Three years ago this month, Barack Obama made a public promise: “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office,” the new president said. The president reiterated his promise here, and here. In fact, Obama was repeating his commitment as late as December 2009, which is terribly inconvenient for those who say the president’s original broken promise can be forgiven because “there was a deeper hole to dig out of than anyone could have envisioned in January 2009.”
In fact, Obama and his team knew how deep the hole was in February 2009. But certainly by December 2009 – 11 months after he had been sworn in – it was clear to all the world just how deep the hole was.
For the record, at the time Obama promised to cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his first term the deficit was $1.4 trillion. Yesterday we learned Obama’s own budget estimates an end-of-term budget deficit of $1.33 trillion. Which means the president not only didn’t break his promise; he shattered it into roughly 700 billion pieces.
That would be bad enough. What makes it worse is the Obama administration is simply denying the promise is broken.
On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace played a video clip of Obama’s promise to cut the deficit in half. He then said to his guest, White House chief of staff Jack Lew, “Mr. Lew, the president isn’t close to keeping his promise to cut the deficit in half.”
Lew didn’t address this in his response. So Wallace tried again. “Would you agree that he didn’t keep the promise?”
To which Lew said, “No.”
Now there are some things that are legitimate matters of interpretation (for example, how effective or ineffective the stimulus package has been). But his is not one of them. That Obama broke his promise is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of mathematics.
Let’s see if we can help the Obama White House, shall we? To go from a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion to $1.33 trillion is not cutting the deficit in half. And to deny that a promise to do so has been broken is what is sometimes referred to as “dishonest.” Or, if you like, a “lie.”
It is also another example of the post-modernism of the Obama White House. Obama and his aides seem to believe facts mean nothing and “narrative” means everything. In other words, they can make it up as they go along. Now the systematic deconstruction of truth is something that happens fairly frequently in college liberal arts courses across America. But it’s something that is far more unusual to see in an American president.
Obama is basing his re-election on the premise that the American people are as indifferent to truth and facts as he is. I’m guessing he’s wrong, but we’ll know soon enough.
Its not that the American people are indifferent to truth and facts, it is that they are no longer able to distringuish truth from lie because it is hard and messy and psychologically painful to iimpute such bad acts to a man like Obama (good looking, smart, family man, African American, etc.). Plus, a ton of people–probably a majority or nearly so–have a financial incentive to believe Obama–they are dependent on government in one way or another. So the real truth is that the truth does not really matter. Which means that the only viable political strategy is to hammer away at both Obama's credibility and his motivies. Only when people really start to question him as a person will he be politically vulnerable. Simply making "mathematical" arguments (as you do, Peter) won't cut it. Most of us aren't good at math, after all.
In order to be indifferent to the truth, the public first has to be aware of it. I'm sure the media will get right on that. Best we can hope for is facts like these tp show up in campaign ads and stump speeches — which the so-called "fact checkers" and punditry will work overtime to nitpick, dispute, and demagogue around.
1.4 Trillion dollars. That was the deficit. Now, it’s projected to be $1.33 trillion. What does that even mean?
If someone wants to talk about the deficit, talk about a trillion dollars, why even start with numbers. These numbers are so large (although not astronomical in the literal sense) that most people cannot envision them. They are simply well beyond our ability to conceive them and work with them.
Sometimes, the numbers are printed in full, say, $1,400,000,000,000.00 so you can see the zeros. With that many zeros, who really cares about a few more.
If anyone wants to talk about numbers like these, they have to find a way that the listener can relate to them. I don’t come into contact with a trillion dollars in my day. Not a billion. Not a million. Maybe, just maybe, a few thousand and that’s an unusual day.
The numbers Peter cites are simply beyond the comprehension of most citizens. So, when someone talks about them, how can the listener make sense of it? The answer is: He can’t. The deficits don’t matter when a person is completely overwhelmed.
So, I ask Peter: How can you, as a writer, express these numbers, and the issue of the deficit, in an easy to understand manner. Maybe you can say how long the entire country would have to work, at our given collection of tax revenue, to pay off the deficit? Would that make sense?
Until the deficit can be grasped easily and effectively in the minds of the citizenry, the deficit doesn’t matter.
That's the point. It is too hard to "prove" or "disprove" anything these days. Too much noise. That is why you need to approach it like a litigator: destroy the character and credibility of the witness, and the rest is easy. I'm not saying to lie about Obama. On the contrary, the ugly truth should be told about him: he is an inveterate liar with highly questionable motives. Once this sinks in you won't have to worry about "fact checkers" mediating what is truth or not.
Television stations are located in cities. Cities tend to be Democrat. The news anchors reflect this. In Ohio, at least. In other words, one doesn't hear about anything beyond "The President is trying to … [fill in the blank]" Like: The President is trying to create jobs. The President is trying to make America energy independent. The President has proposed a bill to fix bridges and highways. The President says the Senate hasn't passed a budget because Republicans won't compromise. No place do I hear a questioning or critical word of the man. People might very well grasp the bull … if they ever got to hear it.
It does not matter, we are heading for economic collapse. The patient is too far gone.