WaPo: 4 Pinocchios for Obama claim on debt-ceiling negotiations

posted at 12:41 pm on September 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

For those who objected to a recent decision by Glenn Kessler to forgo assignment of Pinocchios to President Obama for his “I didn’t set the red line” statement on Syria, perhaps the latest fact check from the Washington Post will assuage that indignation.  Kessler rips Obama’s claim that attaching non-budgetary items to a debt-ceiling increase was somehow unprecedented, and amounted to an attempt “to extort a president.” Au contraire, Kessler writes:

In 1973, when Richard Nixon was president, Democrats in the Senate, including Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Walter Mondale (D-Minn.), sought to attach a campaign finance reform bill to the debt ceiling after the Watergate-era revelations about Nixon’s fundraising during the 1972 election. Their efforts were defeated by a filibuster, but it took days of debate and the lawmakers were criticized by commentators (and fellow lawmakers) for using “shotgun” tactics to try to hitch their pet cause to emergency must-pass legislation.

President Obama said that GOP lawmakers now are trying to “extort” repeal of the health care law via the debt limit, but that’s also what Democrats wanted to do with President Nixon, who opposed the campaign-finance reforms.

Indeed, Linda K. Kowalcky and Lance T. LeLoup wrote in a comprehensive 1993 studyof the politics of the debt limit, for Public Administration Review,  that “during this period, the genesis of a pattern developed that would eventually become full blown in the mid-1970s and 1980s: the use of the debt ceiling vote as a vehicle for other legislative matters.”

Previously, they noted, the debt limit bill had been linked to the mechanics of debt management, but now anything was fair game. Major changes in Social Security were attached to the debt bill; another controversial amendment sought to end the bombing in Cambodia. Kowalcky and LeLoup list 25 nongermane amendments that were attached to debt-limit bills between 1978 and 1987, including allowing voluntary school prayer, banning busing to achieve integration and proposing a nuclear freeze.

Kessler even offered the White House a chance to comment on the actual history of debt-ceiling battles.  They took a pass, perhaps too embarrassed to comment.  Kessler assigned Obama four Pinocchios, advising him and the White House to “never say never,” at least not without doing some cursory research first.

Furthermore, the fight over ObamaCare most certainly has some relation to both the budget and the debt.  The ACA was barely deficit-neutral for only the first decade of its run under the rosiest of assumptions, and only because it had a three-year head start on tax collections.  With the jobs market shifting to part-time work to avoid the employer mandate and companies dumping their health insurance coverage, the outflow of subsidies will likely outstrip those initial projections and tilt ObamaCare into the red much sooner.

Some of the private-sector shifts should alert policymakers to a better path of reform.  Plenty of people ripped Walgreens for hypocrisy by bailing out of direct coverage for its 160,000 employees at the same time that they’re selling ObamaCare to the public as a partner of the Obama administration.  However, their solution is familiar — and perhaps a good step to real reform, as I argue in my column today at The Fiscal Times:

Ironically, the private exchange concept has been proposed before. It most closely resembles Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed Medicare reform from 2011-2, and has the same purpose: to limit the liability of the third-party payer.  With Medicare, the principle was to limit both the control of government over private health-care choices and the cost of funding them to the government.

Ryan proposed issuing annual subsidies (called “vouchers” by the media) for Medicare recipients to use in a federal exchange to buy approved levels of coverage from private insurers. Ryan argued that this would limit the growth of federal health-care costs in a very predictable and non-interventionist manner, as opposed to the Independent Payment Advisory Board and its “death panel”-like power.

Both Ryan’s rejected reform and the private exchanges have their benefit to consumers, however.  First, both expand choices to the end user; retirees had a lot more options than just government-run insurance, and now employees will get more than just one or two options at open enrollment, with twenty-five plans available in the Aon exchange.

Second, the exchanges should allow employees to keep their plans even if they leave their current employer. That option already exists through COBRA, but that is limited to only one year, as the law requires the employer to manage the plan. This arrangement makes the consumer the customer of the exchanges from the very beginning.  A termination would only impact the subsidy, which the consumer/employee could negotiate as part of his compensation package with his next employer.

In short, this model provides complete portability if handled properly, a goal cited by many reformers but never delivered.  Even more importantly, this provides a step in the right direction for true reform, which is to restore price signals on health care back to the consumer through the elimination of third-party payers and middlemen.

The problem in the ObamaCare environment is the lack of choice and innovation in the exchanges. They will have 25 flavors of one-size-fits-all comprehensive coverage when most working-age Americans don’t need it.  Removing the employer buffer to pricing signals on insurance would be a good first step (and one that ObamaCare pointedly doesn’t take), but we also need better pricing signals and competition from providers.  ObamaCare goes in the exact opposite direction, forcing everyone into government-controlled exchanges to pay for coverage they don’t need in order to subsidize care for others, removing all but the most illusory choices, reinforcing price-signal obstacles and blocking innovation.

Finally, John Boehner’s office has a new video poking fun at Obama’s refusal to negotiate with Republicans on a debt ceiling, but his willingness to negotiate elsewhere. Enjoy.

Update: I took “extort” out of the headline, because that wasn’t the focus of the fact check.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The left still think he sh*ts Beluga.

Some of the media are trying to escape his butt now. Snowden and Syria were simply too much.

Obama: ‘Raising the Debt Ceiling…Does Not Increase Our Debt,’

Aren’t you ashamed to be a part of the same species?

Schadenfreude on September 19, 2013 at 12:45 PM

He is revolting…

OmahaConservative on September 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM

The problem in the ObamaCare environment is the lack of choice and innovation in the exchanges government.

Period!

ShainS on September 19, 2013 at 12:48 PM

At this point, what difference does it make?

Murphy9 on September 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Wow! When the administration has even lost a dishonest partisan hack like Glen Kessler (D-WaPo)…………

That’s going to leave a mark in style points.

Happy Nomad on September 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Kessler even offered the White House a chance to comment on the actual history of debt-ceiling battles. They took a pass, perhaps too embarrassed to comment. Kessler assigned Obama four Pinocchios, advising him and the White House to “never say never,” at least not without doing some cursory research first.

Asking Dear Liar to do some research is racist! I bet he’s been given a pass so often in life that he doesn’t understand that he actually needs to work.

rbj on September 19, 2013 at 12:51 PM

The WaPo should cut out the middleman and start issuing Obamas, i.e. Four Obamas to Obama on the debt ceiling.

Kafir on September 19, 2013 at 12:53 PM

At this point, what difference does it make?

Murphy9 on September 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM

None whatsoever. The thin-skinned rat could show up for the State of the Union wearing a ballgown, tiara, and pearls and decalare that he is the Queen of England. Kessler would give the full four pinnocchios. MSNBC would talk about Obama’s English heritage as a reason why he wasn’t wrong. CNN would do a piece on just how many others have made that claim over history. The WaPo and NYT would do editorials lauding Obama for reaching out to the English people in what has traditionaly been an America-centric speech. Jay Carney would stutter and stammer and say that the President has already said all that needs to be said about the matter.

But nothing would change.

Happy Nomad on September 19, 2013 at 12:54 PM

He is revolting…

OmahaConservative on September 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Why aren’t we?

Midas on September 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM

None whatsoever. The thin-skinned rat could show up for the State of the Union wearing a ballgown, tiara, and pearls and decalare that he is the Queen of England. Kessler would give the full four pinnocchios. MSNBC would talk about Obama’s English heritage as a reason why he wasn’t wrong. CNN would do a piece on just how many others have made that claim over history. The WaPo and NYT would do editorials lauding Obama for reaching out to the English people in what has traditionaly been an America-centric speech. Jay Carney would stutter and stammer and say that the President has already said all that needs to be said about the matter.

But nothing would change.

Happy Nomad on September 19, 2013 at 12:54 PM

And Jennifer Rubin would write an article expressing concern about how conservatives shouldn’t be gleeful that their political adversaries are flailing in the gutter.

Murphy9 on September 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Why aren’t we?

Midas on September 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Good point…

OmahaConservative on September 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Lying Liars Lie, who knew?

D-fusit on September 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The link to the 1993 Kowalcky and LeLoup study is broken. It goes to a different article about the debt limit which was written in 1954.

J.S.K. on September 19, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Finally, John Boehner’s office has a new video poking fun at Obama’s refusal to negotiate with Republicans on a debt ceiling, but his willingness to negotiate elsewhere. Enjoy.

At least Boehner recognizes that the only class enemies Teh SCOAMT has are domestic, and include him. Too bad he sees his role as chief surrenderer.

Steve Eggleston on September 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM

And because many of you may be impacted by O’care, here is a calculator tool by Political Calculations which describes if a consumer is better off paying the tax penalty or the premiums…thought it might be helpful to share out…as for me and my family, I will stick to a health care sharing ministry exempt from Ocraponmecare…

hillsoftx on September 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM

He is revolting…

OmahaConservative on September 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Why aren’t we?

Midas on September 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM

In all honesty, I’m not so sure we are that far off. Especially after yesterday’s dump of IRS targeting documents sinks in a bit more.

Happy Nomad on September 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM

John Boehner’s office has a new video poking fun at Obama’s refusal to negotiate with Republicans on a debt ceiling, but his willingness to negotiate elsewhere.

Love the music choices in the background. Sums up what a worthless lazy stupid partisan bastard is in the White House.

Happy Nomad on September 19, 2013 at 1:17 PM

The soft dictatorship of the President of the United States.

If Congress allows the President (or heck if WE ALLOW the President) to rule by Executive Order then what kind of a Representative republic do we have exactly?

Face it folks. He can do anything he wants in this country and THAT is why he is so arrogant and haughty. THAT is why our Rulers in D.C. despise us, and don’t respect us. Because like lazy fools we keep re-electing their sorry ^%*(&(%&*%^(&*.

We got ourselves in this mess. But are there enough of us that are pissed enough to call and write and protest and throw these bums out in primaries and at the next ballot box?

So what if the government shuts down? He doesn’t care. He has the power and he can then re-make the rules. There is a Constitutional crisis coming don’t kid yourselves. We just have to be prepared for how ugly it could get.

PappyD61 on September 19, 2013 at 1:18 PM

To even allow an 84 IQ moron, who can’t comprehend numbers greater than 20 or perform even basic arithmetic with fractions or percentages, to take part in any discussion about finance is offensive. barky is an idiot who has the mathematical sophistication of a SLOW 8th grader … and yet people let him drone on about finance, which he, obviously, has no clue about and is relegated to doing nothing but repeat lines he learned phonetically and lie his third-world azz off.

Why don’t they ask the imbecile about those dreaded “profit AND earnings ratios”? I’m still wondering WTF they could possibly be … or what sort of idiot thinks that division or a ratio is EVER expressed as “AND”.

If this society had any self-respect, a moron like Barky would never be in charge of anything more complicated than a mop. Seriously.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 19, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Some (most?) of you are going to be tired of seeing me post the following material again, but I think it can’t be repeated often enough, and so far I have yet to hear any national media quote from the Democrats’ 2006 “New Direction” document regarding their stated position on the national debt and deficit spending just seven short years ago…

2006:

Over the past decade, the Republican controlled Congress took our nation in the wrong direction. Too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices: record costs for energy, health care and education; jobs shipped overseas; and budgets that heap record debt on our children. For millions, the middle-class dream has been replaced by a middle-class squeeze…

Democrats are proposing a New Direction for America…

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people….

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

2007:

After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

- New Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 01/04/2007

2008:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

- Barack Obama July 3, 2008

Republican majorities added $4 Trillion to the total national debt over the course of 12 Fiscal Years (FY 1996-2007)

Democrat majorities have added over $8 Trillion to the total national debt over the course of just 6 Fiscal Years (FY 2008-2013).

Democrats, after promising fiscal discipline and no more deficit spending, have done the EXACT OPPOSITE, and have been deficit spending at OVER FOUR TIMES THE RATE of their Republican predecessors.

And remember, the last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President was passed in 2006 for FY 2007 and resulted in a deficit of less than $161 Billion.

Democrats made deficit spending and the national debt a campaign issue in 2006 and won both houses of Congress with promises of fiscal discipline and “no more deficit spending”.

ITguy on September 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM

After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

- New Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 01/04/2007

Every single Democrat that stood and applauded those statements on January 4, 2007 is on record as being for “no new deficit spending” and against burdening future generations with mountains of debt.

Every single one of them should be called out and asked to explain why they are now in favor of raising the debt ceiling to allow the continuation of massive deficit spending.

ITguy on September 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Harvard and Columbia will be doing major face palms in 3, 2, 1…
I know econ is not his area of major expertise (what is?) but shouldn’t he have taken at least one course to be a well rounded graduate? You used to have to take a foreign language, too, but he has enough trouble with English.

Kissmygrits on September 19, 2013 at 1:50 PM

You give this man power in his assigning truth vs lies by linking to him.

He will turn this power against us during the elections.

GardenGnome on September 19, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Anyone have experience with the nightmare called COBRA?

It’s an expensive boondoggle of 3rd party paperwork and delay, at best. Ironically, I was attempting to go through COBRA when changing jobs last year.

I ended up get a better family plan, lower monthly rate – with the same deductible amount.

Just because your employer offers you a program – it doesn’t mean it is the best program for you, once you incur the total cost as an individual or family. You also may end up with more options in network, especially if your corp HQ is in one region of a state, whereas services and in network for you are few and far between.

My company changed dental, out of the blue, giving us a 3 week timetable for the change. In order for dental to be billed, a crown, bridge, etc must be “seated”… we found out the change was due to 2 Execs who were getting a ton of work done and preferred a cosmetic DDS in their immediate area, of which took a dental plan that was useless to most other folks.

They tried to sell us on “well, it will cover pre-existing procedures”… however my DDS didn’t take the new plan, so it was moot.

Ended up paying out of pocket for a plan, that covered limited pre existing waiting period (60 days) and saved about $4,000, due to it being in network.

COBRA and existing company plans aren’t all they are cracked up to be. They appear convenient, but if you do some shopping, you may end up with a much better deal. Local Chamber of Commerce or other Association membership’s also offer HC/dental/vision plans, etc.

Of course in 11 days, and/or next year, all of this will be moot, unless the Rep’s pull up their big boy and big girl pants.

Sorry for another rant, I’m at 1 a week now here.

Odie1941 on September 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM

The only way ACA was ever “deficit-neutral” was through accounting trickery with Medicare funds. In other words, it was never deficit-neutral and was always going to cost Americans to provide low-cost insurance to a supposed 30-million low-income uninsured. It’s just going to cost a whole helluva lot more now.

Kinda like very other “good-intentioned” government safety net.

BKeyser on September 19, 2013 at 2:22 PM

OT: Schadenfreude — Someone has written your biography: Schadenfreude: A Handy Guide to the Glee Found in Others’ Misery (Lawrence Dorfman, Skyhorse Publishing.) Coming out in early November. Publisher blurb:

Scha den freu de: noun, often capitalized \ sha-d n- fro i-d \ Schadenfreude i/ d nfr d / (German: [ a d n f d ]): pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.”Revenge is a dish best served cold.”We’ve all heard the phrase. It was made most famous in the Godfather movies. And some do credit this saying to the Mafia, dating back to the old country of Sicily. Others say it had its origins in Spain. Still others claim it for the Pashtuns, as a precursor to the Afghan way of life. And there are many who say its direct history stems from Kahless the Unforgettable, banished leader of the Klingons.Typically, the Germans beat the rest of the world hands down when it comes to conjuring a specific word that sums it up. And that word is Schadenfreude.Those of us that are human (most of the book-buying public), whether we will admit it or not, have at some point or another gained malicious delight from the misfortune of others. Most often tied to a vaguely biblical outlook, it is a perfect summing up of a perfectly human trait. Nobody wants to admit it, but we all do it . . . and, often times, gleefully.

catsandbooks on September 19, 2013 at 2:27 PM

If anyone thinks obama cares about his lies is a fool. He’s been doing it his whole life and it has gotten him the biggest prize of all, the presidency. He is not going to stop now or ever and that is why no one should ever listen to his words and judge him only by his actions and the results of his actions. When will the press and the people of the world ever learn this truth?

Pardonme on September 19, 2013 at 2:38 PM

And for this whopper from Prezuhdunce Obumuh, will WaPo double it and award 8 Pinocchios?

“Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt…”

stukinIL4now on September 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Debt on 01.20.01: $5,727,776,738,304.64

Debt on 01.19.09: $10,628,881,485,510.23

An increase of: $4,901,104,747,205.59

Debt 01.20.09: $10,626,877,048,913.08

Debt 09.17.13: $16,738,502,722,145.90

An increase of: $6,111,625,673,232.82

Bush was in office for 2,921 days and he deficit spent per day: $1,677,885,911.40.

Obama has been in office for 1,702 days (through 09.17.13) and deficit spends per day: $3,590,849,396.73

Public debt on 01.20.09: $6,307,310,739,681.66

Public debt on 09.17.13: $11,965,887,207,931.11

Obama has increased the debt held by the public by $5,658,576,468,249.45 or 89.72% – EIGHTY-NINE & 72/100 in 1,702 days.

According to Obama’s own White House figures: Eliminating the Bush tax rates on the top 2% is estimated to bring in an annual $80 billion, ceterus paribus. Ending the Bush tax rates on the top 2% will pay for approximately 7.69 days of Federal government spending. Guess who is really going to wind up paying for all of the “free stuff”? YOU. Why? Because the middle class is where the money is. The Federal government is today’s version of Willie Sutton. They rob the middle class because that’s where the money is.

Every man, woman and child’s share of the national debt is now $53,995.17 – that’s a 79.99%— SEVENTY-NINE & 99/100 — INCREASE since Barack Obama’s Imaculation 1,702 days ago.

Total Debt = $16,738,502,722,145.90 and GDP = $16.2027 trillion (est)

Debt-to-GDP = 103.31%

Remember when Obama said this?

‘The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.’

Well, I say this:

‘The problem is that the way Obama has done it in the last 1,702 days is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $10,628,881,485,510.23 from the first 43 presidents t0 $16,738,502,722,145.90.

No. 44 has added $6,111,625,673,232.82 by his lonesome. So we now have over $16,738,502,722,145.90 of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $53,995.17 for every man, woman, and child.

If President Obama called President George W Bush irresponsible and unpatriotic for presiding over a $4,901,104,747,205.59 increase in the national debt over 8 years, then what does he think we should call him for spending $6,111,625,673,232.82 in 1,702 days?

Irresponsible and unpatriotic’ sound too mild in comparison; perhaps, ‘treasonous’ might be a more apt description of Mr Obama’s spending.

- Sophie/ResistWeMuch, 17 September 2012

PS: “But, but, but, FY2009 was Bush’s fault!” No, it wasn’t entirely or even for the most part. There was no Bush FY2009 budget.

PPS: When The Obstructionists Last Controlled Congress…Just Sayin’.

Resist We Much on September 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Benghazi Those amendments happened a long time ago,” said Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney

socalcon on September 19, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Resist We Much on September 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM

For God’s sake. Only lawyers can put details like this together so quickly and honestly, without trying to brown nose, so concisely.

Your comment there should be a pamphlet that every American should have to read before they’re allowed to talk about the GOP budget continuance bill.

smoothsailing on September 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Obama has been in office for 1,702 days (through 09.17.13) and deficit spends per day: $3,590,849,396.73

Unprecedented!

socalcon on September 19, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Date, Total Public Debt Outstanding
9/30/1995 = $4,973,982,900,709.39 ($5 Trillion, last day of Fiscal Year 1995)
9/30/2007 = $9,007,653,372,262.48 ($9 Trillion, last day of Fiscal Year 2007)
04/30/2013 = $16,828,845,497,183.90($16.8 Trillion, only 7 months into FY 2013)
We’ve now had over four months of borrowing under Treasury Secretary Lew’s “extraordinary measures”

When that “extraordinary measures” borrowing, to the tune of approximately $100 Billion per month, is added in, our true Total Debt Outstanding right now is approximately $17.2 Trillion.

Republican majorities were mostly responsible for the FY 1996-2007 budgets, which increased the Total Debt Oustanding from $5 Trillion to $9 Trillion over the course of 12 Fiscal Years.

Republican majorities increased the national debt by $4 Trillion over a span of 12 fiscal years.

Democrat majorities were mostly responsible for the FY 2008-2013 budgets/continuing resolutions, which increased the Total Debt Oustanding from $9 Trillion to $17.2 Trillion over the course of just 6 Fiscal Years.

Democrat majorities increased the national debt by $8.2 Trillion over a span of 6 fiscal years.

Democrats promised “fiscal discipline”.
Democrats promised “no more deficit spending”.
Democrats promised that they would “provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”

Democrats won majority control in the 2006 and 2008 elections in part based on those promises.

And then they took the FY 2007 deficit they inherited (a deficit of less than $161 Billion) and sent spending and deficits skyrocketing, adding more than twice as much debt in less than half the time… i.e., deficit spending at MORE THAN QUADRUPLE the average deficit spending rate of their Republican predecessors.

ITguy on September 19, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Harvard and Columbia will be doing major face palms in 3, 2, 1…
I know econ is not his area of major expertise (what is?) but shouldn’t he have taken at least one course to be a well rounded graduate? You used to have to take a foreign language, too, but he has enough trouble with English.

Kissmygrits on September 19, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Sadly, it is unlikely that Harvard or Columbia retain enough knowledge or integrity to admit Obama’s intellectual incompetence.

talkingpoints on September 19, 2013 at 4:45 PM

‘Toons of the Day: Hey, Barry, Can I Get One Of Those New-Fangled AR-15 Shotguns About Which Piers Morgan, CNN, and MSNBC Were Agog? Exceptional!

Resist We Much on September 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Some (most?) of you are going to be tired of seeing me post the following material again, but I think it can’t be repeated often enough, and so far I have yet to hear any national media quote from the Democrats’ 2006 “New Direction” document regarding their stated position on the national debt and deficit spending just seven short years ago…Democrats made deficit spending and the national debt a campaign issue in 2006 and won both houses of Congress with promises of fiscal discipline and “no more deficit spending”.

ITguy on September 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Every single Democrat that stood and applauded those statements on January 4, 2007 is on record as being for “no new deficit spending” and against burdening future generations with mountains of debt.

Every single one of them should be called out and asked to explain why they are now in favor of raising the debt ceiling to allow the continuation of massive deficit spending.

ITguy on September 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM

And to RWM: you never have to apologize for printing the truth, no matter how many times you do it.

AesopFan on September 20, 2013 at 4:05 PM