This Day in Post-Truth Politics

What Juan Cole said:

Top Ten Paul Ryan Falsehoods, Gaffes, and Outrages, First Week

What David Weigel said (holy shit):

The Promise-Keeper: Paul Ryan's successfully vague campaign to promise "current seniors" the moon

What Talking Points Memo said:

Surrogates Admit Romney Will Cut Medicare Benefits for Current Seniors

Finally, what America's Finest News Source said:

Republicans Condemn Akin's Comments As Blemish On Party's Otherwise Spotless Women's Rights Record

Finally, a Name: Post-Truth Politics!

Via Jay Ackroyd at Eschaton an article by James Fallows in The Atlantic, which gives the name to a dread that has seized me and the nation: post-truth politics. Wow. Wish I'd thought of it...

Post-truth politics. That's what they're it calling these days!

Now we can call it something, although Fallows links to two other writers, where it is unclear who uncorked this gem of a term (mixed metaphors, anyone?). Still, Garance Franke-Ruta, also of The Atlantic, puts it well enough in the tag to her article on political lies:

Fact-checkers are no longer enough: If lies are going to be repeated, the truth needs to be, too.

All the pieces state the obvious, that if politicians are turning almost exclusively to lies, then journalists might actually have no choice but to abandon their "he said, she said," so-called balanced view in which the object is to report what different sides say without pointing out the obvious fallacies. Imagine that! As truth vanishes from the landscape, journalists will cave and face the job of rooting out the truth. What a novel idea.

Hope it happens before Hell freezes over -- or the Earth goes up in smoke.

There's no end to the material, as grist for the post-truth world, that the Romney/Ryan campaign produces, but let's at least take a look at the latest clunker in the truthiness department, Niall Ferguson's twice-baked take-down of the Obama presidency in Newsweek, entitled "Obama's Gotta Go."

I am not promoting this rag, just showing the scene of the crime.

Read the piece at your peril.

Then, to restore your sanity -- and partake in the sanity of others -- read the following smackdowns by:

Paul Krugman:

There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:

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.

Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.

Brad DeLong catches Ferguson trying to weasel out of the above statement, then skewers the man but good:

Niall Ferguson writes:

Paul Krugman Is Wrong: In my piece I say:

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...

I very deliberately said “the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA,” not “the ACA.” There is a big difference.

The "But" at the start of the second sentence in the quote tells readers two things: (i) that Obama has violated his pledge--that he promised that the ACA would not increase the deficit, but that it did--and (ii) that the rest of the second sentence will explain how Obama violated his pledge.

The rest of the second sentence Ferguson saying that Obama violated his pledge by "close to $1.2 trillion" by adding "insurance coverage provisions".

A reader who trusted Ferguson--and I hope no such readers will exist by the end of today--would tell you that Ferguson's quote says:

• Obama pledged that the ACA would not increase the deficit.
• Obama broke his pledge.
• The ACA increased the deficit by $1.2 trillion.

Now comes Ferguson to tell us that he lied.

Sorry for such a long except. Read the rest to see the carnage.

Back to James Fallows as he reacts to Ferguson in an article entitled "As a Harvard Alum, I Apologize":

Yes, I know, you could imagine many sentences that would follow that headline. But here is what I have in mind right now:  A tenured professor of history at my undergraduate alma mater has written a cover story for Daily Beast/Newsweek that is so careless and unconvincing that I wonder how he will presume to sit in judgment of the next set of student papers he has to grade. It's by the irrepressible Niall Ferguson, it is headlined "Obama's Gotta Go," and its case rests on logic of this sort:

Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak.

Hmmm, what might possibly be the flaw in this comparison? Apart from the fact that Obama did not take office until January 2009 and that private sector jobs have recovered better in his first three-plus years than they did under George W. Bush.

Noah Smith on his blog Noahpinion (love the title -- "Niall, the British Empire is over. Accept it."):

I have been known to tease a fellow blogger or two, but there is really only one writer who makes me truly mad, and that is British historian Niall Ferguson. I will explain exactly why he makes me so mad at the end of this post. First, though, I want to say a few words about Mr. Ferguson's cover story in Newsweek magazine, entitled "Hit the Road, Barack". I should note that it imposes a heavy psychic cost for me to do so, since it requires that I actually read Niall Ferguson. But the public duty to expose BS and promote truth and intellectual honesty overrides such selfish concerns.

 A long post but well worth the read.

Niall Ferguson examining his head, apparently to no avail.
 No worries, many others are busy doing it.

So we move into the post-truth world. There's a lot of work to do. As Tom Courtenay said in The Dresser (with Albert Finney), "Shall we make a start?" Thought I'd end on a British note.

Paul Ryan Loves Him Some Stimulus Money

Stimulus money is good when I get it.

Paul Ryan hates stimulus. It doesn't work, and he'll vote against it every time (except when Bush was president). He also hates stimulus money, except when he gets his hands on it.

The Hill:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) laid into GOP vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Friday, calling him a "two-faced," "typical Washington politician" for privately asking for stimulus dollars while denouncing the program in public.

The Wisconsin lawmaker admitted he asked for stimulus funds in 2009, The New York Times reported Thursday. He told a Cincinnati TV station earlier that day that he had not asked for the stimulus money.

Okay, I see how this works. Paul Ryan says one thing until, ah, he's busted. Got it. Jake Tapper noticed this, too:

After repeated denials, Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.

Ryan had denied doing so as recently as Wednesday, when he spoke to ABC’s Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, in Ohio.

“I never asked for stimulus,” Mitt Romney’s new running mate said. “I don’t recall… so I really can’t comment on it. I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work.”

Two years ago, during an interview on WBZ’s NewsRadio he was asked by a caller if he “accepted any money” into his district. Ryan said he did not.

“I’m not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money,” the congressman answered.

But as we’ve now learned, Ryan did write letters. He did request stimulus funds.

It's fun to watch the video:

Of course, even after you're busted, it's best to stick to your guns. Paul Ryan issues a statement:

After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled. This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.

Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the President is asking to do it all over again.

 That explains why you asked for the money, Paul, because it wouldn't do any good? Right. Just so we know how you roll.

Wait. What did you say, Paul, back in 2002 about stimulus?

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."

 I see. For Bush, yes. For Obama, not on your life. You're a real American, Paul Ryan, you really are.

Update. MSNBC has made the video of this available:

Obama Campaign Makes a Good Video

Stephanie Cutter narrates a straightforward explanation of the difference between Romney/Ryan and President Obama on Medicare. Before showing you that, let's look at the presentation Romney made with is now famous white board (first 2:15 has the gist of his presentation):

Now watch Stephanie Cutter's cogent rebuttal:

Ms. Cutter gets it almost exactly right, with one caveat: Mitt Romney is trying to distance himself from the Ryan Budget -- which he already praised -- because of the Medicare-to-vouchers plan that grows more toxic each day. Mitt hasn't quite ditched it, so we don't know his plan, except that he does draw a distinction between seniors 55 and older and the rest of Americans, just as Ryan does when discussing the voucher program, which he plans only for those 54 and younger. So Romney seems aboard with that timetable.

We actually do know something of his plan, which is to offer choice to those currently 54 or younger between keeping traditional Medicare or using the vouchers to purchase private insurance. He says there will be savings because now private insurance companies can compete with the government plan, and competition is always good, right?

The section from 2:15 to about 3:30 has Romney explaining the tweaks he adds to the Ryan plan, which is the competition between government and private insurance. But then he goes and completely mischaracterizes Medicare Advantage as being like his plan to offer a choice of private insurance. It isn't. Romney falsely claims that Obama's cuts will cause 4 million seniors to lose their Medicare Advantage as if they actually have any change in coverage, which they won't. What will happen is that Medicare Advantage programs, which currently serve about 25% of seniors will lose their subsidies to guarantee services. If these private Medicare programs want to retain their market share, it's more than likely that they'll find ways of offering their services at current co-pays.

Romney is attempting to hijack Medicare Advantage as a way to pretend he's offering private insurance as a Medicare choice, which he isn't. Let's spell it out:

1. Obama stops subsidies to Medicare Advantage providers in order to create savings which, with other savings totaling $716 billion, allows him to extend Medicare solvency by eight years.
2. Medicare Advantage is, like traditional Medicare, a defined-benefit system.
3. Romney's private option is nothing like Medicare Advantage. Instead, he offers a private-insurance option with vouchers that help seniors pay for it, with no guarantee that the amount will be enough in future years. So Romney's so-called Medicare Advantage is a premium-support plan with added expense to seniors, While Obama's plan continues to be a defined-benefit program with no cuts in services to seniors.
4. Romney's whole effort is to privatize Medicare, with costs to seniors rising over the years.
5. Romney promises to restore the Obama cuts, thus reducing the years Medicare can remain solvent.

For a final, cogent explanation, read this excellent article in the National Journal. Here's another good explanation from NBC First Read. Any way you slice and dice it, the Romney/Ryan plan is an attempt to end Medicare as we know it.

Romney and Ryan Are Frauds

Keep smiling, Paul. I know we can keep the bullshit going at least until November.

 They were frauds before Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his 2012 running mate, and they are frauds now in practically every interview, speech, ad, or news release since.

Paul Ryan has a plan, voted on and passed twice in the House of Representatives this term, that turns Medicare into a voucher system for seniors to pay for private health insurance instead of the current government-operated program. There is no guarantee that future voucher amounts can keep up with healthcare inflation, and in fact, every reason to believe that costs for seniors will rise dramatically, up to $6400 a year for each senior.

Read the Congressional Budget Office report on the Ryan Budget. If you don't want to read the whole thing, at least check out this chart from the report (click for larger view):

The top blue line shows the 100% of costs current Medicare covers. The later versions show that the dark blue is what Ryan's Medicare will cover. The light blue shows what seniors will additionally have to pay.

This is well established to be true. So it's no surprise that Mitt Romney, to inoculate the Romney/Ryan campaign from charges that they will end Medicare as we know it, came right out of the chute attacking Barack Obama for "gutting Medicare" with $716 billion in cuts to the program.

Of course, this is not true. NOT TRUE. Here's the truth:

The Medicare cuts, passed in the Affordable Care Act, come in the form of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they’ll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years.

AARP, the seniors’ lobby and chief gatekeeper of Medicare benefits, endorsed the Affordable Care Act despite its cuts, arguing that they wouldn’t affect seniors’ access to care. The law expanded benefits by closing the prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.” The hospital and drug industries also endorsed the legislation, believing that the additional customers via the coverage expansion would more than make up for the cuts.

Obama and Ryan agree that Medicare per-beneficiary cost growth needs to be capped at per-capita GDP plus 0.5 percent. But they disagree on what to cut in order to get there.
Ryan’s plan under the Path To Prosperity would end Medicare as an insurance program that directly pays medical bills for the elderly. It would be replaced with a fixed subsidy which seniors may use to buy competing private and public insurance policies on an exchange. If the value of the subsidy does not keep up with the growth of health care costs, seniors would make up the cost and pay higher medical bills.

 It cannot be overstated that Mitt Romney lies whenever he is in a corner. Example:

The truth is two-fold: First, Barack Obama has not stated that his new plan is for those over 55, it's for everybody who has or will qualify for Medicare (Mitt only uses the "55" to make it look like Obama's plan is a change in Medicare benefits, which it is not), and, two, Obama has, with his PPACA healthcare act, created $716 billion in savings to Medicare over ten years by cutting costs without cutting benefits. Here's how CBS news covered the issue (quite well for the MSM, I might add):

Paul Ryan's Medicare plan cuts expenditures by the same amount. However, neither he nor Romney will admit this because it's politically toxic. So what have they done? They're running away from it as fast as they can while repeating the baseless lie about Obama's Medicare savings. Here's Paul Ryan bobbing and weaving on Fox (Fox!):

That's why Romney and Ryan are frauds. Oh, and when one runs away from reality for self-protection using deceit, one should also be called cowards, which they are.

Listen to Cent Uygur putting together the case very well:

That's about the size of it. If you want to sample opinion on the subject of Romney and Ryan's honesty and forthrightness, sample some below:

Recognizing Paul Ryan's 'tell' when he is trying to avoid something (Matt Miller)

The real Medicare question (Eugene Robinson)

The Three Boldest Lies Mitt Romney Has Told about Barack Obama (The Philly Post)

Update. I had expected to end here, but I discovered this video of "angry" Ann Romney responding to questions about her joint tax returns with her husband Mitt. And that's an important point: she has to sign under penalty of perjury that she has "examined this return and the accompanying schedules and statements..." So, when she says "I'll be curious to see what's in there, too," she's either lying or admitting to her lack of living up to what she signed, which, under law, is considered perjury for not actually having examined the return and accompanying documents.

Finally, how courageous is a man who would send his wife out to defend him and make clear statements that they're not going to release any more returns? Watch this performance and then read the breakdown from DailyKos:

The link to the DailyKos diary. It says a lot about how the Romneys view those who would insist they act like the rest of us Americans.

According to Conservatives, Suffering Is Good for Young People

I rarely watch Fox News, except when I get excerpts from their various shows on websites and blogs. A website that provides this sort of service is Media Matters, a site I've followed for years.

We on the left are used to hearing preposterous things from conservatives. If we haven't heard anything absurd lately, all we have to do is watch Fox News, which by now is recognized -- almost uncontroversially -- as a media outlet for the Republican Party and the conservative movement. In fact, if you feel particularly clear-minded on any given morning, simply turn on Fox & Friends and you'll get muddied up pretty fast.

Another show is The Five, where lately they've decided to declare war on young people. Two recent excerpts featured at Media Matters demonstrate the contempt Fox has for our whining youth, who for some reason think they're entitled to a job or something.

Great. Just great. But they don't stop there. Listen to Dana Perino (former Dubya spokesperson):

These thoughts speak for themselves. I don't even need to call them names. They've debased themselves.

Look, I was young once. I remember having hard times. Good jobs were scarce when I got out of college in the early seventies. I muddled through. Gas prices doubled -- twice -- during my twenties. I owned a business during the recessions of 1979 and 1981-1982. It took until I was almost forty to recover.

I have young adult children. Both out of love for my children and hope for their future -- and for children everywhere -- I want the best for them. I suppose we could beat them or make them go without shoes, just to toughen them up, and it doesn't take much of an imagination to think there are people out there who might recommend that. Hell, I think I just witnessed it on Fox.

Hey, wow, they've gone off the rails. I've got one word for them: empathy. It's the empathy, stupid. Though I suppose they'd call me a bleeding heart. Friggin' jeebus.

Which Religion is Right and True?

None of them.

This has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions.

Except, well, I want to make a few points.

Calligraphic representation of Muhammad. Images of him are forbidden.

Going back to their origins, there's not a dime's bit of difference among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. They share Abraham as their first prophet, and they all originated in roughly the same part of the world. They all believe in an afterlife, a "Judgment," although the Jews don't stress it and believe in a non-infinite period of punishment for sin in life -- they don't believe in eternal damnation as the Christians and Muslims do.

All three stress good acts; all three have sacred texts; all three believe in the one God (Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah); followers of Muhammad have a history of war, as do Christians and Jews. This is not to say that violence and death are the basis of any of the religions. But it is to say that none of them are,  well, Quakers.

A vital turning point with most religions is that they begin as an attempt to understand why we're here and later a body of law develops that generally turns a religion into a vehicle for control, usually with detrimental consequences. Christianity has its canon law, Islam has its hadith, and Judaism has its halakhah. It's these religious laws that take a decent set of beliefs, though based on myth and superstition, and turn them into something, well, not a force for good.

Not a bad dude, for his day.

I'm not trying to be a "Can we all get along?" guy, but, hey, religion is quite often not a force for peace and tranquility. "Believe in my God or I'll kill you" has been a modus operandi for centuries. So, the sooner the world gets beyond these ridiculous religious differences, the better.

Anyone who wants to demonize Muslims need only think of Northern Ireland, where differences between two sects of Christianity was the cause of death and destruction for decades.

I was inspired to make these comments because there have been a number of polls that try to determine the percentage of people who believe that Barack Obama is a Christian and the percentage of those who believe he's a Muslim, secret or otherwise. There are a few polls that also attempt to determine if Mitt Romney's Mormonism works for or against him. Apparently it's a wash.

Those for whom this is important are either political operatives, pundits, or voters who would use this distinction to determine their votes. I for one believe that the whole process is absurd at best and contemptible in any event. Sorry. Religion is bunk.

I secretly believe Barack Obama is an atheist, or at least I hope so. He's too smart to accept any of it as real, but he's also too smart to not realize the community that comes with belonging to a church. And, of course, Americans are more likely to elect a Muslim president than an atheist. Thus I don't begrudge any public figure who claims to be a Christian, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on society.

Conquering the heathens for Christ. It did involve killing them.

So I ask: Can we stop judging our leaders by their religion? And, secondly, can we begin the long, hard slog toward electing an atheist? The sooner the better.

Of course, this is like hoping that America will become sane and ban most guns and also enact a government-regulated, single-payer healthcare system. But then waiting for that is like waiting for a television show that portrays abortion in a good light.

Sigh. Some days it's hard to be a progressive. Oh well, God bless you and God bless America. (Wouldn't it be a miracle if a speech by a president didn't end with those words?)