Share This Page

Promises, promises

| Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Now that the president's second inauguration is over and we've received our first couple of paychecks of the new year, it's time for some sober comparisons of campaign promises and economic reality.

President Obama promised that there would be no tax increases on the middle class. “Not one dime,” he said.

Well, it wasn't one dime. It was 400 dimes. Every two weeks. Since Jan. 1, the median American household's take-home pay has been about $40 lighter because of increased taxes on the middle class. That's a tank of gas or several days of food that the government will be taking from middle-class paychecks every two weeks from now on.

Obama also promised that spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus programs would likely create “3 or 4 million” jobs. Instead, we have 3 million fewer jobs today than in 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The strongest force driving down the unemployment rate isn't jobs. It's the former workers who are dropping off the unemployment rolls because they have been out of work for so long that the Census Bureau is no longer counting them. The official unemployment rate is 7.8 percent, but if we add the people who no longer are being counted, the real figure is closer to 12 percent.

Obama promised that the stimulus spending would be temporary. Instead, that massive increase in spending has become a permanent fixture — not a stimulus at all, but a permanent growth in government that adds more than $1 trillion a year to our national debt, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The president told us that he would make health insurance affordable. The annual cost of health insurance for the average family has risen $2,000 since 2010, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Obama told us we must raise the debt ceiling. Otherwise, the government wouldn't be able to pay senior citizens and veterans, and it would be forced to default on the debt. But that isn't true.

By law, the interest on the debt gets paid first. Mandatory spending gets paid next: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits and the like. Only then may the government pay for discretionary spending — things like politicians' salaries, ethanol subsidies, public works projects and grants for the performing arts. The elderly were never threatened. It was special-interest spending that was threatened. That is the real reason Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling.

To understand Obama's tortured relationship with the truth, look at a campaign promise he made the first time he ran for president. Then, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first year in office. Instead, according to the White House, he has increased the national debt by more than $5 trillion.

To add insult to injury, he couldn't even manage to keep his promise that, if he didn't turn the economy around within three years, he'd be a one-term president.

Obama is not alone. Politicians of both parties are more interested in equivocation and spin than in substance. But when politicians lie, taxpayers pay the price. What's different now is that taxpayers have reached the end of what they can afford.

Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University and an affiliated senior scholar at the Mercatus Center. James Harrigan is a fellow of the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.