<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" Published in the October 2012 issue Never has it been easier to lie outrageously and get away with it. Never has it been easier to disseminate the lies, and never have so many lies had such vast constituencies, utterly convinced of their truth. Some of the lies are easily dispelled. Is Barack Obama an American, eligible to be president? Well, if Hawaii was a state in August of 1961, then yes, Barack Obama is an American, eligible to be president. Is Mitt Romney responsible for the death of a former steelworker&amp;#039;s wife from a cancer diagnosed years after the steelworker lost his job and health insurance? Well, no. Period. Mitt Romney did not kill Joe Soptic&amp;#039;s wife, and it is outrageous to say so.  The easy and obvious lies are not the problem. It&amp;#039;s the other lies, often based on something grounded in reality and exaggerated beyond recognition \u2014 a data point or statistic, say \u2014 that are far more pernicious. These lies stubbornly remain in circulation until they eventually become their own free-floating islands of truth. These lies always find refuge on the Internet, where they are staunchly defended and protected, impervious to the truth. Here, as a service to clarity and sanity, is the story of the Obama administration in raw, irreducible numbers. The unspun numbers sometimes benefit the administration, and sometimes they do not, but they always act as a corrective to the serial crimes against the truth that are playing out daily in the ongoing election fight \u2014 served up by the White House, the campaigns, the billionaires and their unaccountable super-PAC money, a million screaming blogs, and the unholy propaganda machine that is Fox News.  Enjoy. STIMULUS / FINANCIAL CRISIS  It is impossible to overstate the depth of the disaster that Barack Obama inherited the day in January 2009 when he put his hand on the Bible, mangled his oath of office, and became the unluckiest man ever to assume the title of President of the United States. The U. S. economy was hemorrhaging jobs \u2014 it lost 818,000 jobs that month alone, and it would lose 4.2 million more over the course of that year. Add to that the 3.6 million jobs lost in 2008, with unemployment expected to continue to rise as far into the future as anyone could see, and the American economy was in free fall. Economists were looking at a $2 trillion &amp;quot;output gap&amp;quot; (Fig. A, below) between where the gross domestic product should have been and where it actually would be. And over the previous eight years, the federal government had added more than $2 trillion to the gross national debt, which is noteworthy considering we had a Republican president who began with a budget surplus and, for six of those eight years, a Republican-led Congress claiming to be deeply committed to fiscal restraint.  And so, at the height of his personal popularity, with more political capital than he would ever subsequently enjoy, this is what Obama did (Fig. B). And the same Republican leaders who had spent the previous eight years enacting $2 trillion in tax cuts and new spending decided that this would be the time to rein in spending. They voted in lockstep against the stimulus package, even as some would go on to take credit for those spending projects back in their states and districts.    WHAT THEY SAY:   Brendan Smialowski/Getty  &amp;quot;The truth of the matter is that, as I&amp;#039;ve said, we&amp;#039;ve created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we&amp;#039;re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.&amp;quot;  \u2014President Obama, June 8, 2012   Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call  &amp;quot;Our unemployment rate has been higher than 8 percent for more than two and a half years, far above what the Obama administration promised with the &amp;#039;stimulus.&amp;#039; &amp;quot;  \u2014House Speaker John Boehner, October 7, 2011 The Speaker speaks the truth. A few weeks before Obama assumed office, a report issued by his incoming economic team projected that should Congress pass the president-elect&amp;#039;s stimulus plan, unemployment likely would not exceed 8 percent, and that failure to pass the stimulus bill could see unemployment reach as high as 11 percent. But even with the plan in place, unemployment reached a 26-year high of 10 percent before settling in just above 8 percent, where it has stubbornly remained. The president and his top advisors have since stated that they all underestimated the severity of the crisis and acknowledged the failure of their projections.   Mark Wilson/Getty  &amp;quot;The Recovery Act alone is viewed by outside economists as having saved or created over 3 million jobs.&amp;quot; \u2014White House press secretary Jay Carney, July 12, 2012   Brendan Smialowski/Getty  &amp;quot;There are almost a half a million more people unemployed today than four years ago.&amp;quot; \u2014Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, July 8, 2012 HEALTH CARE For as sweeping and revolutionary as it&amp;#039;s reputed to be, the health-care plan really has quite modest core proposals. Everyone has to have health insurance. If you can&amp;#039;t afford it, the government will help you pay for it, and if you don&amp;#039;t want it, you&amp;#039;ll have to pay a small penalty (or tax, or whatever) to compensate the rest of us should you find yourself in the emergency room and we&amp;#039;re stuck with the bill. Insurance companies, for their part, can&amp;#039;t refuse you coverage if you&amp;#039;re already sick. That, more or less, is what we&amp;#039;re talking about with both Mitt Romney&amp;#039;s health-care reforms in Massachusetts and Barack Obama&amp;#039;s near-identical scaling-up at the national level, and when broken down thusly, you realize that the high drama surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act has not so much to do with sickness or health. It&amp;#039;s simply another round in the age-old game of &amp;quot;Who Needs Government?&amp;quot; Or rather, it is another round in the fight between public interests and private interests, with the winner often being the one who demagogues best.  WHAT THEY SAY:    &amp;quot;Because of the new law, 34 million more Americans will gain coverage \u2014 many who will be able to afford insurance for the first time. Once the law is fully implemented, about 95 percent of Americans under age 65 will have insurance.&amp;quot; \u2014BarackObama.com   Carston Koall/Getty  &amp;quot;Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare \u2014 cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion, and even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt and pushes those obligations onto coming generations.&amp;quot; \u2014Mitt Romney, June 28, 2012 &amp;quot;The facts are clear: The health-care law provides a significant tax cut, averaging about $,000 for more than 18 million middle-class people and families \u2014 a tax cut Republicans in Washington are vowing to repeal, socking it to the middle class once again.&amp;quot; \u2014White House advisor David Plouffe, June 29, 2012 &amp;quot;What we really have here is a bill that, without question, will kill jobs, will limit access to health care, will raise taxes, and will lead to a government takeover of health care.&amp;quot; \u2014Senator Roy Blunt, July 14 2009 BENEFITS: 30 million: The number of additional people expected to gain health-care coverage by 2022 through the establishment of private exchanges and expansion of Medicaid and Children&amp;#039;s Health Insurance Program. 57.2 million: The number of people under 65 with a preexisting condition who will have access to health care due to the ACA. 105 million: The number of people who will no longer contend with lifetime caps on health insurance. 3 million: The number of people who will not get health coverage due to the Supreme Court&amp;#039;s decision regarding the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion.  30 million: The number of people predicted to remain uninsured in 2022.  BASIC NUMBERS: $1.7 trillion: The projected cost of the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA through 2022, including $1 trillion for the cost of subsidies to the newly established exchanges, through which individuals and families may purchase insurance; $642 billion in increased outlays for Medicaid and the Children&amp;#039;s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); and $23 billion in tax credits for certain small employers. $514 billion: The total projected revenue from the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA through 2022, including $55 billion in tax penalties from individuals and families who go without insurance and $117 billion from large employers \u2014 those with 50 employees or more \u2014 who provide no coverage or inadequate coverage to employees; and a variety of new taxes. $700 billion: The total projected savings, over the coming decade, of the Medicare-reform provisions of the ACA. $210 billion: The total projected reductions to federal budget deficits over the decade following the ACA&amp;#039;s enactment. $109 billion: The total amount that would be added to federal budget deficits over the next decade in the event of an ACA repeal. TAXES/PENALTIES: 0.9%: Increase in amount wealthy individuals (earning &amp;amp;gt; $200,000) and/or families ( &amp;amp;gt; $250,000) will start paying into Medicare from their income. 3.8%: New tax on a portion of investment income for high-income taxpayers.  10%: New tax on indoor tanning services. $2,500: Limit on the tax-deductible amount a worker may contribute to a flexible spending plan. 40%: Excise tax on employer-provided, high-premium insurance plans. (Starts in 2018.) $95, or 1% of taxable income (whichever is higher): The penalty (or tax, or mandate) an individual must pay if he does not possess health insurance, beginning in 2014. (This number gradually rises to $695 in 2016.) AUTO BAILOUT  WHAT THEY SAY:   Charles Dharapak/AP Photo  &amp;quot;If any of the Republicans running for president now had been president in 2009, autoworkers wouldn&amp;#039;t be on the assembly line today, they&amp;#039;d be on the unemployment line.&amp;quot; \u2014White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, June 3, 2011    &amp;quot;Instead of the free market doing what it does best, we got a major taste of crony capitalism, Obama-style.&amp;quot;\u2014Mitt Romney, February 14, 2012 Conservatives like to say that Obama seized control of the auto industry in pursuit of his socialist agenda, and that GM now stands for &amp;quot;Government Motors.&amp;quot; But the truth is that there was no takeover. Rather, Washington loaned money to Detroit, and those loans actually began with President Bush. In the fall of 2008 and winter of 2009, the Treasury Department made emergency loans to General Motors, Chrysler, and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC). For years, those companies had been plagued by falling sales and crippling debt, and many experts (auto executives and government economists, Democrats and Republicans) feared that they could not survive without help. A standard talking point against intervention\u2014 to let the companies declare bankruptcy and undergo restructuring\u2014 ignores two facts: Nobody at the time was willing to loan those companies any more money, and bankruptcy would have rattled the markets and shaken an already devastated economy. CHRYSLER $12.5 billion: Amount loaned to Chrysler. $11.2 billion: Amount returned to taxpayers through principal repayments, interest, sale of stock, and canceled commitments.  $2.9 billion: Amount that will not be recovered due, in part, to a decision by the Obama administration to forgive a portion of the original $4 billion loan extended to Chrysler by the previous administration. GENERAL MOTORS $49.5 billion: Amount loaned to General Motors. $22.5 billion: Amount repaid to taxpayers so far. $27 billion: Amount still to be repaid. (Treasury holds 500 million shares of GM stock; if sold, they would be worth about $12 billion, resulting in a $14.2 billion loss.) TOTAL AMOUNT OF LOANS $79.7 billion invested, loaned, or spent. Total amount still outstanding: $44.5 billion.  Total amount that will never be recovered: $2.9 billion (with potential to rise to between $14 and $23 billion, depending on when and at what price the U. S. Treasury sells its stake in General Motors). FEDERAL SPENDING GROWTH  The Obama administration cites an annualized spending growth rate of only 1.4 percent (the lowest since Eisenhower, they hasten to add). That estimate, however, leaves out much of the spending in 2009, crediting it to the previous administration. The 2009 budget was signed by President Bush, though President Obama added to it with emergency measures early in his term. Estimates of the annual growth rate that include the spending of 2009 put the rate closer to 5.2 percent.  WHAT THEY SAY:   Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty  &amp;quot;The rate of spending \u2014 federal spending \u2014 increase is lower under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors.&amp;quot; \u2014White House press secretary Jay Carney, May 23, 2012    &amp;quot;Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history, taking us from an already staggering $3.5 trillion in federal spending in 2010 to a projected $5.6 trillion within the next decade.&amp;quot;  \u2014 MittRomney.com MEDICARE  Ah, Medicare. Or &amp;quot;Medi-scare,&amp;quot; as it&amp;#039;s known if you&amp;#039;re losing the argument. The Republicans have refashioned their position vis-\u00E0-vis the program from one of opposition for most of its history to supporting Bush&amp;#039;s massive new drug benefit to now being the self-described saviors and strengtheners of the program. The numbers tell a different story.  WHAT THEY SAY:    &amp;quot;I have strengthened Medicare. I have made reforms that have saved millions of seniors with Medicare hundreds of dollars on their prescription drugs.&amp;quot; \u2014Barack Obama, August 15, 2012   Gerardo Mora/Getty   &amp;quot;This is a debate we want to have. We are the ones who are offering a plan to save Medicare, to strengthen Medicare.&amp;quot; \u2014Paul Ryan, August 14, 2012  DEBT/DEFICIT/SPENDING  Five trillion dollars is a lot of money, and Mitt Romney is correct when he says that this is what Obama&amp;#039;s share of the national debt comes to. Would the economy be in far worse shape right now had that $5 trillion (in the form of stimulus spending and, yes, tax cuts for individuals and businesses) not been spent, as Obama and his supporters argue? Or should the government have boldly slashed spending to meet already falling tax revenue in the name of austerity, as the Republican establishment has proposed? We hesitate to provide an answer, and besides, we don&amp;#039;t truck in what-ifs \u2014 but we invite you to ask the good people of the euro zone how austerity measures have worked out for them.    WHAT THEY SAY:   Chip Somodevilla/Getty   &amp;quot;President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the typical middle-class family. Republican plans will raise taxes on middle-class families to give millionaires and billionaires a $250,000 tax cut.&amp;quot;  \u2014White House Advisor David Plouffe, June 29, 2012    &amp;quot;When you add up his policies, this president has increased the national debt by $5 trillion.&amp;quot;  \u2014Mitt Romney, May 15, 2012 GUN OWNERSHIP  The NRA&amp;#039;s Wayne LaPierre says that Obama is coming for our guns, and you routinely hear that from Republicans in Congress, too, in spite of zero evidence to support the claim and a record-high 47 percent of households maintaining weapons. But as Stephen Colbert says, &amp;quot;The total lack of evidence is all the evidence I need.&amp;quot; WHAT THEY SAY:    &amp;quot;[The President] believes we need to take steps that protect Second Amendment rights of the American people but that ensure that we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by existing law, obtain those weapons.&amp;quot; \u2014White House press secretary Jay Carney, July 22, 2012   Brendan Hoffman/Getty   &amp;quot;All [the president&amp;#039;s] first-term lip service to gun owners is part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment \u2014 during his second term!&amp;quot; \u2014Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, February 10, 2012 ENERGY POLICY  With criticism centering on the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline and the temporary shutdown of new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the catastrophic BP spill, it has become popular in conservative circles to correlate domestic oil production with gas prices. But domestic production is actually up since the previous administration. In fact, domestic production is at its highest level in more than 20 years, and foreign imports are at their lowest level since the mid-1990s.  WHAT THEY SAY:   Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty   &amp;quot;The president...should be held fully responsible for what the American public is paying for gasoline.&amp;quot; \u2014Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming ), March 13, 2012 MILITARY SPENDING  Since World War II, the U. S. military has been configured to fight two large-scale (and very expensive) ground wars at the same time. Since September 11, 2001, the U. S. military budget has doubled. The proposed cuts to defense spending \u2014 which originated in an act of Congress, by the way, not a dictate from the White House \u2014 are both a reaction to the changing nature of how we wage war (fewer big Army divisions and aircraft carriers, more Special-Ops forces and drones) and a recognition that there just might be a bit of fat to cut in a $500 billion-plus annual budget. WHAT THEY SAY:    &amp;quot;I think it&amp;#039;s important for all Americans to remember, over the past ten years, since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace. Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration.&amp;quot;  \u2014President Obama, January 5, 2012    &amp;quot;Your insistence on slashing our military to pay the tab for your irresponsible spending could see over 200,000 troops forced from service....Mr. President, our troops, military families, and veterans want to know why defense is the only part of the federal budget you are willing to cut. They deserve better.&amp;quot; \u2014Mitt Romney, July 13, 2012 INCOME INEQUALITY From 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. From 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 65 percent for the top 20 percent of the population with the highest income. From 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 18 percent for the poorest 20 percent of the population. Mitt Romney proposes a 20 percent across-the-board cut to individual income-tax rates, and elimination of many deductions. The result: A 4.1 percent after-tax income increase among individuals earning more than $1 million a year. A 1.2 percent after-tax income decrease among individuals earning less than $200,000. Ninety-five percent of Americans would see their taxes rise by an average of $500 annually. Millionaires would see an average tax cut of $87,000. (Source: CBO/TPC) SOURCE KEY: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); Center for Automotive Research (CAR); Congressional Budget Office (CBO); Department of Defense (DOD); Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Department of the Treasury; Energy Information Administration (EIA); Families USA (FUSA); Gallup; Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (RATB); Tax Policy Center (TPC). "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a15789/obama-by-the-numbers-1012/>