The Washington Post reports:
“Many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime — by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow.”
Obama’s speech at the Democratic convention in Denver was full of costly promises, including expanded health-care coverage ($65 billion annually), increased education spending ($18 billion) and investments in green technology ($15 billion). But it is misleading for him to say he has shown how he will “pay for every dime” of his plans.
According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Democratic proposals would cost the federal budget about $377 billion in 2013. The analysis is based on the Obama campaign’s own figures, including the optimistic assertion that he can save $75 billion a year by closing tax loopholes and $55 billion by initiating a phased withdrawal from Iraq.
Committee President Maya MacGuineas accused both the Obama and McCain campaigns of “wishful budgeting.” She estimates that Obama’s promises to extend most of the Bush tax cuts put in place in 2001 and 2003 and to lessen the bite of the alternative minimum tax would probably cost the U.S. Treasury about $400 billion a year.
It will be worse than the $377 billion. Closing tax loopholes never generates the predicted amount of revenue, and although Obama might save some money (in the short term) by pulling out of Iraq, he has promised to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. And that’s before we even consider the cost if he goes through with his promised invasion of Pakistan.
In the interest of balance, the Post needs a questionable assertion from McCain, but what they came up with is ultra-flimsy:
“Russia’s leaders . . . invaded a small, democratic neighbor to gain more control over the world’s oil supply, intimidate other neighbors and further their ambitions of reassembling the Russian empire.”
McCain’s explanation for the Russian invasion of Georgia is oversimplified in the extreme — and omits an important fact that has never been recognized by the McCain campaign: Georgia attacked first.
The Post is parroting Kremlin propaganda. Oversimplified in the extreme? I would say it’s completely accurate. At worst, it’s a judgement call. Even if you reject Georgia’s claim that Russia actually attacked first (for which there is support), it is undisputed that Russia provoked Georgia and had a massive response moving much more quickly than it could have without prior preparation.
Finally, they conclude with questionable assertions from Biden and Palin, both of which are fair but minor.
Internet Scofflaw 