Obama has made passing reference to some of these spending-cut proposals in news conferences, but he has never made them the centerpiece of a high-profile speech. By contrast, he repeatedly—and very publicly—has stressed his interest in raising taxes on the wealthy. That’s why his ideas on entitlements remain a mystery to many Republicans—but they all know he wants to raise revenues.
The president’s outreach to Republican rank-and-file in the past week is a sign of seriousness, in that he is beginning to explain his ideas directly to the opposition.
However, the president has not directly taken on members of his own party; he also has not made the case for overhauling entitlement programs to the American people.
The idea that Obama could resolve the impasse if only he tried harder is a common fallacy of centrist commentary in Washington, but it’s especially perverse when offered as a factcheck. The problem, once again, is a lack of discipline in selecting targets for factchecks and a tendency to make subjective pronouncements about language and process. As Marx notes, claims like these are “ultimately political, not journalistic, in nature. By insisting otherwise, and acting as if journalistic methods can resolve the argument, the factcheckers weaken the morally freighted language that’s designed to give their work power.”
Kessler is a distinguished reporter and journalist, so why not give him a separate column for punditry and preserve The Fact Checker column for, well, facts?
Follow @USProjectCJR for more posts from this author and the rest of the United States Project team.
Thanks to Brendan Nyhan and CJR for pointing out Glenn Kessler's astonishingly bogus piece of "fact checking" in WaPo. It discredits the entire fact-checking enterprise. I entirely agree with Nyhan's conclusion that if Kessler wants to write political columns stating his personal political views and observations, that's perfectly fine if that the Post wants to run them as opinion columns. But to present this piece as a "fact check" is ridiculous since it has little or nothing to do with evaluating empirical evidence. Kessler is setting out his own personal standard for what constitutes having a budget plan, which apparently does not include actually having publicly proposed a budget plan. Kessler's piece is a perfect example of the Beltway cult of bipartisanship, the mainstream media's embrace of false equivalence, and the all-too-frequent dishonesty of "fact checking."
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 12 Mar 2013 at 07:30 PM
I must confess i have been surprised at some of the vitriol expressed about this column. I thought I was making the unremarkable observation that you can judge how serious a politician is about a plan by how hard he or she pushes for it. I thought I could marry that thought with an explanation of why I did not fact check Boehner's statement, but clearly my execution was off! (Kevin Drum at Mother Jones wrote that I was making a "reasonable point," so at least one reader understood what I was trying to say.)
Brendan makes some very good observations, which I will reflect on. I will note that if you look at the "About the Fact Checker" page, my mandate extends beyond just vetting statements: "We will not be limited to political charges or countercharges. We will seek to explain difficult issues, provide missing context and provide analysis and explanation of various 'code words' used by politicians, diplomats and others to obscure or shade the truth." I thought this column was in that realm but perhaps such columns should be better labeled in the future.
#2 Posted by Glenn Kessler, CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 09:41 AM
Kessler: Obama isn't serious because he doesn't agree with me.
Can't he Post find something useful for the guy to do?
#3 Posted by Peter Principle, CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 09:53 AM
This column looks like a continuation of Brendan's prior column. Both try to excuse Obama's lack of leadership.
The prior column cited a "green lantern" theory to claim that Obama's leaderhip wouldn't make a difference. This one quibbles over the exact meaning of the word "plan" and over Glenn Kessler's proper role in order to deflect Kessler's point that the President has not shown real leadership.
Obama's lack of leadership on the issue of Medicare and Social Security is particularly unfortunate. Obama has impeccable liberal credentials, and he will not run for office again. And, of course,he's the President. That's why he's in the best position to tell the country that these programs are unaffordable and unsustainable. He could make an address to the nation and just quote the latest Social Security Trustees' Report:
The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012... Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.
#4 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Fri 15 Mar 2013 at 04:23 PM
Kessler is certainly wrong to say Obama has no "plan" because he has not fought for the specific implementation of all its elements. And Boehner is wrong to say the President has "no plan."
It's been said that in war, a plan doesn't last beyond the first contact with the enemy. However, "commander's intent" should be firmly set in the subordinates' minds, so that they can improvise toward the ultimate objective.
Similarly, Obama's "plan" sets the direction. The Republicans, political enemies, want Obama to retreat on his own (see: Obama's apparent first term negotiating strategy and Kessler's column), which is possibly a good tactic (for Republicans) but hardly something that disqualifies Obama from having a "plan."
@ #4 - Social Security and Medicare are two different animals - a SS fix is simple (eliminate income cap, for example), whereas Medicare lack of sustainability comes primarily from the rapaciousness of the Hospital, Pharmaceutical and Medical lobbies and industry (see Brill's Time Magazine article).
#5 Posted by Ned Roberts, CJR on Tue 19 Mar 2013 at 06:58 PM
Yes, eliminating the income cap on SS taxes would make SS (almost) sustainable long-term. But, where's the President's leadership and plan?
If Mr. Obama made a series of apeeches to the nation specifically calling for the elimination of the income cap on SS taxes, that would be a real plan. With his leadership, I think Congress would go along and pass something resembling the President's proposal. That's why I don't buy Brendan's "Green Lantern" excuse in the prior post.
Instead of endorsing a real plan that would solve the problem, the President pussyfoots around the teeny step of switching to chained CPI. This change would reduce the annual inflation increase in benefits by only a tenth of one per cent. And, Obama won't even publicly call for this utterly inadequate change in the law.
#6 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Thu 21 Mar 2013 at 12:46 PM