At the time of publication, the third and final presidential debate will have taken place, which focused on foreign policy. The second debate, of which this editorial analyzes, covered topics related to each candidate’s domestic policy.
It is a result of our mass media-oriented culture that we, as citizens and eligible voters, often place emphasis on the theatrical component of the political realm rather than on the issues themselves. In an effort to directly appeal to the sentiments and psychographics of younger audiences, politics over the years has accentuated the need to entertain rather than inform – a main aspect as to why presidential campaigns and debates feature attacks on the opponent rather than a careful analysis as to how their own platform will offer more plausible solutions to the nation’s problems.
Following the first debate, countless major media outlets cited Mitt Romney’s aggressiveness as a primary factor as to why he “won” while his inaccuracies and the context of his statements went relatively unnoticed. If we’re to join in on the personification of politics as sport, President Obama came out of his corner last Tuesday night more aggressively than Mike Tyson did against Michael Spinks as he pointed toward Romney’s past record of outsourcing jobs and giving tax cuts to the wealthy, even going as far as making cracks about the size of the former governor’s pension.
Unlike Spinks however, Romney held his own for the full 12 rounds and vehemently criticized the numbers of the Obama administration these past four years. Neither candidate was particularly accurate and in some cases, they were downright incorrect. We’ve broken down some of the more major categories of the debate below.
1. Unemployment
While Romney was quick to attack the incontrovertible numbers and poor performance of the Obama administration in terms of the nation’s unemployment and job growth, he was not entirely clear on his strategy to address the public’s growing concerns. With a “5 Point Plan” that has yet to be completely outlined or made transparent to voters, Romney only hints at a vague framework that he ensures will “increase jobs and lower the deficit.” Without a distinct and well-defined proposal, it’ll be difficult for some voters to take Romney’s words at face value given his recent record of flip-flopping on domestic issues.
Unfortunately for Obama, the numbers certainly don’t lie, nor do they favor his presidency. Romney was correct in stating that unemployment has not been reduced under the president. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for January 2009, the month the president took office, was 7.8 percent – exactly where it stood as of last month. Obama stated his commitment to building on the “5 million jobs we’ve created in the past 30 months in the private sector alone” as well as giving tax incentives to companies creating jobs in the States.
About 4.4 million jobs have been created in total since February 2010, yet the federal debt under Obama has skyrocketed. To be fair, Obama inherited the countless debt issues triggered by the Bush administration, yet the total federal debt which now stands at nearly $16.2 trillion, a 52 percent increase, is a far cry from Obama’s promises to cut that deficit in half.
2. Taxes
Romney stated that he wants middle income tax payers to pay less, but under his current proposed tax plan, multiple nonpartisan organizations have pointed out that this would be mathematically impossible if he were to keep all of the plan’s components intact, which Obama alluded to. Romney went on to say that middle-class incomes have gone down $4,300 per family under Obama, which is true. According to the February 2012 U.S. Census, the median household income was $50,065 in February, compared to $54,481 in December 2007. What he didn’t note is that the decline in median household income is not exclusive to the Obama administration, but has rather been the trend of the past decade and began well before Obama was elected.
The former Massachusetts Governor claimed that middle-class families are paying $4,000 more a year in taxes under Obama, which simply isn’t true. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative group that did the study cited by Romney, calculated the potential impact on different income groups if the U.S. raised taxes to service the national debt, which Obama has never stated he plans on doing.
While Romney has previously stated in the past that he seeks to cut taxes for the top 1 percent, he attempted to counter during the debate by claiming he wants to lower deductions and exemptions for the top 5 percent so that rates will be brought down, which would in turn make it easier for small businesses to keep more capital and create jobs. However, on the subject of Romney’s attacks against Obama’s tax plan and its negative effect on small businesses, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center refuted the former Governor’s arguments. They concluded that in 2011 only 1.4 percent of individual filers reporting “business income” paid the top 33 percent or 35 percent tax rates. The other 98.6 percent either paid the Alternative Minimum Tax or else paid taxes at lower rates, which Obama has said he won’t alter.
According to The Washington Post, the Treasury Department had researchers study what true small business owners make. They concluded that many of them make nowhere near enough to pay top rates. Only 11 percent of small business owners made more than $200,000, and only 8 percent of small business owners who got at least a quarter of their income that way made that much. Only 4 percent of true small business owners were at the 33 or 35 percent brackets, and thus would be the only owners whom would see their taxes go up under Obama.
Obama on the other hand, stated that he has cut taxes for middle-class families by $3, 600. While technically true, this figure has accumulated over four years under the “Making Work Pay” tax credit which has expired, and Obama has not promised to extend that payroll tax cut, meaning that those who saw a decrease in taxes may see an increase as of next year.
The president claimed that Romney’s current proposed tax plan will either blow up the deficit or it will be paid for by deductions for the wealthy which would in turn lead to the middle-class losing deductions. The Tax Policy Center affirmed his sentiments earlier this year when they concluded that it wasn’t mathematically possible for such a plan to cut rates without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit. The Obama administration on the other hand, is misleading when they point towards Romney’s supposed $5 trillion tax cut. This figure has actually been extrapolated over the course of 10 years, but is not representative of Romney’s immediate tax proposal.
3. Energy
Obama remained adamant in his stance on the importance of self-sustaining energy. The president was not disingenuous in his claim that oil imports are the lowest they’ve been in 16 years and that natural gas production is at the highest it’s ever been. According to the Energy Information Administration, he’s spot on. Obama has advocated for the continued progression of solar, wind, and biofuel energy, though critics would assert that even when successful, these “green” energy solutions would only account for a small percentage of the nation’s total energy output.
Romney stated that on federal land, oil production is down 14% and gas is down 9% as a result of Obama cutting licenses for drilling on federal lands and waters. This is simply not true. The reason for the fluctuation in production numbers can be correlated to Obama’s temporary moratorium on offshore drilling after the 2010 BP oil spill. Also, Romney failed to note that new technology has made it cheaper to drill on private land in places such as North Dakota.
If you’re an environmentalist, it’s worth noting that Romney plans on considerably expanding U.S. offshore drilling as well as coal production, which will bring in more jobs but may potentially have a negative effect on the environment.
4. Healthcare
The president noted that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as “Obamacare”), insurance providers facilitate contraception coverage to every insured person under that plan. Romney has firmly stated in the past that he would support the defunding of Planned Parenthood and limit the ability for a woman to receive contraceptives from her doctor, instead giving the federal government more power in deciding that ability.
Romney falsely claimed that health care premiums have gone up $2,500 per family under Obama. The average premium for a family employer-based policy has gone up $1,975 between 2010 and 2012, according to an annual survey of employer plans by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust. That number accounts for the total increase for both employers and employees.
Romney continues to state his commitment toward repealing Obamacare and putting issues related to health care in the hands of the states rather than the federal government. He wants, for example, to provide tax breaks to individuals who buy coverage on their own through the private market.
Obama heavily rejects Romney’s proposed “voucher” program for Medicare in which seniors receive fixed payments to buy coverage from insurers. Under this plan, if seniors bought a more expensive plan, they would have to pay the difference between the fixed amount they receive and the premium. If they were to buy a cheaper plan, they could keep the difference. Romney hasn’t detailed however, how the amount of the fixed payment would be adjusted annually as health-care costs rise.
We do know that under Obama, Medicare would see significant cuts as he has proposed cutting $188 billion from the program over 10 years. On the other hand, if Romney were to repeal Obamacare, today’s Medicare beneficiaries would face higher premiums in addition to greater out-of-pocket costs for drugs and preventive care.
Works Cited
Factcheck.org – Obama’s numbers. http://factcheck.org/2012/10/obamas-numbers/
Factcheck.org – Factchecking the Hofstra debate. http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/
ABC News – Debate Fact Check: The Presidential Debate. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/debate-fact-check-presidential-debate/story?id=17496703#.UIXqfIadnlo
The New York Times – A Closer Look as Some Disputed Claims. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/a-closer-look-at-some-disputed-claims.html?hp&_r=1&
Christian Science Monitor – Romney Stumbles on Energy. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1017/Debate-fact-check-Romney-stumbles-on-energy
USA Today – Factchecking the Debate. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/03/fact-checking-the-debate/1612241/
CBS News – Factchecking the Second Presidential Debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57533862/fact-checking-the-second-presidential-debate/?pageNum=2&tag=page
The Washington Post – Romney Says Most Workers at Small Businesses Will See a Tax Hit. Here’s Why He’s Wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/romney-says-most-workers-at-small-businesses-will-see-a-tax-hit-heres-why-hes-wrong/
The Washington Post – Obama and Romney on Healthcare. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-and-romney-on-the-issues-health-care/2012/10/05/ee3db136-0f0d-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story_2.html
Image Credit: The Economist