Jamelle Bouie: “Why Romney keeps lying about Obama and welfare”
It’s been three weeks since Mitt Romney first took fire for asserting that the Obama administration “gutted” work requirements in welfare. When the first ad was released, PolitiFact took the lead in debunking its claim that under Obama’s plan, “they just send you your welfare check,” giving it the highest rating of “Pants on Fire.” FactCheck.org followed suit, and the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler offered a similar denunciation, giving the ad “four Pinnochios.”
But this didn’t deter the Romney campaign. The following week, they released another ad using a similar message. Independent observers again hit Romney’s dishonesty, and a key Republican architect of welfare reform said that “there’s no plausible scenario under which [the change] really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform.”
… It’s almost certain that Team Romney has heard these complaints, and just doesn’t care about them. Not only has Romney made this a key part of his stump speech — promising to “return work to welfare” — but this morning, he released yet another ad making the same claims.
Alec MacGillis: “The Welfare Card and the Post-Truth Campaign”
One of the more depressing parts of the job of being a political reporter is watching an audience fully absorb a blatant and knowing lie. Which is, of course, what this is. Countless factcheckers — here is one of many — have unequivocally rejected the assertion that Obama has ended the work requirement. His administration has instead granted more leeway to states, including several with Republican governors, to explore new ways to get people onto welfare into jobs, with the proviso that their new approaches must increase the share of recipients with jobs.
But this has not stopped Romney (the son of a pro-safety net former HUD secretary!) or Paul Ryan, who is also using the line on the trail. Meanwhile, the campaign has launched two ads with the welfare charge, which are running in heavy circulation. Clearly, the campaign has reason to believe the attack is working, and why not? It’s no secret that working-class Americans deeply resent those just below them on the economic ladder whom they see as getting undeserved assistance; it’s also no secret that politicians have been especially effective at stoking this resentment among white working-class voters, such as the all-white audience in Beallsville, toward an unseen nonwhite other.
But [Niall] Ferguson says he wasn’t confused. Rather, he phrased his original comments very carefully in order to deceive his readers. You see, Ferguson specified that he was only talking about the “insurance-coverage provisions,” and so, if you happen to be an employee of the Congressional Budget Office and you’re aware of the difference between these reports, you would’ve understood that when Ferguson wrote —
The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.
— that the first sentence and the second sentence had nothing to do with each other. Of course, most people are not employees of the CBO, and so they just got tricked. In the pages of Newsweek. Bummer for them.
Ta-Nehisi Coates: “Dishonesty Is the Seventh Killer App”
Bryan Bender and Brian MacQuarrie: “Ryan sought stimulus funds while decrying program”
Dishonesty of this sort is insidious. It can’t be dismissed with the ease of plagiarism or manufactured evidence. As long you’re not egregious, you can actually make a career as respectable public intellectual, and occasionally lie. No one will stop you. Almost no one cares.
In 2009, as Rep. Paul D. Ryan was railing against President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package as a “wasteful spending spree,” he wrote at least four letters to Obama’s secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups, according to documents obtained by the Globe.
“… their project will allow residents and businesses in the partner cities to reduce their energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate the local economy by creating new jobs,” Ryan wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu on December 18, 2009, on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation.
Kevin Spak: “Ryan: I Asked for Stimulus Money by Accident”
Paul Ryan has repeatedly denied that he requested funds for Wisconsin businesses from Barack Obama’s signature stimulus bill, despite documented evidence to the contrary. Yesterday he finally admitted he had — but said he hadn’t realized he was doing it. Ryan’s stimulating ways first came to light in a 2010 Wall Street Journal report. In an interview at the time, Ryan said he wouldn’t vote against something “then write to the government to ask them to send us money.”
But the Boston Globe reported this week that Ryan did just that, sending at least four letters to the Department of Energy on behalf of two Wisconsin companies looking to develop “green jobs.” Ryan again denied those reports yesterday, before finally backtracking …
Adam Kotsko: “Romney’s nihilism”
There’s something deeply disturbing about this infamous video where Romney seems genuinely offended that his Democratic opponent would accuse him of being less than 100 percent pro-choice.
Steve Benen: “Breaking new ground in Chutzpah Politics”
What’s remarkable is just how spectacularly dishonest Romney is. It’s like he heard about an award that goes to the lyingest liar who ever lied in the history of liars, and Romney’s so eager to win the award that he’s becoming a parody of himself.
Reality is actually quite simple. Republicans argue that Medicare savings are necessary for the health of the program, and Obama found such savings, without touching Medicare benefits, and while strengthening the financial health of the system. The savings are so sensible, they’re part of Paul Ryan’s Republican budget plan — which Romney has endorsed.
Fight for what is true. That is how I would put the alternative to “first, show you’re savvy.” From this point of view, it is a regrettable loss for the polity, and for political journalism – and for the voters, the public – when dubious claims gain traction and quotes pulled from their context appear to “work.” What the press can do to prevent this is try to raise the costs of making false or misleading claims, which is the whole point of fact-checking.