the unelected part is grossly misleading. Romney’s claim that he will create 12 million new jobs is the same number of new jobs already projected to be created in the next four years. 

Romney’s claim that half of the green companies have failed turns out to be 3 out of 36.  And while Romney strongly denied that he would cut educational spending, he has said exactly that more than once during the current campaign.  There is a disturbing pattern here.

Romney repeated the Tea Party line that health care reform is a government takeover.  This line is misleading at best, though this fact checker (meaning me) concludes it is without merit.  It is a lie repeated to confuse and mislead and that is the opposite of good leadership.  Here is how the NYT fact checkers discussed it.

“The 2010 health care law clearly expands the role of the federal government. But it also builds on the foundation of private health insurance, providing subsidies for millions of low- and moderate-income people to buy private insurance.

Under the law, close to 30 million Americans are expected to gain health coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office….  In addition, the federal government would subsidize the purchase of private insurance for millions of people with incomes up to four times the poverty level (up to $92,200 for a family of four).

Private insurers would thus have many new customers….  The federal share of all health spending is expected to rise to more than 31 percent, from slightly less than 29 percent.”

Private insurance companies will still be the providers, increasing profits by covering more people, increasing the uniformity of coverage by industry-wide standards (cover pre-existing, not lifetime limit) that allow them to do the right thing without losing market share to less honorable competitors. 

But the key is that this is still an private sector approach…one that build on an American tradition of public-private collaborations that build the railroads, highways, the internet, space program, public education and more.  The fact checkers go on to add…

“When Mr. Romney and other Republicans complain of a federal takeover, they are referring to more than spending and enrollment in government health programs. They say the new health care law will require most Americans to purchase “government-approved insurance” or pay a new tax.”

If they mean spending increases from a 29% share to 31% that does not constitute a takeover.  If they mean the government will provide insurance… that is simply untrue. If they mean we will come together around the private sector idea of insurance…the bigger the pool of participants the lower the costs for everyone…then they are correct, but this will still be through insurance provided through private companies making a profit on a stronger system serving more citizens.

This fact checker concludes, then, that the claim of a government take-over is without empirical foundation.  It is a red herring designed to derail the serious problem solving conversations we need to have.  It is an idea that advertises one side’s willingness to remain resolutely committed to positions that advance their narrow private interests at the expense of the public interest, no matter how distant from the truth or harmful to the economy.

Romney’s very dramatic criticism of Dodd-Frank turns out to be a point that both Democrats and Republicans have made about an area of the law they are concerned will not work and needs to be fixed.  Romney, however, portrayed this as the president’s party intentionally selecting five banks as too big to fail in order to “write them a blank check.” 

This is misleading, since the designation in the law comes with additional regulatory oversight and a requirement that each institution create a living will to outline how the government would manage their collapse if a future shock requires it.  There is concern that this provision will not work and anyone who remembers how hard Republicans fought against financial regulation with real teeth can only be puzzled by Romney’s sudden claim that he would want more regulatory teeth.

Two figures on the amount of oil subsidies, but only the president’s figure has appeared in the last three budgets.  $90 billion to green companies is correct, but these loans and even the Solyndra fiasco had bi-partisan support in Congress.  It is true that the Obama administration contributed to Solyndra mess in part because supporting them made political sense for the party rather than economic sense for the country. That is a failure of leadership.

Romney’s dramatic claim, repeated several times, that the president is cutting $716 billion from Medicare has been repeatedly debunked and is debunked again in the article referred to here.  Yet he continues to repeat it.  This is not making a point where there is honest disagreement.  This is knowingly repeating an untruth, over and over.

Obama repeated his claim that his plan will cut deficits by $4 trillion over ten years.  Some analysts agree, most do not.  The disagreement here is over whether or not to include spending saved by ending two wars, for instance, and there are at least two legitimate positions on this.  While it is not standard practice to include savings like this, it is also true that the president’s success at ending the wars will save us those amounts.  I wish the president would say this differently (‘will reduce deficits by $2.4 trillion, and when you include savings from…’).

Romney claimed the president had doubled the deficit…untrue.  In dollars it is about the same and as a percentage of the economy (the usual measure) it is lower.  I have just provided a taste here… check out the NYT fact checkers extremely detailed analysis of dozens of claims made in the first debate.  I highly recommend it.

Or, check out the two most highly respected organizations that focus on fact checking and then make your own call...My call is Obama 1 Romney 0.