Uncheckable Debate Claims: 12 Million New Jobs, Tax Deductions For Offshoring
By 1:30 a.m. Thursday, three hours after the presidential debate ended, the cottage industry of fact-checking was on all-hands overtime.
Checkers said Obama overstated Romney’s tax cut — it’s not exactly $5 trillion, though the president was right that the former Massachusetts governor is failing to give any specifics.
Romney’s charge that Obama doubled the deficit was dead wrong, as was his claim that Obama would cut $716 billion from Medicaid spending, along with his charges about the health care panel limiting care. Obama’s claim that he proposed a $4 trillion debt-reduction plan was a stretch.
Just about all the checkers caught those layups.
Overall, just as the clear consensus was a win for Romney, Obama had a better grasp of reality, if I’m reading the fact-checkerati correctly. In fact, the president appears to have won the debate — if you only read the debate transcript and did not watch the event.
(Scroll down for links to some of the best fact-checking reports.)
But two of the boldest claims by Obama and Romney went largely unexplored, not because they weren’t important but because they’re so hard to check.
Romney, in his closing statement, said, “If I’m president, I will create — help create 12 million new jobs in this country with rising incomes.”
Twelve million jobs, based on what? No one knows because it’s just another version of the same, discredited, tax-cutting, supply-side thinking that led George H.W. Bush to call Ronald Reagan’s plan “voodoo economics.”
“Economic growth is a sort of magic asterisk,” said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, a liberal partisan, in a Wall Street Journal video breaking down the debate. “It’s very hard to analyze this kind of plan.”
Putting job gains in perspective, the Tampa Bay Times’ Politifact.com points out the biggest private-sector net job gain in any administration since Kennedy was 20.8 million under Bill Clinton, followed by 14.7 million in the Reagan years. The only decline was George W. Bush, at negative 646,000.
Obama’s claim about tax breaks for multinationals was also a head-scratcher: “Right now you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
What was he talking about? The pundits said little about this. The 15-minute Wall Street Journal video, a debate between Reich and Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard that was better than the night’s main event, delved into the foreign tax question at the 8-minute, 20-second mark.
“I think what the president is referring to is the way we tax so-called multinational corporations,” Hubbard said, guessing that Obama was attacking provisions that let corporations return foreign profits to the United States without paying taxes. Hubbard favors that policy since he thinks companies that are already sitting on record piles of cash will hire more people if they get yet more cash into their coffers.
Hubbard was probably wrong about what Obama meant, since those tax amnesty programs are not chiseled in the tax code. Reich’s guess was that Obama was talking about “all kinds of tax provisions,” including, presumably, the write-off of the cost of closing a U.S. plant.
Romney certainly didn’t let it go unquestioned. “Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.”
Whoa! Here was Mitt Romney basically calling himself an off-shorer of jobs, and Obama didn’t bite. Amazing.
On the other hand, if Obama had accused Romney of sending jobs overseas while he headed Bain Capital, the president would have been on thin ice, according to a detailed report in factcheck.org.
Obama might have been wrong, but he would have fared better in the debate.
Here are some fact-checking reports on the contest:
The Daily Beast, with links to other fact-checkers
Associated Press, comprehensive on what Obama and Romney meant, not just the facts
The New York Times had to be interactive, of course
The New York Times, more analysis than fact-checking
Salon.com, skewed toward Obama
Factcheck.org, Twitter version
Tampa Bay Times Politifact.com
6 Responses to Uncheckable Debate Claims: 12 Million New Jobs, Tax Deductions For Offshoring
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
Tweets
Recent Columns- For Three Governors, Civility And Brutal Competition
- A Law And A Cause Hit The Airwaves As Obamacare Marketing Begins
- Connecticut Gunmakers Will Host Two Governors Next Week, Not Just One
- For Farmington Bank Directors, An Eye-Opening Payoff For Converting To Stock Ownership
- As Texas Plans A Connecticut Raid, Smugness Won't Work For Rick Perry
Recent Posts
- A ‘Civil’ Meeting Between Governors Perry And Malloy
- A Law And A Cause Hit The Airwaves As Obamacare Marketing Begins
- Smith & Wesson Profits Triple For Fiscal Year
- Gunmakers In Connecticut Will Host Two Governors Next Week, Not Just One
- Pelletier, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer, Is Strong Frontrunner To Succeed Olsen
Recent Comments
- dom on A ‘Civil’ Meeting Between Governors Perry And Malloy
- george on A ‘Civil’ Meeting Between Governors Perry And Malloy
- Mr. Green Jeans on A ‘Civil’ Meeting Between Governors Perry And Malloy
- Yogi Bear on A ‘Civil’ Meeting Between Governors Perry And Malloy
- Paul on A ‘Civil’ Meeting Between Governors Perry And Malloy
Categories
- Aerospace
- Banking
- Commerce
- Consumer
- Corporate finance
- Defense
- Economic Development
- Economy
- Education
- Energy
- Financial Services
- Health Care
- Housing
- Insurance
- Jobs
- Labor
- law
- Management
- Manufacturing
- marketing
- Media
- Politics
- Poverty
- Public finance
- Real Estate
- Retail
- Small Business
- Technology
- Trade
- Utilities
- Wall Street
- Wealth
Latest Courant Biz Headlines- Diamonds Are West Hartford Manufacturer's Best Friend
- Group Home For Girls Closing, 68 To Lose Jobs
- UTC Ordered To Pay Feds $473M For Overpricing Engines
- Esty And Malloy Hail Session's Progress For Energy And Environment
- Cigna Monitoring Operations In Istanbul, Where Thousands Of Protesters Clashed With Police
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --





Re: “Deduction for a plant overseas.” Clearly he was talking about not having foreign earned profits taxed until they’re repatriated. It’s not a “deduction” but rather a reduction in tax.
Why would he think the United States has a right to tax unrepatriated profits, and why would that represent a “deduction” for moving jobs overseas, since most of those profits come from operations that never were here?
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=fe617521-eea2-4ae9-afb9-5ba5df4b52ed
There is no special tax deduction for outsourcing jobs overseas. Pres. Obama was using old talking point Republicans had tackled down as false last July citing Congress Joint Committee on Taxation.
I work for a company that sent my old job overseas what they do is they take deductions on all the cost of closing the US plant then ship the machine to there foreign plant and deduct that to.They buy stuff here write off as a loss and it overseas. This must stop.
Sam and Marknati, which is it? You’re saying opposite things. I can look this up and post the right answer, but not today.
What Sam wrote is technically accurate, but also deceptive. A business can write off moving expenses whether it moves within the country or to another country. While there is no “special” tax deduction for moving offshore, businesses do get a deduction. Obama was correct, Romney was wrong. The Democrats in Congress tried to put a stop to this, but Republicans refused.