The McCain Mystery Tour

Terrible, irresponsible column from David Leonhardt:

s the conventional wisdom has it, neither senator has been serious about the long-term budget deficit; both have made rosy assumptions about the revenue that will come from cracking down on waste, fraud, abuse, overseas tax loopholes and other vague fiscal bogeymen.

All this is true enough. Mr. Obama, for instance, relies on hypothetical savings from electronic medical records to claim that he can reduce the deficit, and he hasn’t been totally clear about his tax plans. But the unknowns about the McCain agenda are simply on a different scale.

So far, Mr. McCain is having it both ways. On the campaign trail, he has sounded like a bold tax cutter. To budget wonks, though, his campaign has gingerly inched away from those plans, saying details will be forthcoming. In the meantime, the most-cited analysis of his proposed budget doesn’t square with what he is saying on the stump.

What he doesn't understand here is that McCain is a well-known straight-talker whom everyone respects and knows is honest. Therefore, this analysis can't be right.

Comments

This might be a stupid question. But here it goes.

When the deficit goes up, there is a crowding out effect. Interest rates go up, which makes it harder for private citizens to borrow money.

So it's like a tax increase.

But a tax increase on who? who suffers when the deficit increases?

Posted by thehova | June 21, 2008 9:37 AM

Perhaps you could check with Ambinder, since you already vouched for his impeachable impartiality, which I'm sure you would have done even if he didnt work for The Atlantic.

Or also graduated from Harvard.

Posted by James | June 21, 2008 9:48 AM

But a tax increase on who? who suffers when the deficit increases?

In the short term, anyone who's trying to borrow money. Essentially, the demand for debt has gone up, so its price -- the interest rate -- will increase. If you're a business looking to borrow to build a new factory, for example, it's going to cost you more than if the government wasn't in debt.

Longer term, the debts have to be payed, so the tax increase is on anyone who's paying taxes at that point. For us, of course, the longer term is now (and the future) -- debt service is already a significant part of government spending.

Posted by bh | June 21, 2008 10:29 AM

I've met David Leonhardt. He's among the nicest people on the planet. Feel free to quote and discuss him more often.

Posted by rachel | June 21, 2008 10:34 AM

Thanks BH. So, all things being equal, it seems like debt is a fairly flat tax.

Of course, under McCain debt would be a regressive tax on the public and under Obama, it would be a more progressive tax.

Posted by thehova | June 21, 2008 11:03 AM

I know there's a lot of snark in this, but I do hope that casual readers of this blog realize you are being sarcastic and not being forthright when you call McCain a straight-talker etc.

Posted by Doug | June 21, 2008 11:57 AM

I know there's a lot of snark in this, but I do hope that casual readers of this blog realize you are being sarcastic and not being forthright when you call McCain a straight-talker etc.

Posted by Doug | June 21, 2008 11:58 AM

This article is in fact irresponsible on some points--most notably repeating the meme that somehow things in Iraq are supposedly "getting better." For whom exactly?

Posted by JCur | June 21, 2008 1:52 PM

Senator Obama is not a natural born American and is ineligible to be elected president. The document purporting to be his birth certificate that was published on Daily Kos and on the senators' web site is a forgery. If elected, the Rethuglicans will successfully challenge the result in court and Senator McCain will be elected by default. The Democrats must stop this runaway train immediately, if not sooner and nominate Al Gore as their candidate.

"Obama campaign endorses crudely forged "birth certificate" as genuine
By Reuven Koret June 21, 2008

The full certificate. Click here for highest available resolution.

In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee's birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his "birth certificate." But cursory examination of that image in high resolution reveals inconsistencies and irregularities which indicate that the purported document is a crude forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign suggests a desperate attempt to conceal the truth of Obama's birth circumstances and citizenship uncertainty from the American people.

The campaign has posted only a low-resolution image of that document, which it claims is his "birth certificate," on its "Fight the Smears" website, along with purported proof of why the claim that Obama may not qualify as a "natural born citizen" is false:

---
Lie:
Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Truth:
Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...."
---

Contrary to the campaign's claims, when Hawaii became a state and the wording of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, are not at issue.

Rather it is Article Two, Section One of the Constitution which requires that the President be a "natural born citizen" and not simply a naturalized citizen. The issue is whether there is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, the legal status of his mother at the time, and what exactly is written on the original birth certificate -- if it in fact such a certificate exists.

The evidence is overwhelming that this purported official State of Hawaii document, originally published by the radical left Daily Kos blog, is a fake, and a poorly executed one at that.

Even cursory examination of the higher resolution of the image indicates a series of irregularities which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the purported "certificate" is in fact a crude forgery like produced by photoshop or another image-editing software, and not a genuine item.

Editor Reuven Koret can be reached by email for commentary on this article.

"I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama's birth certificate."
Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, to the Los Angeles Times.
The evidence, presented in greatest detail by the blogger Photicon at TownHall, includes:

1. Use of a crude facsimile of the seal of the State of Hawaii at the top
2. Blacking out of the Certificate number in an attempt to prevent it from being traced
3. Absence of any official signature or seal
4. Crudely arranged borders inconsistent with a professionally produced official document
5. Crude overlay of the textual items on top of the patterned background, indicating that the background was produced first and then the textual images laid on top of it by a graphical program rather than being scanned from the original.
6. Failure to use the double-S symbol before the listing the relevant statute (HRS 338-13b) as appears in official uses of the State of Hawaii.
7. The appearance of the backward facing text "Jun 6, 2007" that appears to come from a stamp in the lower right hand portion of the document. This might suggest that the document was ordered on that date. But if so, why does the date appear backwards? How could it appear backwards if it were a manual stamp? Could it be something that shows through from the other side? But if so, why does nothing else show through?
8. The description of his father's race as African, when the term Negro was reportedly used at the time of birth.
9. The use of an identical typeface for all text items on the page.

Even if one or two of the above irregularities may have an explanation, the aggregate points to an amateurish attempt to manufacture an official-looking document that in all probability does not exist in the official records of the state of Hawaii.

Indeed, this document does not even presume to be a copy of the original birth certificate -- contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign -- but rather a secondary Certification of Live Birth, which may be used when the original birth certificate can't be located, and can be produced after the fact with just the affadavits of a family members, or the child himself.

The Obama campaign, however, has not even produced a paper version of this document, and indeed it does not even publish the high resolution version that appeared on the Daily Kos. It has not fulfilled the media's persistent requests to produce the original Birth Certificate, or to respond to media questions about the birth certificate controversy.

What could be the Obama campaign's motive for withholding the original birth certificate and passing off instead a crudely forged facsimile of a "Certification of Live Birth"?

Speculation in the blogosphere and mainstream media is rampant that the concealment is for one or more of the following reasons:

1. There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
2. The father listed on the birth certificate is not Barack Hussein Obama.
3. The father's race is listed as something other than African, perhaps Muslim or Arab.
4. The mother was no longer at that time an American citizen.
5. The child's name is not listed as Barack Hussein Obama II.

Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot blog of the National Review and one of the original writers on the controversy, cited the "rumor" that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.

Geraghty stated that "If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen -- because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'"

He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."

Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.

The seriousness of this latest controversy cannot be underestimated. Unlike the scandals related to Obama's various associations with unsavory characters, or claims about his Muslim upbringing, the issue here relates to his citizenship and legal qualification to run for President of the United States.

One would have thought that the most basic documentary proof of the location and date of his birth should be a basic and non-controversial requirement for any presidential candidate, and part of the public record, much more so than one's tax return or annual checkup. It is almost incomprehensible that they would withhold this information -- unless there is something to hide.

Ironically, a similar controversy surrounded Obama's likely opponent in the Presidential race, John McCain. McCain was born to two American parents, one of whom was serving in a US military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.

This Washington Post column on "Citizen McCain's Panama Problem?" examines the issue:

"McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that 'no person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President.'

"Some might define the term 'natural-born citizen' as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, 'The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.' That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John's birth in 1936."

But the issue is not legally closed, and therefore this year, as reported in the legal column of the Wall Street Journal a non-binding resolution was introduced and passed affirming that McCain qualifies as a "natural born Citizen," as specified in the Constitution and is therefore eligible for the highest office in the land. Ironically, the resolution was co-sponsored by Barack Obama.

About McCain, of course, there is no question about the facts surrounding his birth, but over their legal significance. He is not denying that he was born in Panama, or posting certificates that claim he was born in Florida. Obama's campaign, on the other hand, seems intent on evading the need to produce and submit to public scrutiny the official document that could prove that his qualification to run for President according to the Constitution.

The cloud of controversy, of course, could be dispelled with ease, of course, if Obama would release the real documentation of his birth, or even the original printed version of the online document the campaign claims as genuine. The willingness of his campaign to endorse and pass off as genuine what is palpably a poorly forged document is not just foolish. After all, it can be easily exposed, first and foremost by officials in Hawaii. More significantly, the concealment indicates evidence of the perceived need to hide and cover for something serious and damaging enough to justify this high-risk gamble.

And yet the campaign is still sticking by its guns, despite the accumulating evidence pointing to the forgery and inadequacy of the proffered image of the non-birth certificate. Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, told the LA Times: "I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama's birth certificate."

Without definitive proof of the circumstances of his birth and thus his identity as a "natural born citizen", it is tragically ironic that the issue of Obama's legitimacy, which has haunted him personally throughout his life, may come back to haunt him, legally, by tainting him or disqualifying him from running for the office he so desperately seeks. "

Posted by SLC | June 21, 2008 3:31 PM

I'm laughing my ass off at you, SLC.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 21, 2008 3:36 PM

SLC, we don't elect men to the presidency. We elect the people who vote in the Electoral College.

Who won't vote for McCain.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 21, 2008 3:45 PM

SLC's favorite goat not a natural-born American
by Israel Insider staff, June 21st 2008.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 21, 2008 4:14 PM

And since we already know that SLC is at best non-observant, it may well be incumbent upon it to prove that it is Jewish, and not a false-flag white supremacist whose rants are designed to paint certain Jews and/or right-wing supporters of Israel in the worst possible light.

One must presume in the absence of proof the most obvious alternative: i.e. 'white supremacist sockpuppet'. Or 'mentally challenged person'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 21, 2008 4:20 PM

Re Jeffrey Davis

If Senator Obama is ineligible, they can't vote for him either.

Re Ed Marshall

He who laughs last, laughs best and when Senator Obama is declared ineligible, I will be laughing last.

Re pseudonymous in nc

Mr. pseudonymous is a poopy head.

Posted by SLC | June 21, 2008 4:28 PM

What I find most amusing about this SLC post-hijack is the fact that I am fairly confident my candidate in the primary, HRC, would have, um, exposed this in fairly short order if it were true.

And of course the fact that Obama is going to have, more or less, the same centrist Middle East policy that HRC (or Gore) would have had.

Also, I enjoyed that SLC made it super-long and thus nearly unreadable, kinda like a Richard Steven Hack comment.

Posted by Andruw | June 21, 2008 6:52 PM

He who laughs last, laughs best and when Senator Obama is declared ineligible, I will be laughing last.

Ok, when the man is sworn in, I'll refrain from laughing if you will take seriously the notion that you lost your mind at some point and need to get help.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 22, 2008 3:14 PM

Re Ed Marshall

Unlike Mr. Marshall, I, like most of humanity, have a mind to lose.

Posted by SLC | June 22, 2008 6:02 PM

Unlike Mr. Marshall, I, like most of humanity, have a mind to lose.

And a foreskin, one presumes, since SLC is no more Jewish than his favorite goat.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 22, 2008 9:59 PM

Re pseudonymous in nc

Mr. pseudonymous is apparently unaware of the fact that several decades ago, the practice of circumcision was widespread in the US in many jurisdictions. As a for instance, I would refer him to a book written by a Doctor X who wrote about his 1 year internship in a hospital in Albuquerque, NM in which he states that the operation was routinely performed on all male children born therein. There ain't many Jews living in Albuquerque. This was also true in California where virtually all males were routinely circumcised as a matter of practice. I daresay that the number of cut non-Jewish males far outnumbered the number of Jewish males.

Re Ed Marshall

Since Mr. Marshall likes a good laugh, here's a comment on the Israelinsider post of a few days ago on the subject of Senator Osamas' birth certificate. I suspect that when Senator Osamas' election is declared null and void by the Supreme Court, Mr. Marshall will no longer be laughing.

"OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE FAKE
naomiekeys - Los Angeles, U.S.A
06/23/2008 05:28 IT
I just found a website of a ?photo? side-by-side comparison of Obama?s and a ?Real? Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

BESIDES THE VISUAL PROOF, CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (HSDH) THAT:

1. Certified copies of birth certificates are NEVER sent electronically. Copies can be requested by qualified individuals in person, by mail, or on line; and the Vital Records (VR) office will MAIL the Certification of Live Birth within 4 to 6 weeks.

2. Certifications of Live Birth will ALWAYS include an embossed seal.

I just looked at the comparisons, HUGH difference!

Obama?s says ?Date Filed By Registrar? and the other one says ?Date Accepted By State Registrar?

Obama?s doesn?t have the embossed seal, the other one does.

Both say: ?OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER,? likely meaning that this form was revised in Nov. 2001 for use with laser printers, AND therefore that both of these certifications theoretically would have been produced by the VR office in Nov. 2001 or later. Therefore, it doesn?t mater if they were born years apart, Obama?s certificate was revised and should have an embossed seal.

ALSO...
BLANK HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE TEMPLATE AVAILABLE ONLINE
You can download a blank Hawaiian birth certificate template on photo bucket and fill it in.

If you look at the template on photo bucket it?s blank except for two entries. Hour of Birth: 7:24 pm and OAHU.

Isn?t it a coincidence that Obama was born at 7:24 pm the same time that?s on the blank form? "

Posted by SLC | June 23, 2008 10:19 AM