Memorial Day
-
“Happy Memorial Day “ seems to be all you hear in the week prior to
Memorial Day. When the very definition of memorial is to remember, it seems
odd to say ...
9 years ago
- L S. "Spencer" Olsen
- I don't really care if you agree or not. Just saying what I think.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
I have recently been perusing the politico.com website. For those of you not familiar with this website, it is a non-partisan fact-checking website that has been hailed as the "snopes" of politics. But I have to take them to task today for branding a statement by Mitch McConnell - the Republican Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McConnell said the following:
"In just one month, the Democrats have spent more than President Bush spent in seven years on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina combined."
Politico has labeled this as false. The article goes on to explain why this is false. Let me break it down for you.
From the Article (FTA)
"Asked to back up the claim, McConnell spokesman Josh Holmes pinned the Democrats' spending in one month at $818 billion. That's the $31 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program passed in January plus the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February.
That $818 billion exceeds the $655 billion the Defense Department spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2008, plus the $132 billion the government spent responding to Hurricane Katrina, Holmes said. He cited this Government Accountability Office report as the source of the war-spending figure, and the Congressional Research Service for the Katrina figure."
For those who can't or don't want to do math, let me score this for you:
Bush Administration Obama Administration
$787B $818B
So - how does the Politico justify this as a lie? Well, they use what I like to call "Political-Math". Lemme Splain. In math, you might see a linear equation that looks like this:
a + b = c
or
2 + 3 = 5
In "Political-Math" you might see the same equation expressed like this:
a + b -c + c = d
or
2 + 3 - 4 + 4= 1
You will no doubt notice that the "Political Math" (PM) doesn't add up. So let's take a look at the Politico's PM equation.
FTA
"First, about $326 billion of the $787 billion cost of the stimulus is from tax cuts, according to this report by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. That is not generally considered "spending""
Oh Really? So now, all of the sudden, tax cuts are not spending? Well, I have news for you, tax cuts are only tax cuts if they effect people actually paying taxes. Logic dictates that if you are giving tax money to a group of people who are already not paying taxes, then this becomes an expense. I break even just about every year. That means that I end up getting back everything that I have given to the Government. Usually, I get a little more. I would consider anything above what I contributed that I receive back as an expense because it does not wash.
Now let's consider that there are some people (like single people or couples with no kids who are renting) who will be affected by this tax cut. Then it ceases to be an expense. Without further, in-depth analysis, there is no way to determine how much of this $326 billion is actually an expense. So in my opinion, labeling this statement as False is inaccurate. At best, it should be labeled "Half True" or "Mostly True" by the Truth-o-Meter.
What bothers me about this whole thing, is that at this rate, even with the $326 billion subtracted form Obama's $818 billion - the Dems are spending at a rate of $164 billion per month. Bush only spent at a rate of $10 billion per month. Besides, I remember a certain surplus back in 2000 that was "Spent" on tax cuts...
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
