Abnormal Interests

However, there are a few simple tests that are reliable indications of how much of the whole can be trusted or taken at face value. First, are there substantive statements that are demonstratively incorrect even perhaps intentional lies? Second, is language used that is likely to have one meaning to a core support group and a different meaning to outsiders? The President failed both of these tests.

He made the following "substantive" statements about Social Security,

The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy.

and

By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

These statements are false. If one uses the Social Security Trust Fund's numbers, Social Security will be able to pay at the rate of 73% of the promised benefits after 2042 even if absolutely nothing is done. Note, that will be considerable more in absolute dollars than is being paid today. If you don't believe me, check out the Social Security Trust Fund website. Every member of the Fund's Board of Trustees is a Bush appointee. These figures are based on a extremely slow economic growth rate. Many people, including yours truly, think the Congressional Budget Office numbers are more realistic. The CBO forecasts that full Social Security payments can be made until 2052 and then the payments will fall to 78% of the promised amount. Again, if you don't believe me, check out their website. There is no definition of "bankruptcy" that would allow continued payment of 78% of promised amounts. The "entire system" will not be exhausted. The President had access to the truth on this matter and chose to tell us something that was not true. This incorrect representation should be enough to cast doubt on the whole of the speech. I will leave it to others to find other misrepresentations and I'm sure they will. By the way, as far as I know, there is no Constitution requirement for an up-or-down vote on judicial appointments but the President implied that there was. The requirement is "advice and consent" and the President just has a lot of trouble with the "advice" part.

As to the second test, is language used that is likely to have one meaning to a core support group and a different meaning to outsiders? It is clear that the President failed my second test. We used the phrases "Culture of Life" and "re-defined by activist judges" are both code phrases that mean that he supports the over through of Roe v. Wade. Again, if you don't believe me, check it out. He certainly means this and believes in it. Why doesn't he just say it rather than use code words that mean one fairly narrow thing to part of his base and another broader thing to others? The only answer I can think of is that he is, at a minimum, being purposefully duplicitous. How much of the rest of his speech is likewise spoken with a forked tongue? I do not know.

I do not know how much of the substantive parts of the speech can be trusted but based on my simple two step test very little if anything.