Debate Autopsy: Seven Romney Lies In His First Three Debate Minutes

Romney “won” the debate. That’s the consensus. Poor Chris Matthews was apoplectic. In this low moment let’s remember that “winning” through outrageous lying is an American political tradition, particularly among recent Republican candidates. Although President Obama was not at his best last night, Romney’s “win” will wither away through the bright light of our old friend, fact-checking. He and Paul Ryan have often won briefly, for a news cycle, but then . . . POOF! 

Let’s get started!

Mitt raced right out of the gate. Here’s his first few minutes of lying, chock full of material for reality-based blowback:

LEHRER: Both of you have spoken about a lot of different things, and we’re going to try to get through them in as specific a way as we possibly can.

But, first, Governor Romney, do you have a question that you’d like to ask the president directly about something he just said?

ROMNEY: Well, sure. I’d like to clear up the record and go through it piece by piece.

First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They’ll do fine whether you’re president or I am.

The people who are having the hard time right now are middle- income Americans. Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed. Middle- income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing.

At the same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric rates are up. Food prices are up. Health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family. Middle-income families are being crushed

1. Taxes.  “First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.”

This is another of many examples of the shell game he plays with truth. Yes, there is a truth to be found under one of the shells, in this case, his “tax” cut  may or may not equal $5 trillion. Yet it is in the ballpark. The size, in fact, will be enormous by anyone’s standards. So let’s not quibble. The truth hidden under the shell is that Romney/Ryan plans include reducing tax rates; Ryan’s plan includes, for example, two tax rates, 10% and 25%, Romney has spoken of a 20% decrease in tax rates. So, it’s true, with a Romney/Ryan win lower tax rates are on the horizon.

But, here’s the lie: lower tax rates will not lead to lower tax bills, especially for approximately 85% of taxpayers. Why? Romney and Ryan intend to close “loopholes,” and that means that more of one’s income will no longer be deductible. Recently, Romney mentioned capping deductions and credits at $17,000 (after an outcry from wealthier supporters, many of whom average substantially more than $17,000 in deductions, that idea was quickly walked back by his campaign mentors). Romney/Ryan plans  also would cap personal exemptions, the tax break for employer-sponsored health insurance, and child tax credits.

The long and the short of it all is that lowering the tax rates doesn’t matter much, if at all. By limiting both deductions and credits Romney’s tax schemes would cause a net increase in the actual tax bill of most American families. Those in the higher brackets would see little, if any, increase in their tax bills. Why? Romney/Ryan propose cutting the capital gains tax from 15% to zero – z.e.r.o. Included in this would be traditional capital gains, dividends, and income. While some middle class families might benefit from this, here’s the facts: 80% of all capital gains – i.e. unearned income – went to 5% of taxpayers, 50% to the top 0.1%.  That’s where the money is. Even if the upper 5% are asked to cap their deductions, exemptions, and credits at $17,000 that is, for them, just a cost of doing business more than offset by their huge gain in a zero percent capital gains windfall.

2. Income:  Middle- income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300.Romney again tells a truth to advance a lie through highly selective and restrictive choices of evidence.

• First, Mitt Romney recently pegged “middle income” between $200,000 and $250,000, so who knows what he’s talking about on that subject? 
• Second, measurements of middle income depend upon which definitions of income one uses. They vary. A recent study by nongovernmental firm Sentier Research employs the Census definition of “family income,” the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the official government income analyst, uses “personal income.” Each includes or excludes different items from “income” so their results vary, sometimes considerably, as in this case. In the end, there is nothing more certain than this: definitions matter and thus there is no certainty.

Romney appears to have been referencing a recent study by Sentier Research which, using Census data and definitions, showed a decline in “family income” (and in the unemployment rate) during Obama’s term:

However, note the steep decline in family income was nothing more than the historically expected lagging income decline in a recession (see previous recession in chart), and especially in a recession as debilitating to family wealth as the Lesser Depression. But let’s accept Sentier’s analysis based as it is on their own definitions. Sentier is not partisan, and highly qualified.

Here, though, is the data Romney chose to ignore, for obvious reasons: personal income is now above the pre-recession highs of the Bush II administration. What a difference a definition makes. Yet, since two reputable organizations differ, the “truth” is indeed illusive. Let’s look at one more chart and see if we can find a trend among other important economic data.

Here’s where Romney’s misleading data on income becomes clearer. Recall, “Middle- income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300.” Let’s take a broader view. It’s straightforward Federal Reserve data indicating

• the rapid net worth recovery of American households (red line), now at the more realistic levels that existed just prior to the huge 2006 unstoppable run-up in real estate prices created by the Big Hard Sell to support the  mortgage-backed securities run-up;
• the simultaneous decline in household credit market debt which as it accelerated freed up more family income for other purchases and created the
• rise in real (inflation adjusted) disposable income which is now above pre-Lesser Depression levels.

Do you see stagnation there? A drop in family income? The answer to the question, “Are you better off today than you were on the first day of the Obama presidency is a resounding ‘Yes!’.”

Wow! As we’ll see, this is knockout-level mendacity (i.e. bullsh*t) worthy of Newt Gingrich. Let’s begin the undressing and the dressing down.

3. Gasoline prices: “. . . gasoline prices have doubled under the president.”

Indeed, gasoline prices have risen during the Obama administration. So what? 

• First, they are below the peak in the Bush administration. So what?;
• In case Romney’s crowd hasn’t noticed gasoline prices have risen steadily since the height of the first Bush II recession in March 2001. In fact, they nearly tripled between 2001 and January 2009, prior to Obama’s inauguration. Again, so what?
• Prices declined as the recession continued, then, all of a sudden they rose! What a surprise: gasoline prices rise as a recession ends, and continue to rise as economic activity like the transportation of goods to market increases. This appears to surprise Republicans, particularly those wedded to the non reality that the economy has suffered under fiscal stimulus and the Obama administration.
• Prices rise, as in all presidencies, during significant periods in Middle Eastern affairs. For example, during the Arab Spring; during Iranian protests, etc. Each of these events affected world prices for oil in altogether known and predictable ways. Republicans do not yet seem to understand this (unless they occupy the executive branch, of course).

All in all, a big “so what?” about gasoline prices: they rise, they fall. I don’t blame other presidents for this. Oil is a world market, and no matter how much we “drill, drill, drill” the price of oil is tied to events in the Middle East. U.S. oil production cannot impact that except at the distant margins. And, in any event, the Obama administration has an exemplary oil exploration and recovery record. Moreover, the GOP neocon termites in the walls of the Romney campaign fun house plan bigger and better wars. How do you think that’ll affect gasoline prices, Mitt?  Rhetorical question. ‘Nuff said about that Romney truth in service of a lie.

4. Electricity rates: “Electric rates are up,” Mitt said it, must be true. “Electric rates,” an initial truthy-truth in service of an overarching lie-lie. Yes, it’s well-known that in some areas electricity rates are up. This results from many precursors, for example, extreme Summer 2012 heat caused more a-c usage; rate setting timetables in various states; and, most of all, infrastructure upgrades and maintenance that for too long were delayed or ignored by utility companies. So, yes, the residential consumer, the family, is footing the bill.

In my area in suburban Maryland near D.C. a succession of severe storms over many years has uncovered a walloping amount of non-maintenance by our local utility company, PEPCO. In the past few years they have had to undertake, rather against their will, a many hundred million dollar program to address these long-ignored problems. They were granted a rate hike recently to help address these costs. None of it was related to the costs of electricity itself. Yet our rates went up. This is the result of a GOP, whom Romney represents, with a clinical phobia for public infrastructure investment at both the federal and state levels. Oh, by the way, PEPCO paid its investors a record high dividend . . .

So much for “electric rates.” Now let’s consider household electricity prices, as in price per kilowatt hour. Moreover, let’s look at what really matters to consumers, although many are only vaguely aware of it: the inflation adjusted price of electricity. Unfortunately for Mitt’s belief system, despite a nominal rise in electricity per kw, electricity prices have declined in real (inflation adjusted) terms for decades, and throughout President Obama’s first term.

So what about during President Obama’s term? As we can see above and below, in only nominal terms (not inflation adjusted terms) have prices risen. [See this also.] The September 2012 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data below shows that. Nominal residential electricity prices have grown over time. Nothing surprising there. In fact, since 2001, per kilowatt hour prices have risen from 8 cents to 12 cents, or 50%. 

During Obama’s watch? From 12 cents to, well, 12 cents per kilowatt hour, or z.e.r.o percent, in effect, an inflation adjusted decline.

Mitt’s savvier low wattage campaign advisers, of course, could not allow him to reveal those electric facts, so shocking has the truth been thus far for their efforts. 

 
5. Food Prices: “Food prices are up.”   Well, by golly, yes they are! And we’ve certainly never before seen such an obviously Obama-engineered plot to manipulate the world markets so that he can  . . . Whoa there, Mitt. Have a look below. There is nothing new under the sun here, yet this time the spike is significant. It is, however, not exclusive to the United States. This is indicated, Mitt, by the word “world” in the chart. 

This Mitt “truth” is so unremarkable that its like commenting that the grass is green in the United States. It’s also green in Ireland (I’ve been there). Green appears to be a common color scheme for grass, just as is the inflation ion food prices. Certain Republicans seem to have difficulty realizing that the world is not contained within our borders, and that food commodities (like oil) are a worldwide market. No particular country can very often, if ever, control the price of these foods (just like oil prices). So, attempting to place blame for worldwide food cost inflation at President Obama’s feet is inept at best,or, as with Mr. R, a downright attempt to mislead.

I do believe that Mitt has heard of the word “weather,” and perhaps has a basic understanding of its many strange ways. Although Mitt would deny climate change as a factor, weather patterns lately have been dicey. In all, poor weather is among the major reasons for poor crop harvests. In the U.S. corn and soybeans have been badly affected, and those commodities have a rippling effect on other areas, for example, animal feed, ethanol production costs, etc.

Apparently, assuming the huge assume that Mitt understands the weather and crop yield relationship, he somehow also believes the contrary notion that President Obama and the USDA control the weather, not only in the U.S. but across the earth itself. I do like President Obama, and the USDA, as far as I know, has never harmed me directly, but I do not ascribe to them mystical powers over rain, drought, and flood. Perhaps in his second term . . .

Finally, here’s what a nice little analysis by USDA recently concluded:

Most of the long-term trends in agricultural production and consumption that contributed to the 2002-06 price increases and the 2007-08 price spike also contributed to the recent price surge, including global growth in population and per capita incomes, increasing world per capita consumption of animal products, rising energy prices and growing global biofuel production, depreciation of the U.S. dollar, and slower growth in agricultural productivity. The price spikes in both periods also reflect short-term shocks from weather-related production shortfalls, a corresponding decline in world stocks of grains and oilseeds, and changes in trade policies and practices in some countries. Renewed economic growth and demand in low- and middle-income countries following the 2009 recession also played a role in recent price increases.

 They conclude:

Periods of rising and falling prices for agricultural products are not uncommon. The specific factors contributing to price fluctuations may differ somewhat, and the magnitude and duration of the fluctuations may vary. Historically, however, in each price spike, rising commodity prices constrained demand and increased production, which in turn, led to declining prices. These adjustments determine the path to a new equilibrium, which may push prices back to their pre-spike level, or to a level somewhat higher than historical prices.

I tend to live in the reality-base universe, so I credit the USDA with some familiarity with food production. I’m odd in that way.

None of the GOP’s solutions would reduce unemployment, etc.

7. Middle Class Families:  “Middle-income families are being crushed.”  My guess? Mitt overheard that at one of his meet-and- greets. He’s shown no sign – nor has his mini-personality, Paul Ryan – that he’s ever shared a bowl of “cheesy grits” with any of them. And recall that he believes “middle class” occupies the neighborhood between and income of $200,000 and $250,000. Didn’t he encounter some of them along the way at Bain, perhaps a paid intern of someone of that ilk. 

In any event, the true middle class lives in neighborhoods riddled with loss, jobs lost, homes lost, incomes lost, that kind of lost. They do not enjoy quarter if a million dollar incomes, far from it. Mitt is so tin-eared that he does not know that, even after years out and about interviewing for the President’s job. In fact, many of the middle class represent, or have family members who do, the 47%ers who Romney and Ryan consider takers or moochers. Neither member of the GOP ticket has earned the right to appear to empathize with the middle class, so I’ll leave his “families being crushed” comment pretty much alone. It’s beneath contempt.

We’ve had a good look at Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, the mass of the GOP, and their base, the basest of what used to be called the party of Lincoln. Talk about “takers”! This vile historically selfish group would seek to enact non-policy policies that could literally permit food to be withheld from poor children; allow health care to be just another purchase with a price point; continue, and worsen, the rampant pace of income inequality; harass immigrants, African Americans, gay persons, people with disabilities, and, indeed, their own base who they praise as they mislead, most of whom are poor, undereducated, and, in a Romney/Ryan government, without a scintilla of hope for a better life for themselves or their children and children’s children. 

And they stoop to criticize President Obama? Let’s remind everyone we know – if they need it – where we were as a nation in 2008. Despite a craven GOP-dominated Congress willing to let the nation collapse into depression, we had a President who, although a bit late to learn anger, pulled us back from a cliff, a cliff, by the way, that the Republican party, with boorish avaricious men like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell were seeking every day and in every way to push us closer and closer and closer to. 

Have a look at the evidence set out against Romney’s claims. Within them you’ll likely see why we are far better off today than we were in 2008.

Please follow and like us: