Well folks, President Obama’s press conference is in the can, teleprompters and all.  And truth be told, it certainly did not have the feel of a press conference whatsoever.  Maybe it had to do with it seeming more like a media circus save for the correspondent for CBS News, softballs were thrown the president’s way.  And of course, there’s the little matter on whether Obama stated the facts during the press conference.

Well, I happen to have here the claims by Obama versus the actual truth behind the claims.  I hope you have the Maalox next to you as I think that you will not be happy.  Here you go.  But before I put out the claims and actual truth, a small recap of the press conference itself:

• Obama spoke about his chances of achieving the so-called big-ticket items on his agenda despite the rotten economy.
• He asserted that his proposed budget will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Hmmm.  Where have we heard that one before?  Quite frankly, it is not possible, in light of the fact that the deficit is in the trillions.
• He also promised savings from increased spending on preventive health care, despite there being doubts as to whether the proposal actually pays for itself – let alone provide savings.
• He also pitched a quick-fix to the Social Security issue.  As expected, analysts have said on more than one occasion that his scheme will not work.

OK, folks, here is where it gets ugly – Obama’s claims versus the actual truth.  Strap on your seat belts:

Claim:  ”We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.”

Fact: A dubious claim, at best.  You have to consider that the U.S. has lost approximately 1.2 million jobs since Obama assumed the presidency, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Even if Obama’s stimulus bill saved and/or created the number of jobs as he claims, the current numbers dwarf the current number of lost jobs.

Claim: “We must lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that’s exactly what this budget begins to do. It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training; new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses, and new savings that will bring down our deficit.”

And this from his side-trip to Missouri: “I’ve personally asked the leadership in Congress to pass into law rules that follow the simple principle: You pay for what you spend, so that government acts the same way any responsible family does.”

Facts: The budget does set a road map for achieving Obama’s goals; however, the plan – like Swiss Cheese – has lots of holes in it.  For instance, it does not say exactly how to pay for his health plan (Oh, I know – more of our tax money!!!), which is expected to cost to cost about $1 trillion annually over the next ten years.  Insofar as the deficit, according to Obama, would drop to $523 billion in 2014.  However, it would achieve those lofty numbers with unrealistic assumptions – such as assumptions that the wars in Afghanistan and Iran will only run about $50 billion a year.

Claim: “Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit….That wasn’t me.”  That was Obama’s claim in Missouri.

Facts: Under a Democratic Congress in 2007 and 2008, they held the purse strings that led to the deficit that Obama “inherited”; but to be fair, former president George W. Bush signed the legislation.  Also keep in mind that Obama supported the emergency financial bailout package in Bush’s final months -  a package that the Dems wanted to make bigger.

While it is true that Obama opposed the war in Iraq, except for one exception, he supported spending on the Iraq conflict.  Also factor this in – the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that Obama’s policy proposals would add an additional $428 billion to the deficit over the next four years, even taking into account Obama’s spending reductions.  As it were, the deficit is quadrupling – to the tune of $1.75 trillion.

Claim: “I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. … If we’re making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term.”  This again are from Obama while in Missouri.

Facts: It does actually make sense with the argument that preventive medicine, along with diet and exercise, should save some money, healthcare-wise.  But if you remember during the 2008 presidential campaigns, the candidates were all touting preventive care.  According to the New England Journal of Medicine says that sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention might be overreaching.  They also added that although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority of the preventive measures do not.  Also add to this ammunition that the Congressional Budget Office has found that increasing preventive care could improve people’s health but would more than likely generate modest reductions in overall health costs or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame.

Claim: “You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody’s payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax.”  Obama said this in where else? Missouri.

Facts: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama’s scheme would shrink the Social Security trust fund deficit by less than half.  What this means in the simplest terms is that Obama would have to cut benefits – I can hear the AARP crying bloody murder on this one – along with raising the payroll tax, raise the retirement age or some combination of of these measures to deal with the S.S. deficit.  Currently, workers pay 6.2% into Social Security while employers match that rate on annual wages up to $106,800 – after which no more payroll taxes are collected.  Obama wants to have workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll taxes on their income over that amount.  While it does protect workers who make less than $250,000, it also would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

Claim:  ”My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we’ll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier.”  Obama in Missouri.

Facts: Obama has in fact expressed hope (and fear, I might add) for a health care plan that has support from both Democraps and Republicans.  But as has been the pattern, Congress has made it almost impossible for this to happen; the Democratic budget plan that Congress passed on Wednesday gives the Dems the option of denying Republicans the normal right to block health care with a Senate filibuster.  Filibustering requires 60 votes to overcome and is the only weapon the GOP has to ensure a bipartisan outcome.  the current rules under this budget gives the Democraps the power to possibly pass legislation without any Republican votes – basically eliminating any chance at bipartisanship.  Unless some RINOs vote on the Democrats’ side.

Between the campaign speech in Missouri by Obama – hey folks, what else could it be? – and the so-called press conference on Wednesday night, this is once again more of the same.  Lots of overreaching and of course, style over substance – the hallmark of the Obama presidency.

The Thursday news update, courtesy of Fox News Channel.

The Wednesday news update, courtesy of Fox News Channel.

May 5 is the day of reckoning for Florida governor Charlie Crist; why does this date hold special meaning, you may ask?  May 5 is the date that Crist will announce as to whether he will run for the U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated by Senator Mel Martinez.

But according to sources close to Crist, it appears that Crist is leaning towards declaring his candidacy for the seat.  One thing is for certain – a Crist adviser has already said that the governor will not make announcement no earlier than Friday, the day when the state legislative session ends; however, there is a possibility that the session could be extended as narrowing the state’s budget gap could prolong the session into overtime.

Recently, Crist had been the target of the media as they have spread negatives about him, ranging from his relatively light public schedule and questions about his efficiency as governor of Florida to a debate as to whether he really is a shoo-in as the next senator from the state.  Assuming that Crist declares his candidacy, he will almost by default become the favorite with former state House Speaker Marco Rubio possibly joining the fray.

The Democrats are affected on what Crist’s decision is, as well.  State Rep. Ron Klein and Tampa mayor Pam Iorio could very well take a pass on the Senate seat and take their chances elsewhere; two candidates have already made their declarations – Rep. Kendrick Meek and state Senator Dan Gelber.

Crist’s assumed candidacy will make some noise both on a statewide and nationwide level; nationally, Crist’s candidacy can be used as talking points in recruiting quality GOP candidates and pointing out to them that the election disasters of 2006 and 2008 are a thing of the past and that things are looking up for the party. 

In the long-term, Crist’s candidacy could have financial ramifications for both parties.  The early polling shows that Crist is the favorite in Florida, so this would allow the national GOP to spread their finances elsewhere – states such as Kentucky, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio and especially Pennsylvania – as opposed to centering the money in Florida.  But then again, none of this means very much until he makes his final decision.  This should be very interesting, so stay tuned.

Here’s both sides of the argument

Arlen Specter is a “RINO”.  check that – was a RINO.  Later today, the senator from Pennsylvania is expected to announce that he is switching from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party and run in the Democratic primary in 2010.

And you know what, folks?  I can honestly say that I am glad to see him leave.  Truth be told, although he was in the GOP for 30+ years, he had the independent streak about him not to mention the fact that he voted for some issues the way that a Democrat would – with one example being that he voted for the stimulus package.

But I also think that Specter saw the writing on the wall when he realized that he was going to – for the first time in his political career – face some actual competition in a primary.  His opponent?  Pat Toomey.  So I am not completely surprised that he switched parties.  Oh, before I forget – he claims that he intends to keep his independent streak going despite switching over to the dark side.

Arlen, no hard feelings coming from me personally; but nonetheless, when you leave, don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.