Joanne Kenen
Posted on 02/13/2013 8:19:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Sen. Marco Rubio got a turn on the national stage opposite President Barack Obama Tuesday night, but some of the facts the likely 2016 presidential contender marshaled to make his case played loose with the truth.
Here’s POLITICO’s look at some of the Florida senator’s questionable claims during his prime-time debut.
* Sequester blame game
Rubio: “And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts — cuts that were his idea in the first place.”
Actually, Obama didn’t directly criticize Republicans for not agreeing to raise taxes to offset the across-the-board spending cuts. He slammed them for trying to shift the budget hit to domestic programs, something the Pentagon and the defense industry have taken pains to oppose.
Indeed, both Democrats and Republicans signed off on sequestration under the impression neither side would let it happen. With just weeks to go before it hits, both are blaming the other side without offering a substantive way out of the impasse.
The senator did get one thing right: The idea of sequestration started in the White House.
* Climate change attacks
Rubio: “When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can’t control the weather — he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.”
It’s hard to say which “job-killing” environmental or energy laws the Florida Republican is talking about. Though Obama nudged Congress on cap and trade again, the president essentially gave up on this idea back in 2010 when it died in the Senate.
And when the bill died, Obama didn’t exactly go on offense slamming Republicans the way Rubio describes it.
* Medicare broke?
Rubio: “But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.”
By “anyone” Rubio clearly means Democrats. But through Obamacare, Democrats have already made changes to Medicare that added several years of solvency to the hospital trust fund. The health care law also initiated many changes to how Medicare delivers care, which are designed to slow spending growth. The president has said he’s open to other changes in the health care program for the elderly, as long as it’s part of a balanced approach of increased revenue and spending cuts.
In addition, Medicare isn’t going “bankrupt.” The hospital trust fund — one part of the senior health care program, although a crucial part — would start taking in less money than it pays out in a few years if Congress doesn’t do something about it — but Congress has always done something about it. Nevertheless, Medicare does cost a lot of money, the baby boomers are retiring and their future health bills are widely seen as a huge drag on the economy for years to come.
* Obamacare killing jobs?
RUBIO: “Obamacare was supposed to help middle-class Americans afford health insurance. But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with. And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren’t hiring. Not only that; they’re being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.”
There’s nothing in the law that is forcing people to lose insurance they’re happy with — in fact, according to census data, both the number of uninsured people and the uninsurance rate declined in 2011 (the most recent census figures available), partly because more people under 26 have gotten covered. Some people lose or change insurance every year — and that was true long before Obamacare became law.
It is true that some employers are at least contemplating cutting their full-time workforce to keep under the 50-worker threshold. How widespread this will be at the end of the day — or whether these people will be able to get subsidized coverage on exchanges or through expanded Medicaid — isn’t yet certain. But Rubio hit on a valid concern.
How come they never fact check Obama?
RE: How come they never fact check Obama?
You don’t fact-check your Lord and Savior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQNL3Pntbko
Actually, at least MSNBC did:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2988092/posts
Politico is toooooo far left to fact check the _resident
This is hilarious. On each point they claim Rubio is wrong, then in the last sentence of each section, they admit he’s right.
Politics’s attempt at “fact checking” seems to be more an exercise in shallow speculation.
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 2/8/13
Republicans open to letting billions in sequester cuts go through figure they can blame the president if the economy goes south.
But Democrats are betting they can shift that blame right back to the GOP.
They’re so confident, in fact, that they’re already eyeing at least 10 Republican-held seats with strong military connections from Florida to California to target in 2014, after sequester cuts have trickled down to local bases where jobs are lost and voters notice.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/sequester-cuts-ticking-time-bomb-87363.html#ixzz2KnTGzaE2
Joanne Kenen
Politico is on Obama's team.
Darren Samuelsohn
Politico = Politburo.
Samuelsohn joined POLITICO in June 2010 after a decade in Washington D.C. with E&E Publishing’s Greenwire and Environment & Energy Daily. There, he covered domestic and international climate change politics and policy, major energy legislation and air pollution regulations. Before E&E, Samuelsohn was the outdoors, travel and entertainment reporter at The Olympian in Washington state.
Hard to hear what Politico is saying when they have their heads so far up Obama’s butt.
IT’S A MAN, BABY!!
-Austin Powers
So............basically he’s an eco-hippy.
******
The New America Foundation is an American non-profit, left-leaning public policy institute and think tank focusing on a wide range of issues, including national security studies, technology, asset building, health, energy, education, and the economy. The organization is based in Washington DC in addition to having a significant presence in New York City.
In 2007 Steve Coll, a former managing editor of The Washington Post, became President of the New America Foundation. Google's Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, is chairman of the foundation's board of directors.
Well, that would be racist.
Joanne Kenen
butthucking fugly
New America Foundation: Another ‘Non-Partisan’ Group Goes Hard Left...Again
Behold the New America Foundation (NAF), yet another Washington, D.C. entity laying claim to high-browed, high-minded non-partisanship.
The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States....
Too often, these challenges have proven impervious to conventional party politics and incremental proposals.
The first question that leaps to mind is: Why a New America? Why do they want to rid us of the Old America? Sounds an awful lot like President Barack Obama wanting to “fundamentally transform” the Old Girl.
Who pays for this little show? And by “little show” we mean one that had a 2010 outlay of $15,695,563. Why, it’s Leftist joints like:
$1,000,000 (in 2011)
The Ford Foundation
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Eric and Wendy Schmidt
$250,000-$999,999 (in 2011)
Open Society Institute (a George Soros outfit)
Google, Inc.
Wait, go back - Eric Schmidt? Is that the President Obama Uber-Crony?
Eric is a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology....
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Doubles Down On His Support Of President Obama
Some Perspective on Obama’s Bromance with Eric Schmidt
Why yes it is. And wait: Google gave somewhere between $250K and $1 million - and their former Chairman gave an additional $1 million-plus?
Those two rats look like imperfect, strange characters from a Steven King novel. Their evil-following intent shows through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.