Clinton Delivers Obama a Big Bounce

Allah's not in full Eeyore mode, because this poll wouldn't include the one-two punch of Obama's empty speech and miserable jobs report.

I'm a little more Eeyorish -- because Clinton killed. He must be vigorously rebutted.

Let me tell you the main, mostly dishonest claims Clinton made which must be vigorously rebuked.

1. Obama didn't really take $716 billion from Medicare. Somehow Clinton made this sound as if Obama put more money into Medicare.

He didn't. He cut it. He did not "use the money to close the donut hole" as Clinton claimed (or, rather, only a part of it is used for that; the rest is for the new clients of ObamaCare).

It's very simple: Obama robbed $716 billion from Medicare, and Clinton's Velvet Fog on this point must be refuted.

2. Clinton also claimed, bafflingly, that if Romney puts the $716 billion back into Medicare, that makes the system go broke more quickly.

What? You put more money into an underfunded entitlement and it goes bankrupt more quickly?

This is a lie, of course. What I think is cover for the lie is this: Obama did two things. He mandated that Medicare pay out less to doctors and hospitals and insurers, then he also took the "savings" from that mandate and used it for ObamaCare.

Now, stay with me: First of all, Obama is claiming that he can use that $716 billion to both shore up Medicare's future and pay for ObamaCare. He cannot.

Clinton is basing his "strengthening Medicare" argument on the claim that when you take both the mandate in reduced outflows plus the $716 billion used to "strengthen" Medicare, in increases its period of solvency.

But the $716 billion being used to "shore up Medicare" has always been a lie. You cannot spend the same dollar twice. Now, an accounting method permits this, but the accounting method is itself flawed on this point. Obama is trying to exploit a flaw in an accounting system to claim that which is obviously impossible, to wit, that $716 billion can be spent on ObamaCare, and also, that that same $716 billion can be spent to "shore up Medicare."

It can't. It's a lie.

3. Clinton fudged facts to suggest that Obama's Miracle Economy was just around the corner. It was no accident that Clinton fudged dates to claim that people "didn't feel" the recovery in 94-95, but then suddenly felt it in 1996. He is trying to convince people that Obama's own economic miracle is just six or nine short months away.

In fact, Clinton inherited a growing economy -- the Bush recession ended the quarter before the election -- and the economy grew far more strongly in Clinton's first three years than it has in Obama's. Something like 4% vs. 2%.

And it's not true people "didn't feel the recovery" until 1996. No, they felt it for years before then; that's why Clinton was believed to be a lock for reelection (which he was).

What Clinton is talking about is in 1993 there was some doubt if the economy was real. I remember reading the WSJ: The GDP growth numbers said we were growing -- and at a nice clip -- but people still didn't believe it.

Well, a year of 4% growth and they do feel it. And, in fact, they did feel it in Clinton's first term. And not in 1996. But in 1994.

See, when you have a real recovery, with solid numbers, adding jobs above the rate of population expansion, the unemployment rate falls dramatically, because it must.

Let me put it like this: Clinton had a strong fundamental number (good GDP growth). Now, there is always a lag-time between good GDP growth and increased hiring (when people "feel it"). Thus, there was about a year before people felt it.

In Obama's case, people aren't feeling it and won't feel it because, unlike Clinton, Obama also has a very weak fundamental number (GDP growth rate which is essentially a couple of tenths of a point above the rate of natural population growth).

There is no "lag time" between good numbers and good jobs here. Because Obama has bad numbers -- thus, his jobs reports accurately reflect the fundamentals.

And to make that clear, run ads contrasting Clinton's economy vs. Obama's. Make it clear that, as Paul Ryan just declared, Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Now, I think the above is crucial. I said at the time of watching Clinton that his speech, while dishonest, was powerful.

In one speech he rebutted 90% of Romney/Ryan's work until now. Now, they have to counter-rebut it in order to get that work back.

Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble.

posted by Ace at 05:17 PM

| Access Comments