Actually, regardless of what you think of the freeze proposal, the administration has explained quite specifically how the two proposals are supposed to differ: While McCain's "hatchet" would freeze funding for individual programs, Obama's "scalpel" would freeze overall domestic discretionary spending, allowing some programs to expand while others are cut (White House Blog, 1/26/10).  Again, you can question the wisdom of the policy, but you can't claim that the White House doesn't offer an explanation of how Obama's approach differs from McCain's. Or rather, if you work for AP, you not only can--you can make it the centerpiece of your "factchecking" article. (The article's headline is a pun about Obama's "Hatchet' Job.")

Woodward indulges in fortune-telling when he dismisses Obama's talk of creating a deficit-cutting commission as a "weak substitute" for a congressionally established panel: "Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success."  Actually, Nostradamus, the Senate plan for a deficit commission would have required three-fifths majorities in both houses to enact the recommendations (McClatchy, 1/26/10),  proposals that came from a White House-created panel could pass by majority rule (since deficit-cutting measures fall under the Senate's reconciliation rules)--a far easier political hurdle.  (Once more, the question of whether such "success" is to be hoped for is another matter--see FAIR Action Alert, 1/6/10.)

Woodward follows Obama's "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan" with the retort, "But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans." Because an honest president would have pointed out, apparently, that his or her reform bill wouldn't permanently eliminate all medical inflation.

In the piece, headlined "Fact Check: Obama Disowns Deficit He Helped Shape," Woodward takes issue with Obama's statement: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me." Woodward's criticism: "It actually was him--and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years--who shaped a budget so out of balance.... Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator."

Well, if an Illinois senator bears more responsibility for the federal budget than the president, than why is Woodward wasting his time covering what President Obama has to say about the budget? Shouldn't he be interviewing Roland Burris instead?

Obama says, "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market," and AP's Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn retort, "This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries."

But Obama didn't say--or suggest--that they were. Nor is he the sort of politician who routinely pretends that his party can do no wrong, and all problems are the other guys' fault. To falsely attribute a sentiment to someone so you can "debunk" is simply unethical journalism; it's much more misleading than anything AP found in Obama's speech.

Obama says, "It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values." And AP says: "If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money does not go to home buyers who used bad judgment, it hasn't announced it."

Well, actually, there will be requirements in the mortgage bailout plan that attempt to target it at more diligent borrowers. AP could have described how this would work, and people could have decided for themselves how effective those tests would be at screening out irresponsible borrowers. Or AP could have made an argument that the rules would be inadequate to achieve Obama's stated goals. Either of those would have been informative.

But instead the wire service rejects Obama's statement on almost philosophical grounds, since no public policy is ever going to make fine moral distinctions perfectly. That's not really a very helpful observation to make about a policy.

Obama says, "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." AP comes back with, "Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term." Really? So the decisions made by George W. Bush in 2001 have no impact on the choices Obama will have in his first two years? And Clinton's 1993 actions didn't affect what Bush could do? That's not how the federal government works--in reality, budget and revenue choices have consequences for years to come.

Sometimes Woodward and Kuhnhenn seem to be calling for qualifications that would appear absurd in any politician's speech. For example, after Obama lists the goals he says his budget will achieve, AP all but snorts: "First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps." As if Obama should have followed with: "Of course, that may not happen. Congress may vote down my budget and reject my programs, and we may accomplish nothing." Does AP seriously expect any politician to talk like that?

I edit a magazine of media criticism for a living; it's pretty common for our articles to include examples of media figures saying something that we say isn't true. None of the examples from Obama's speech that AP cites would be strong enough to make it into Extra!--except maybe the catch about where the automobile was invented.

AP's Calvin Woodward charges that

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

For instance, Woodward responds to Obama outlining his economic proposals by noting: "His proposals--the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more--cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year." The unspoken assumption here is that because the country is in the midst of a financial crisis that has incurred huge bailout costs, the federal government will need to cut spending or raise taxes in order to reduce the deficit.

This economic analysis is quite controversial, to say the least--economist Dean Baker (10/9/08) says this approach "make[s] about as much sense for the economy as nuking Silicon Valley." If Baker is too progressive for your economic tastes, here's conservative Martin Feldstein arguing that "the only way to prevent a deepening recession will be a temporary program of increased government spending." Yet AP presents deficit-cutting in the midst of a recession as it-goes-without-saying common sense.

The only support that Woodward provides for his claim that Obama's failure to offer an austerity program as a response to the economic crisis means that he is being "less than upfront" with the voters is this passage:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says... "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

The Tax Policy Center report in question (9/15/08) provides no elaboration on this rather peculiar economic advice. The conventional wisdom is that tax cuts and spending increases stimulate the economy, whereas tax increases and spending cuts tend to slow it down; if AP has discovered evidence to the contrary, that should be the headline--it's bigger news than a mere Obama infomercial.