It just gets weirder and weirder every day. You’ve heard of the Buffet Rule, right? Warren Buffet, the Oracle of Omaha, bemoans the fact his secretary (can you say secretary in these politically correct days?) pays more in federal income taxes than he does, ignoring the fact he probably makes less “income” because he takes capital gains instead. Well, the Obama Administration claims that we need to implement a Buffet Rule as a tax on “rich” people to make sure they pay their fair share and help cut the deficit. According to the Obama campaign:
“The Buffett Rule would reduce the deficit while helping to pay for investments in education, clean energy, jobs, and other programs that will help our economy grow,” Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina claims on BarackObama.com.
And in another place on Obama’s campaign website, this assertion is made: “The Buffett Rule would require everyone to pay their fair share — a key step to reduce the deficit and invest in what we need to grow and strengthen the economy.
But wait, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says the Buffet Rule isn’t about helping erase a deficit, but only about taxing rich people! According to Carney:
“[N]o one ever suggested that implementing the Buffett Rule would contribute in large measure to reducing the deficit.”
So this is the Obama Administration’s/Campaign’s Newspeak. Get used to it. The 5th Estate is already making certain that you’re getting accustomed to newspeak. In the latest attempt to keep the fictitious “war on women” mantra alive in this campaign, the Washington Post has done a truth test or fact check on this statement by the Republican National Committee Co-Chair Sharon Day:
“For far too long women have been left behind in Obama’s job market. Of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women. That is truly unsustainable.”
Seems straightforward enough. It should be relatively simple to check this statement against the numbers, which is what the Washington Post did. Here’s their conclusion:
The RNC calculated these figures by comparing the decline in the number of all nonfarm employees from January 2009 to March 2012 with the decline in jobs held by women in that period. The numbers, derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics data, do add up [emphasis mine].
End of story, right? Not so fast you newspeak neophytes. Of course, even though the facts “do add up” the “journalists” at the Washington Post can’t admit that the job losses have hurt women more in this Administration. So, adopting newspeak techniques, we now come to the following conclusion by the Washington Post, even though the numbers add up:
We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.”
If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:
TRUE BUT FALSE
Ah, true but false. Yes, up is down, bad is good, everything is right with the world. As long as you understand newspeak.
So what’s your favorite oxymoron? Military intelligence? Jumbo shrimp? Anarchy rules? A fine mess?
And my favorite: journalistic integrity.
Let me know yours.