Without evidence, Wash. Times claimed Obama "reneged" on campaign promises
SUMMARY: The Washington Times falsely claimed in an editorial that President Obama "reneged" on campaign promises to eliminate earmarks and increase defense spending. In fact, Obama did not promise to eliminate earmarks, and he did propose a budget increasing defense spending.
In an April 8 editorial, The Washington Times claimed that President Obama has "reneged" on his campaign promise to not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year, but provided no evidence to support that claim. The Times also falsely claimed Obama "reneged" on his promises "to eliminate earmarks and increase defense spending." In fact, Obama never vowed to eliminate earmarks, and he did propose a budget increasing defense spending.
The Times wrote of Obama:
He promised "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Repeatedly during the campaign, he promised that, "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." He also promised to eliminate earmarks and increase defense spending. Mr. Obama has reneged on all these commitments.
The editorial provided no support for the claim that Obama has "reneged" on his promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 annually.
Regarding earmarks, as Media Matters for America has noted, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not "to eliminate earmarks" altogether. Addressing claims that Obama campaigned on a promise to end earmarks, PolitiFact.com wrote: "Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to 'reform' it, and eliminate 'screwy' or wasteful earmarks." Numerous media figures have similarly misrepresented Obama's statements regarding earmarks to accuse him of breaking a promise.
Nor has Obama "reneged" on promises to increase defense spending; rather, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009. As CNN.com noted on April 6, "The proposed overall fiscal year 2010 Defense Department budget is almost $534 billion, or nearly $664 billion when including the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current Pentagon budget totals slightly over $513 billion, or almost $655 billion including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts."
From the April 8 Washington Times editorial:
The polls don't tell us the reason for Mr. Obama's huge partisan gap, but a few sources of opposition angst are clear. Since taking office, the president has pushed legislation that breaks one campaign pledge after another by veering far to the left of his moderate campaign rhetoric.
In each of the three presidential debates, Mr. Obama promised "a net spending cut" in government and a reduction in the deficits that he at the time blamed for the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. He promised "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Repeatedly during the campaign, he promised that, "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." He also promised to eliminate earmarks and increase defense spending. Mr. Obama has reneged on all these commitments.
When Mr. Obama ran for president, he portrayed himself as the great uniter who would deliver a torn nation to the post-partisan promised land. The reality is that his increasingly far-left ideological policies have stranded the country in the barren desert of division.
Another example that the Washington Times is a GOP hack piece.
i did hear obama say he wanted to end earmarks in a speech, nothing about reforming them in the one i heard. plus his budget has more earmarks than probably all budgets before him combined. hope it works
Hi Craig - Do you have such a clip of Obama saying that? Of course you don't. Because he did not. Where are the earmarks in the 2010 budget? Can you also reply here with that evidence or do you wish to simply repeat GOP talking points here via copy & paste?
Craig please provide a link?
Thanks
That's funny, I read his budget had thousands of earmarks less than the previous administration. Perhaps you could provide some data of every previous budget earmark count to prove your claim?
You're a liar just like the Washington Times, Craig. The budget that was recently passed wasn't "his budget". His budget hasn't been passed yet.
The budget with all the earmarks you're condemning? Bush's holdovers. However, that budget had significantly fewer earmarks than the previous budget. It was actually toned down.
Eggs-actly!
"Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that's good, but earmarks account for about $18-billion of our budget."
Barack Obama on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 in a debate in Nashville, Tenn.
Obama's earmark number is correct
The presidential candidates argued about the economy and fiscal policy at a debate on Oct. 7, 2008, in Nashville.
Barack Obama criticized John McCain's talk of earmarks, saying that cutting earmarks would not significantly affect the federal deficit.
"Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that's good, but earmarks account for about $18-billion of our budget," Obama said.
Fiscal conservatives concerned about the national debt — which is now more than $9-trillion in total — often mention earmarks as something that needs fixing. But earmarks are only a small part of the problem.
According to an Office of Management and Budget tally, earmarks totaled $18-billion for the 2008 budget, or roughly 10 percent of the deficit for that year. Another report found that appropriations bills in fiscal year 2008 included $16.5 billion for earmarks. Those numbers are lower than previous years because earmarking dropped considerably following the congressional lobbying scandals of 2005 and 2006. But even at their peak in 2005, when earmarks hit $52-billion, according to the Congressional Research Service and the OMB, that was only 16 percent of that year’s deficit of $318-billion.
The numbers show Obama gets his earmark number correct. We rate his statement True.
he specifically said about no earmarks in the stimulus bill and he got it, he only promised to reform the earmark process.
the whole ending earmark thing is somethign stateed by hannity and crew
Where is this mysterious increase in taxes? Middle class tax cuts just took effect from the stim bill. Where is the coverage of that in our supposed liberal media?
The Wa Times editorial dept probably all make over $250K and are subject to increased taxes. That's all they care about. Screw the 98% of people who will realize a tax cut.
Everything President Obama said or thought during the campaign or that any of his opponants said or thought was a sacred promise he and he alone made to the American people and also a lie because he did not fulfill each and every one the day he took office. He's a communist and a facsist and a jihadist intent on destroying this great country which he clearly despises. In spite of all his rhetoric he really has no interest in change or he wouldn't propose sweeping changes which he knows Republicans will not unanimously vote for and would never propose themselves if the Democrat Congress ever allowed them to propose any bills or even speak when Congress is in session. Which they don't. How very dare he!
Also if he was really for change he would veto every bill that doesn't get at least 80% of the Republican votes.
Right on shaggles. Well put.
But, I am confused by your seemingly correct spelling and grammar and your use of bold text instead of all-caps. ;)
"The polls don't tell us the reason for Mr. Obama's huge partisan gap, but a few sources of opposition angst are clear"
Such as the absurd false beliefs Republicans probably hold about Obama after reading the Washington Times?
Obviously, in your world, no one who smokes earns less than $250,000. Or perhaps you didn't notice that on April 1 the cigarette tax more than doubled, going from 39 cents a pack to $1.01 per pack, something the Washington Times obviously knows and wrongly assumed that you people would also be aware of. So yes, he broke his promise of, "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
well thats a bit of hair splitting. given the fact that buying cigarettes is OPTINAL. i for one do smoke and yeah im not happy about the tax increase but its going to something good. so im willing to take the hit.
its not like he increased taxes that would be taken out of pay checks. which is what he did promise not to do so.
the cigarette tax is an excise tax and he has never said he would not raise any excise taxes. see buying goods that have federal excise taxes such as tobacco products and booze, you don't have to buy them. its optional. kinda like the lottery, you dont have to buy them, its an indrect tax. which is why i don't play the lottery.
What part of Pres. Obama's words, "not any of your taxes," do you not understand? No where did I see any qualifications in his statement as to which taxes were sacrosanct and which were not. But then, since you don't consider an increase in the cigarette tax as a true tax increase, how would you react to an increase in such excise taxes as the gas tax? Or the one on phone calls? Or the one on fishing and archery epuipment, and the list goes on and on. Would you say all of those are optional and completely overlook the fact that many people have to buy fuel to get to work, or need a telephone so their boss can call them?
so i guess "obviously" in your world....everyone smokes, or chews tobacco and its a basic of every single person in america.....which is untrue....just like it is untrue that the washington times is a true news outfit, when we all know they are just a neo con moutpiece.
and since you are plugging for them and repeating their BS talking points. you could be lumped in with them as well and not be considered a rational, viable, thoughtful human being capable of rational debate and discussion, only parroting debunked talking points that are lies.
so you are like the washington times......a liar and poor one at that.
Since you called me a liar, point out what lies you are basing that on. Come on, show me what in my comment is a lie. Be specific. I freely admit to being sarcastic, and I suppose I should advoid that because you don't seem to be able to detect what is sarcasim and what is not.
OK - Moonies own Wash Times, Wash Times lies, ergo Moonies lie. Surprise ! ? But why oh why are they so terribly upset by a progressive America ? Hmm. Must confess that it's really fun to catch them, along with Newt, Lush Rumball, Sean, Beck and the rest, nekkid in the bright sunlight - wanting to destroy Obama, wanting to damage America - sad yes . . . but tee hee, such morons.