XPost: dc.urban-planning, wa.politics   
   From: impeach_obama@yahoo.com   
      
   A version of this column appeared in the print edition of The   
   Washington Post.   
      
   A State of the Union address is often difficult to fact-check,   
   no matter who is president. The speech is a product of many   
   hands and is carefully vetted, so major errors of fact are   
   relatively rare. But State of the Union addresses often are very   
   political speeches, an argument for the president’s policies, so   
   context is sometimes missing.   
      
   Here is a guide through some of President Obama’s more fact-   
   challenged claims, in the order in which he made them. As is our   
   practice with live events, we do not award Pinocchio rankings,   
   which are reserved for complete columns.   
      
   “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created   
   over 6 million new jobs.”   
      
   The president is cherry-picking a number that puts the   
   improvement in the economy in the best possible light. The low   
   point in jobs was reached in February 2010, and there has indeed   
   been a gain of about 6 million jobs since then, according to   
   Bureau of Labor Statistics data. But the data also show that   
   since the start of his presidency, about 1.2 million jobs have   
   been created — and the number of jobs in the economy is about   
   3.2 million lower than when the recession began in December 2007.   
      
   “We buy … less foreign oil than we have in 20 [years].”   
      
   This claim lacks context. The Energy Department has cited a host   
   of reasons why foreign oil imports have declined, noting the   
   main reason was “a significant contraction in consumption”   
   because of the poor economy and changes in efficiency that began   
   “two years before the 2008 crisis” — in other words, before   
   Obama took office.   
      
   “Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to   
   reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion — mostly through   
   spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1   
   percent of Americans. As a result, we are more than halfway   
   towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that   
   economists say we need to stabilize our finances.”   
      
   This is debatable, depending on how you do the numbers. Many   
   budget analysts measure the decline in deficits from August 2010   
   — which was a high point for spending. (Obama’s $2.5 trillion   
   figure adds in interest savings from reducing anticipated debts,   
   which is different from actually cutting spending or adding   
   revenue.)   
      
   But agreement starts to break down quickly about the $4 trillion   
   goal, which translates to just $1.5 trillion in additional work.   
   The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in a recent   
   report, argued that $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction over 10   
   years has been enacted so far, including tax increases, but that   
   another $2.4 trillion was needed to reduce the ratio of debt to   
   gross domestic product to 70 percent. The left-leaning Center on   
   Budget and Policy Priorities argues instead that $1.5 trillion   
   is needed to achieve a 73 percent ratio. Those numbers could   
   have real-world consequences for government programs.   
      
   “On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve   
   the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the   
   next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-   
   Bowles commission.”   
      
   This carefully crafted phrase recently earned the president a   
   prized Geppetto Checkmark. Obama wants us to compare the savings   
   in 2022. Granted, that would be six years after Obama’s second   
   term ends. But administration officials argue that changes in   
   health-care policies take time to achieve budget savings, and   
   that the right mix can produce greater savings in the long run.   
      
   Using Congressional Budget Office estimates of the president’s   
   budget, we see that over 10 years, Obama’s proposals would   
   achieve $337 billion from 2013 to 2022, compared to $483 billion   
   for Bowles-Simpson in the same time period. (Bowles-Simpson, or   
   more accurately the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility   
   and Reform, is considered by many in Washington to be the model   
   for a bipartisan approach for deficit reduction.)   
      
   However, in 2022, both would achieve exactly the same amount of   
   savings — $68 billion.   
      
   Administration officials say they believe their proposals would   
   achieve greater savings than Bowles-Simpson after 2022, which   
   would be consistent with the increase in savings toward the end   
   of the first 10-year budget window.   
      
   “Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140   
   to our economy.”   
      
   This interesting factoid comes from this 2011 study, which we   
   have not had a chance to fully study. But about two-thirds of   
   the calculated impact comes from “indirect impacts" and “induced   
   impacts” (see page ES-3) — which is always the subject of debate   
   and conjecture.   
      
   “After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers   
   have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three.”   
      
   Obama again is cherry-picking a jobs number. The low point for   
   manufacturing jobs was reached in January 2010, and so there has   
   been a gain of 500,000 jobs since then. But BLS data show that   
   the number of manufacturing jobs is still 600,000 fewer than   
   when Obama took office in the depths of the recession — and 1.8   
   million fewer than when the recession began in December 2007.   
      
   Moreover, growth in manufacturing jobs has essentially stalled   
   since last July.   
      
   “I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living   
   equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness   
   Act this year.”   
      
   There is clearly a wage gap, but differences in the life choices   
   of men and women — such as women tending to leave the workforce   
   when they have children — make it difficult to make simple   
   comparisons.   
      
   The administration’s back-up document for this statement   
   asserted that “on average women generally make 23 cents on the   
   dollar less than men.” But the White House is using a figure   
   (annual wages, from the Census Bureau) that makes the disparity   
   appear the greatest. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for   
   instance, shows that the gap is 19 cents when looking at weekly   
   wages. The gap is even smaller when you look at hourly wages —   
   it is 14 cents — but then not every wage earner is paid on an   
   hourly basis, so that statistic excludes salaried workers.   
      
   In other words, since women in general work fewer hours than men   
   in a year, the statistics used by the White House may be less   
   reliable for examining the key focus of the legislation — wage   
   discrimination. Weekly wages is more of an apples-to-apples   
   comparison, but it does not include as many income categories.   
      
   Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis surveyed   
   economic literature and concluded that “research suggests that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)