Barack Hussein Obama's broken promises

In 2009, Barack Obama promised that if he didn’t have the economy fixed in three years, then his presidency “was going to be a one-term proposition.” Since he took office, the unemployment rate has been above 8 percent for a post-World War 2 record 41 straight months. More than 23 million Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work while one in seven Americans received food stamps .

Obama In 2009: “If I Don’t Have This Done In Three Years, Then There’s Going To Be A One-Term Proposition.” OBAMA: “That’s exactly right. And - and, you know, a year from now I think people - are going to see that - we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” (NBC’s ” The Today Show,” 2/2/09)

Since President Obama Took Office, The Nation Has Lost 473,000 Jobs And The Unemployment Rate Has Increased From 7.8 Percent To 8.2 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 7/6/12)

23.4 Million Americans Are Unemployed, Underemployed Or Have Given Up Looking For Work. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 7/6/12)

45 Million People Received Food Stamps In 2011, A 70 Percent Increase From 2007, And Will Continue Growing Until 2014. “The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.” (Damian Paletta, “Food Stamp Rolls To Grow Through 2014,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Real Time Economics,” 4/19/12)

“The CBO Projected That One In Seven U.S. Residents Received Food Stamps Last Year.” (Damian Paletta, “Food Stamp Rolls To Grow Through 2014,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Real Time Economics,” 4/19/12)

Obama promise: Unemployment Below 8 Percent

Obama promised that his $831 billion stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. But since then, the unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for a post-World War 2 record amount of time.

The Unemployment Rate Has Remained Above Eight Percent For A Record 41 Straight Months. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 7/6/12)

Congressional Budget Office: Unemployment Has Remained Above Eight Percent For The Longest Stretch Since The Great Depression. “The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression.”(“Understanding And Responding To Persistently High Unemployment,” Congressional Budget Office, 2/16/12)

Obama promised his bets on green energy would create thousands of jobs, but instead gave a $535 million taxpayer-funded loan to Solyndra, a company whose largest investor was a major Obama campaign donor. The company went bankrupt and the taxpayers lost all of the money it had given to Solyndra.

“The Green Economy Is Not Proving To Be The Job-Creation Engine That Many Politicians Envisioned.” “In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.” (Aaron Glantz, “Number Of Green Jobs Fails To Live Up To Promises,” The New York Times, 8/18/11)

“Solyndra, A Solar-Panel Maker That Went Bankrupt In August With $535 Million In Federally Backed Loans, Was Riskier Than Many Other Proposals, Industry Executives Say.” (Steven Mufson And Carol D. Leonning, “Some Clean-Energy Firms Found US Loan-Guarantee Program A Bad Bet,” The Washington Post , 9/26/11)

A Total Of 1,861 Workers Were Laid Off By Solyndra As It Went Bankrupt. “Since September 1, 2010 (impact date), an estimate 1,861 workers have been separated from the firm. This total includes an estimated 649 temporary workers as well as leased workers from West Valley, Aerotek, Oxford Global, GES and Lighthouse Management. Most of these separations occurred at the time of the shut-down of the Fremont, CA facility on August 31, 2011. An additional 85 workers are threatened with separation as the company’s operations wind down.” (Employment And Training Administration, “Investigative Report TA-W-80,410; Solyndra LLC,” Department Of Labor, 9/12/11)

Cut The Deficit In Half?

Obama promised he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Because of his reckless spending, he will have amassed record trillion dollar deficits every year in office and increased the national debt by more than $5 trillion.

PROMISE: In February 2009, Obama Said That He Would “Cut The Deficit In Half By The End Of [His] First Term In Office.” OBAMA: “Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.” (President Obama, Address to Joint Session of Congress , 2/24/09)

BROKEN: The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “The Obama Administration Is Officially Breaking Its Promise To Halve The Deficit By The End Of Their First Term.” (Ezra Klein, “Wonkbook: 5 Things To Watch In Obama’s 2013 Budget,” The Washington Post ‘s Wonkbook , 2/13/12)

Klein: “The 2013 budget envisions a deficit of more than $1 trillion — not halved by any stretch of the imagination.” (Ezra Klein, “Wonkbook: 5 Things To Watch In Obama’s 2013 Budget,” The Washington Post ‘s Wonkbook , 2/13/12)

The New York Times : Obama’s Budget “Will Show Mr. Obama Has Failed To Meet His Pledge To Cut The Deficit In Half By The End Of His First Term.” ” But the document’s numbers will show Mr. Obama has failed to meet his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term, and for Republicans, that will be the bottom line.” (Jackie Calmes, “Obama’s Budget To Focus On Cutting Deficit And Adding Jobs,” The New York Times, 2/10/12)

Obama promise: In 2008, Obama said it was “unpatriotic” to add $4 trillion to the national debt but as president, he has increased the national debt by over $5 trillion to over $15 trillion and is responsible for the “most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.” No wonder Obama has been called the “undisputed debt king.”

In 2008, Obama Said Adding $4 Trillion To The National Debt Was “Irresponsible” And “Unpatriotic.” OBAMA: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Fargo, ND, 7/3/08)

Obama Is Responsible For “The Most Rapid Increase In The Debt Under Any U.S. President.” “The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.” (Mark Knoller, “National Debt Has Increased $4 Trillion Under Obama,” CBS News, 8/22/11)

Politifact: Barack Obama Is “The Undisputed Debt King Of The Last Five Presidents.” “So by this measurement — potentially a more important one — Obama is the undisputed debt king of the last five presidents, rather than the guy who added a piddling amount to the debt, as Pelosi’s chart suggested.” (“Nancy Pelosi Post Questionable Chart On Debt Accumulation By Barack Obama, Predecessors,” Politifact, 5/19/11)

Road bank didn't get much traction
Updated: Monday, May 7th, 2012 | By Rob Feinberg

During his 2008 presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised to create a "National Infrastructure Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments.”

Obama promised to provide $60 billion to the fund over the next 10 years for transportation projects across the nation, saying the fund would create up to two million jobs and "stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity.”

Obama made infrastructure a priority with the 2009 stimulus act, which allocated almost $100 billion towards transportation and infrastructure projects. However, the way an infrastructure bank works is very different from how the administration"s grant-based stimulus functioned.

"The stimulus money was essentially grants to local and state governments to do projects. And none of that"s going back” to the federal government, said Richard Little, director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at the University of Southern California.

But, Little said, an infrastructure bank instead makes loans with the expectation that the projects will bring in revenue to pay back the government.

"The idea behind an infrastructure bank is that it"s a financing authority, not really a funding source,” Little said.

Obama has repeatedly tried to create a national infrastructure bank, though he"s found little success so far.

The president has asked for the creation of a national infrastructure bank with initial funding of up to $30 billion in each of his budget proposals from fiscal years 2010 to 2013. However, each of those proposals was rejected in Congress, and a national infrastructure bank has yet to be included in a budget deal.

Obama also proposed a $10 billion infrastructure bank as part of the proposed American Jobs Act in 2011, a bill which ultimately was rejected in the Senate. Sen. John Kerry also proposed an infrastructure bank as part of his BUILD Act, a bill that initially received bipartisan support but has yet to be acted on.

Given that track record, Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute"s Metropolitan Policy Program, said that he doesn"t think a national infrastructure bank will be created by the end of Obama"s term.

Absent action on a national infrastructure bank, Congress has attempted to expand infrastructure loan programs already in place.

One example is the work done with the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, a federal effort started in 1998 that has provided $122 million in loans annually for infrastructure projects across the country, and the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program.

Puentes said that although funding hasn"t increased for these programs, the administration has been innovative in linking them together to fund large projects, one example being a $300 million project funded by loans from the TIFIA and RRIF programs to restore and improve transit at the Denver Union Station in Colorado.

When it comes to the promise, though, although the administration has repeatedly attempted to create a national infrastructure bank, it appears unlikely to happen by the end of Obama"s first term. For now, we rate this a Promise Broken.

Sources:

Interview with Robert Puentes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.

Interview with Richard Little, Director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at the University of Southern California.

ProPublica, "Stimulus Infrastructure Funding Short-Changes States With High Unemployment,” Feb. 15, 2009.

BUILD Act, full text

New York Times, "White House Seeks $4B for Transportation Infrastructure Bank,” Feb. 1, 2010.

CNN, "Obama vows to break jobs plan into separate bills after Senate setback,” Oct. 11, 2011.

Federal Railroad Administration, "Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program,” Accessed April 20, 2012.

Inside Real Estate News, "Union Station gets $300 million in funding,” July 23, 2010.

The Journal of Commerce, "TIFIA Grant Requests Outpace DOT Supply 107-1,” Feb. 15, 2012.

The Journal of Commerce, "House Republicans Unveil Five-Year Transport Plan,” Jan. 31, 2012.

New York Times, "House to Vote on High-Speed Rail Funding, National Infrastructure Bank,” July 23, 2009.

White House, "Department of Transportation: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget,”

U.S. House of Representatives Committee On The Budget, "Highlights of the President"s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget,” Feb. 14, 2012.

White House, "Five Facts About National Infrastructure Bank,” Nov. 3, 2011.

New retirement savings credit is a no-go
Updated: Monday, April 30th, 2012 | By Molly Moorhead

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised to give people with low incomes a new incentive to save for retirement. He proposed a tax credit of up to $500 for couples and $250 for singles. But three years later, the idea has gone nowhere.

President Obama included the expansion of the saver"s credit in his 2011 budget request (which was not passed), but the credit hasn"t made an appearance on his agenda since. It"s not mentioned in his proposed 2013 budget. To double-check our conclusion, we talked with G. Barry Wilkinson, a tax attorney and CPA in St. Petersburg, Fla., who said he hasn"t seen a new credit, either.

The Obama campaign did not provide evidence that this promise has been fulfilled, but pointed to the "fairness principles” the president has established in his approach to tax reform, and his advocacy for automatic enrollment in IRA plans.

But for this Obameter promise, the principles don't erase the fact that there's been no action. We rate this a Promise Broken.

Sources:

FY2013 Budget of the U.S. Government, White House Office Of Management And Budget

Interview with G. Barry Wilkinson, April 25, 2012

Email interview with Kara Carscaden, Obama campaign, April 25, 2012

Payroll tax cap unchanged
Updated: Monday, April 30th, 2012 | By Molly Moorhead

President Obama promised to strengthen Social Security for the future by making the wealthy pay more.

Under current law, people pay Social Security taxes up to $106,800 in income. On every additional dollar, there's no Social Security tax. Obama's promise to "strengthen" the retirement program by charging the tax for earnings above $250,000.

There's no sign of progress. We checked with with St. Petersburg, Fla., CPA and tax attorney G. Barry Wilkinson, who said it hasn't happened. And legislation to make the change appears to have fizzled.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a bill in September 2011 called the Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act that would achieve Obama's goal. In a press release, Sanders said the change would fully fund Social Security for another 75 years.

The bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee and has not moved.

Obama still mentions the promise in his speeches. At a town hall meeting in Annandale, Va., in April 2011, Obama said, "If we just made a little bit of an adjustment in terms of the cap on Social Security, that would do a significant amount to stabilize the system.”

That's talk, but no action. We rate this a Promise Broken.

Sources:

FY2013 Budget of the U.S. Government, White House Office Of Management And Budget

Interview with G. Barry Wilkinson, April 25, 2012

Email interview with Kara Carscaden, Obama campaign, April 25, 2012

Website of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., "Sanders Proposes Bill to Strengthen Social Security,” Aug. 25, 2011

THOMAS bill tracker, Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act, Sept. 14, 2011

WhiteHouse.gov, "Remarks by the President at a Town Hall in Annandale, Virginia,” April 19, 2011

New retirement savings credit is a no-go
Updated: Monday, April 30th, 2012 | By Molly Moorhead

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised to give people with low incomes a new incentive to save for retirement. He proposed a tax credit of up to $500 for couples and $250 for singles. But three years later, the idea has gone nowhere.

President Obama included the expansion of the saver"s credit in his 2011 budget request (which was not passed), but the credit hasn"t made an appearance on his agenda since. It"s not mentioned in his proposed 2013 budget. To double-check our conclusion, we talked with G. Barry Wilkinson, a tax attorney and CPA in St. Petersburg, Fla., who said he hasn"t seen a new credit, either.

The Obama campaign did not provide evidence that this promise has been fulfilled, but pointed to the "fairness principles” the president has established in his approach to tax reform, and his advocacy for automatic enrollment in IRA plans.

But for this Obameter promise, the principles don't erase the fact that there's been no action. We rate this a Promise Broken.

Sources:

FY2013 Budget of the U.S. Government, White House Office Of Management And Budget

Interview with G. Barry Wilkinson, April 25, 2012

Email interview with Kara Carscaden, Obama campaign, April 25, 2012

Still no mechanism for non-itemizers
Updated: Friday, April 27th, 2012 | By Molly Moorhead

The tax deduction for mortgage interest has long been popular for homeowners, but it's been limited to taxpayers to who itemize their deductions. In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised to broaden the eligibility so non-itemizers could take advantage, too. Obama said he would pass a "universal mortgage credit" equal to 10 percent of mortgage interest for non-itemizers, up to a maximum credit of $800.

But four years later, it hasn't happened.

"I have not seen anything to suggest that that's been accomplished,” said G. Barry Wilkinson, a longtime CPA and tax attorney in St. Petersburg, Fla.

The latest IRS literature on deducting mortgage interest, dated December 2011, spells out that only itemizers qualify. The IRS web page devoted to this topic has a headline for "Recent Developments,” but there is a blank space underneath.

The Obama campaign couldn't provide us with any evidence this was fulfilled, but said Obama has pushed fairness principles in his 2013 budget.

But still, there's no mortgage interest credit for non-itemizers.

We rate this Promise Broken.

Sources:

Interview with G. Barry Wilkinson, April 25, 2012

Email interview with Kara Carscaden, Obama campaign, April 25, 2012

IRS.gov, Publication 936, December 2011

Action unlikely before end of administration
Updated: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 | By Martha M. Hamilton

As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to repeal a prohibition on Medicare negotiating directly with drug companies over prices for Medicare recipients. But it's widely viewed as unlikely to before the end of the current Obama administration.

"It's hard to tell you that anything will happen prior to the election this year. It's going to be a difficult year to get any kind of legislation passed," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP.

"It has not happened and isn't likely to happen," said Gail Wilensky, who directed the Medicare and Medicaid programs from 1990 to 1992 under President George H.W. Bush.

"The Obama administration only has so much control over that, but I doubt Congress is going to pass it," said Lee Goldberg, vice president of health policy for the non partisan National Academy of Social Insurance.

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has introduced a bill that would repeal the ban on negotiations, but it is stalled in the Senate Finance Committee.

The administration included as part of its fiscal year 2013 budget a narrower proposal allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices in the same manner as the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would allow Medicare beneficiaries who are also covered by the income-based Medicaid to receive the same rebates that Medicaid receives for brand name and generic drugs.

But this, too, seems unlikely to happen given the near-gridlock in Congress.

It's always possible that the landscape may shift as we near the end of the year. But for now, with no real prospect in sight of repealing the ban, we're calling this promise Broken.

Sources:

Telephone interview with David Certner, AARP

Email interview with Gail Wilensky, former administrator U.S. Health Care Financing Administration

Telephone interview with Lee Goldberg, vice president of health policy for the non partisan National Academy of Social Insurance

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY 2013 Budget in Brief

No movement on bill to create form
Updated: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 | By Molly Moorhead

Rep. Jim Cooper introduced a "simple return" bill for the second time in April 2011. It was then referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, where it appears dead.

We checked with Cooper's office, and his spokeswoman told us "it looks unlikely that it"ll move anytime soon.”

"While it's a common-sense bill and is supported by President (Barack) Obama and fiscal experts like Austan Goolsbee, it"s drawn opposition from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, from tax software companies and from CPAs,” Cooper's spokeswoman Katie Hill wrote in an email.

Hill is right that many tax professionals have opposed such a measure, as have anti-tax crusaders, such as Grover Norquist, who fear that making the filing process easier could quell Americans' opposition to tax changes and increases.

The Obama campaign, when we asked about this Promise, didn't admit defeat but said the president continues to advocate for ways to simplify the tax code.

We also checked with G. Barry Wilkinson, a longtime tax attorney and CPA in St. Petersburg, Fla., about whether this promise had been fulfilled. No, he said: "That didn't happen."

If Congress acts on this measure, we will update our rating. But for now, with the bill to create a pre-filled-out form going nowhere, we rate this a Promise Broken.

Sources:

THOMAS Library of Congress website, HR 1069, accessed April 25, 2012

Forbes, "Why Doesn't the IRS Do Your Taxes For You?” April 17, 2012

Forbes, "Are You Ready for Government Prepared Tax Returns?” Jan. 13, 2012

Phone & email interview with Katie Hill, spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Cooper, April 25, 2012

Interview with G. Barry Wilkinson, April 25, 2012

Email interview with Kara Carscaden, Obama campaign, April 25, 2012

Legislation unlikely to be enacted this year
Updated: Friday, March 9th, 2012 | By Louis Jacobson

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to "prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers." He was referring to curbing alleged anti-competitive practices by branded drug manufacturers in legal settlements they reach with generic drugmakers.

First, some background. Drug companies that develop new medications deemed safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration are granted a period of market exclusivity, during which cheaper generic alternatives cannot be offered on the market. Once that exclusive period ends, generic copycat drugs may enter the market, and the price of the medications drops dramatically.

When we contacted both the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (the leading association for branded drugmakers) and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (representing companies that make generics) the two groups agreed that what Obama was referring to was an effort to police patent lawsuit settlements more aggressively.

This has been proposed in each of Obama"s budgets, as recently as February 2012, but it has never advanced beyond that, said David Belian, a spokesman for the Generic Pharmaceutical Association.

It has also been proposed in a Senate bill sponsored by Herb Kohl, D-Wis. The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to initiate a proceeding against parties to "any agreement resolving or settling, on a final or interim basis, a patent infringement claim, in connection with the sale of a drug.” The bill also "establishes a presumption that any such agreement has anti-competitive effects and is unlawful if the filer of an abbreviated new drug (generic) application receives anything of value and agrees to limit or forego research, development, manufacturing, marketing, or sales of the generic drug for any period of time.”

Since the bill was introduced in January 2011, it has been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee but advanced no further. There is no House companion bill.

While the administration has continued to push this issue, the slim prospect of any bill passing both chambers of Congress in the remaining months of an election year makes us skeptical that it will be enacted during Obama"s first four years. If that changes, we"ll adjust our rating, but after failing to enact this proposal during more than three years in office, we rate this a Promise Broken.

Sources:

Main index page for the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act in THOMAS

Email interview with David Belian, director of media relations with the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, March 9, 2012

Email interview with Kate Connors, director communications for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, March 9, 2012

Proposal hasn't fully reemerged after being overshadowed by health care debate
Updated: Friday, February 10th, 2012 | By Louis Jacobson

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to require employers who do not offer retirement plans to offer their workers access to automatic individual retirement accounts -- or IRAs -- with contributions via payroll deduction.

Here's the underlying idea: In order to encourage people to save for their retirement, the proposal would require that companies (other than the smallest firms) that don't offer other retirement plans such as 401(k)s to offer IRAs, with workers able to opt out if they wish.

Like a related promise on automatic 401(k) enrollment, the IRA proposal made it into Obama's 2010 budget outline. But it hasn't moved much further.

David John, a retirement-security specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, was one of the originators of the idea, which attracted bipartisan support. He said that the effort got sidetracked in part because congressional aides who were involved in it became deeply enmeshed in the health care debate. "Health care sucked out all the oxygen,” John said.

There are still some bills in Congress that would implement something along the lines of what Obama proposed. For instance, September 2011, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., offered the Automatic IRA Act of 2011. But it has not advanced to a hearing and has only secured one co-sponsor so far, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

John said that Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., is expected to offer a House version soon.

The Obama Administration has done one thing that sounds similar to this promise, but it's actually different. The administration is issuing rules to help interested employers automatically enroll employees in a retirement-saving account called a SIMPLE-IRA, with employees able to opt out. But SIMPLE-IRAs are not the standard IRAs referred to in this promise -- they are a variety of saving mechanism established during the Clinton Administration as a low-cost variant of the 401(k). They require an employer contribution, and as a result, they have never become widespread.

It's possible that this issue will gain traction again, though its chances of advancing in a polarized Congress during a presidential-election year do not seem high. If it does, we'll change our rating. But for now, we'll rate it a Promise Broken.

Sources:

White House, "Retirement Security for American Families" (fact sheet), accessed Feb. 9, 2012

E-mail interview with David John, retirement-security specialist at the Heritage Foundation, Feb. 7, 2012

Promise was overtaken by events
Updated: Friday, February 10th, 2012 | By Louis Jacobson

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to enact automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans for workers whose employers offer retirement plans. It hasn't happened, though the reasons are a little complicated.

Here's the underlying idea: In order to encourage people to save for their retirement, the proposal would require that companies make enrollment in 401(k) plans the default position, with workers able to opt out if they wished. In most plans now, workers must take action themselves, opting in to participate. Economists expect requiring workers to opt out would expand the number of people with 401(k) accounts.

The proposal made it into Obama's 2010 budget blueprint, but it didn't get much farther.

David John, a retirement-security specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, was one of the originators of the idea, which attracted bipartisan support. He said that the main reason this promise fell by the wayside was a changing environment for businesses.

As the last recession worsened, many companies cut costs by eliminating their 401(k) matches. John said that policymakers worried that adding more regulatory requirements to 401(k) plans in the midst of a poor economy could be the final straw that would lead companies to curtail their 401(k) plans entirely -- the exact opposite of the proposal's underlying goal of expanding retirement savings.

The proposal from the 2008 campaign "has been overtaken by events,” John said. (John said his own view now is to strongly support the voluntary increased use of automatic enrollment in 401(k)s but to oppose mandatory automatic enrollment for 401(k)s.)

The administration did take one modest step towards streamlining the process for businesses to adopt automatic enrollment. The Internal Revenue Service began issuing standard approvals for companies that wanted to institute automatic enrollment, rather than replying to each individually.

However, John said this was a fairly modest change. "The standardized language is as much a positive for Treasury as it is for employers, as it keeps them from having to do customized approval letters,” John said. "Instead, they can just use a template.”

But as for the specific promise, it hasn't been fulfilled. We rate it a Promise Broken.

Sources:

White House, "Retirement Security for American Families" (fact sheet), accessed Feb. 9, 2012

E-mail interview with David John, retirement-security specialist at the Heritage Foundation, Feb. 7, 2012

Change in control of the House probably dooms any chance of passage
Updated: Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 | By Martha M. Hamilton

As a U.S. senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was a sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, and as a candidate for president, he promised to sign it into law.

The proposed legislation would have made it easier to win bargaining rights for unions.

Right now, unions ask workers to sign cards saying they support the union. If they get 30 percent of workers to sign cards, it usually goes to a secret-ballot election. Under the proposed law, if unions get 50 percent of workers to sign cards, the union would win automatically, without a secret-ballot election.

Not surprisingly, the proposal faced tough opposition from the business community from the outset.

When we last checked on President Barack Obama's pledge to sign the Employee Free Choice Act in May, 2009, supporters were still upbeat about its chances of being enacted, working on a compromise that they hoped would win over enough supporters to create a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But that never happened.

"We had the votes in the House, but we couldn't get the 60 votes we needed in the Senate," said Bill Samuels, legislative director for the AFL-CIO. The bill died at the end of the last Congress and faces overwhelming odds now that Republicans control one chamber. "It's highly unlikely with a Republican House," said Samuels of the bill's prospects.

"Don't attribute it to the president," Samuels said of the bill's failure to move forward. It was the Senate that doomed the bill's chances, he said. Several Democratic senators opposed the bill's main feature, the card check provision which would have allowed union representation without an election

"EFCA has not been introduced in this Congress and even if it were, it would not be brought up in either the House or the Senate. Even if it were brought up, it would not have the votes to pass in either the House or the Senate," said Mike Eastman, executive director of labor policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"There was talk of a revised bill before the fall elections, so it all depends if the Democrats and Independents can build off what happened in Wisconsin and motivate their base and those new voters that came out to the polls in 2008 but stayed home in 2010," said Kate L. Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University in an e-mail. "(B)ecause that is the coalition that supports workers rights and will vote for candidates who support organizing and collective bargaining rights."

Republican Gov. Scott Walker's attempts in Wisconsin to take away collective bargaining rights from many state employees resulted to renewed activism by union supporters, which was echoed in other states.

"Who knows, they might even come up with something better..." Bronfenbrenner wrote. "But there is a long road from here to there."

Maybe the next Congress will be more inclined to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. But even a Congress more favorably disposed to working with the president on this issue failed to deliver.

With Republicans in control of the House, it's clear we won't see a presidential signing ceremony for the Employee Free Choice Act in this administration, so we're moving it to Promise Broken.

Sources:

"The Employee Free Choice Act -- the 'Card Check' Bill, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Telephone interview with Bill Samuels, legislative director of the AFL-CIO, April 12, 2011

E-mail exchange with Kate L. Bronfenbrenner, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.

Democrats Drop Key Part of Bill to Assist Unions, Steven Greenhouse, New York Times, 7/16/2009

E-mail exchange with Blair Latoff, director of communications, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Foreclosure prevention fund a “colossal failure,” special inspector says
Updated: Thursday, March 31st, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

When it comes to President Barack Obama's promise to create a foreclosure prevention fund, he's kept to the letter of law, but his administration has completely failed to meet its spirit. For that, we're moving this our rating to Promise Broken.

Let us explain.

Back during the campaign, Obama said he would create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners facing foreclosure. "Too many families are unable to refinance because no one will lend to them, and they are unable to sell their homes because the housing market has fallen," reads as statement of policy from Obama's 2008 campaign. "As president, Obama will fight to ensure more Americans can achieve and protect the dream of home ownership." We named it one of our top promises, among the most significant campaign pledges Obama made.

And soon after his election, Obama outdid the promise of $10 billion, creating a foreclosure prevention fund that totaled $75 billion, paid for with funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the government sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Officials said the fund could help 9 million homeowners. We gave Obama a Promise Kept.

But as many months went by, the program never lived up to its promise. As of January 2011, the program had given permanent loan modifications to only about 500,000 homeowners.

The news website ProPublica has extensively investigated the program and reached a number of dismal conclusions.

"With millions of homeowners still struggling to stay in their homes, the Obama administration"s $75 billion foreclosure prevention program has been weakened, perhaps fatally, by lax oversight and a posture of cooperation—rather than enforcement—with the nation's biggest banks," ProPublica reported. "Those banks, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank, service the majority of mortgages."

As we were considering whether to change the rating on this promise, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil M. Barofsky, penned a damning op-ed in the New York Times, calling the housing program "a colossal failure," blaming a lack of enforcement on the part of the U.S. Treasury Department.

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has acknowledged that the program ‘won't come close' to fulfilling its original expectations, that its incentives are not ‘powerful enough' and that the mortgage servicers are ‘still doing a terribly inadequate job,;" Barofsky wrote. "But Treasury officials refuse to address these shortfalls. Instead they continue to stubbornly maintain that the program is a success and needs no material change, effectively assuring that Treasury's most specific Main Street promise will not be honored."

The evidence has been mounting for some time that the foreclosure prevention fund has fallen far short of its goals. If it ever rights itself, we'd certainly be willing to reconsider our rating. But today, it hasn't helped many homeowners faced with losing their houses. We conclude it's a Promise Broken.

Sources:

ProPublica, Govt's Loan Mod Program Crippled by Lax Oversight and Deference to Banks, Feb.17, 2011

ProPublica, Dems: Obama Broke Pledge to Force Banks to Help Homeowners, Feb. 4, 2011

ProPublica, Eye on Loan Modifications, various reports on various dates

The New York Times, Where the Bailout Went Wrong, by Neil M. Barofsky, March 30, 2011

No progress on promise regarding unpaid wages
Updated: Tuesday, January 25th, 2011 | By Louis Jacobson

The federal government creates the rules that govern bankruptcy, which is when people or businesses go to court to declare they are unable to pay their creditors. Barack Obama pledged during the campaign to change the rules so that workers could ask the courts for more in unpaid wages and benefits from bankrupt employers.

That type of expansion would have to be approved by Congress, but Congress has taken no action on the matter. So a year ago, we rated this promise Stalled.

We asked the White House whether any progress was being made on this promise, and they were unable to provide any evidence that it was advancing. If any progress is made in the future, we'll change our rating, but after two years and with no sign of action, we're shifting this one to Promise Broken.

No increase in capital gains taxes for high earners
Updated: Tuesday, December 21st, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

With 2010 coming to a close, President Obama brokered a major deal on taxes, agreeing to continue the current tax rates for high earners. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he intended to let them expire. The tax rates, passed during President George W. Bush's administration, were set to go up in 2011.

That would also have meant higher taxes on investment income such as capital gains and dividends. During the campaign, Obama said he wanted higher taxes for these types of income. The tax compromise Obama signed into law continued the current rates on capital gains for another two years.

We should note that although he gave in on his campaign promise, Obama got some other things in return. The current tax rates were extended for couples who make less than the $250,000 cut-off, and some tax cuts that were part of the 2009 economic stimulus law were also continued. Additionally, Obama won another year of unemployment benefits for workers who qualified, and he won a one-year reduction of Social Security taxes, putting 2 percent of pay back into workers' paychecks.

Obama said he still opposed keeping the same tax rates for the wealthy, even though he agreed to the extension.

"I'm as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I've been for years," Obama said in a press conference on Dec. 7, 2010. "In the long run, we simply can't afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that they've opposed."

There's a case to be made that Obama is not completely backing off his campaign promises. He agreed to only a two-year extension of the rates, not making them permanent.

However, this promise was part of a major campaign theme of Obama's to increase taxes on high earners. The tax rates are now scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, just as Obama completes his first term. At that time, we'll revisit this promise to see where it stands. For now we rate it Promise Broken.

Sources:

The White House, Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, Dec. 7, 2010

Thomas, HR 4583

The White House, Press Conference by the President, Dec. 7, 2010

U.S. Senate Finance Committee, S.A.4753: The Reid-McConnell Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010

No expansion for the child care tax credit
Updated: Tuesday, December 21st, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

With 2010 coming to a close, President Obama brokered a major deal on taxes, agreeing to continue the current tax rates for everyone, including high earners. The tax rates, passed during President George W. Bush's administration, were set to go up in 2011.

Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that he intended to let the tax rates increase for couples who made more than $250,000 or individuals who made more than $200,000. He gave in on that point in order to get some other things in return. The current tax rates were extended for couples who make less than the $250,000 cut-off, and some tax cuts that were part of the 2009 economic stimulus law were also continued. Additionally, Obama won an extra year of unemployment benefits for workers who qualified, and he won a one-year reduction of Social Security taxes that puts 2 percent of pay back into workers' paychecks

One thing that wasn't included in the deal was expanding the child and dependent care credit, nor was it made refundable.

The compromise extends most tax rates for another two years so that they expire at the end of 2012, just as Obama completes his first term. It's highly unlikely that more tax changes will be considered before then. If this tax proposal is revived at some point, we'll revisit our ruling. But for now it's Promise Broken.

Sources:

The White House, Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, Dec. 7, 2010

Thomas, HR 4583

The White House, Press Conference by the President, Dec. 7, 2010

U.S. Senate Finance Committee, S.A.4753: The Reid-McConnell Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010

Current tax rules continued for high earners
Updated: Tuesday, December 21st, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

With 2010 coming to a close, President Obama brokered a major deal on taxes, agreeing to continue the current tax rates for high earners. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he intended to let them expire. The tax rates, passed during President George W. Bush's administration, were set to go up in 2011.

Obama also said during the campaign that he wanted to reduce the exemptions and deductions for which high earners qualify. This would have the effect of making their tax bills higher. But the tax compromise Obama signed into law continued the current levels on exemptions and deductions.

We should note that although he gave in on his campaign promise, Obama got some other things in return. The current tax rates were extended for couples who make less than the $250,000 cut-off as well, and some tax cuts that were part of the 2009 economic stimulus law were also continued. Additionally, Obama won another year of unemployment benefits for workers who qualified, and he won a one-year reduction of Social Security taxes, putting 2 percent of pay back into workers' paychecks.

Obama said he still opposed leaving taxes the same for the wealthy, even though he agreed to the extension.

"I'm as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I've been for years," Obama said in a press conference on Dec. 7, 2010. "In the long run, we simply can't afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that they've opposed."

There's a case to be made that Obama is not completely backing off his campaign promises. He agreed to only a two-year extension of the rates, not making them permanent.

However, Obama said again and again during the campaign that he wanted to increase taxes on high earners. The current tax rates are now scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, just as Obama completes his first term. At that time, we'll revisit this promise to see where it stands. For now we rate it Promise Broken.

Sources:

The White House, Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, Dec. 7, 2010

Thomas, HR 4583

The White House, Press Conference by the President, Dec. 7, 2010

U.S. Senate Finance Committee, S.A.4753: The Reid-McConnell Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010

President Obama signs off on continuing tax cuts for high earners
Updated: Monday, December 20th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

With 2010 coming to a close, President Obama brokered a major deal on taxes, agreeing to continue the current tax rates for high earners. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he intended to let them expire. The tax rates, passed during President George W. Bush's administration, were set to go up in 2011.

In giving in on his campaign promise, Obama got some other things in return. The current tax rates were extended for couples who make less than the $250,000 cut-off, and some tax cuts that were part of the 2009 economic stimulus law were also continued. Additionally, Obama won an additional year of unemployment benefits for workers who qualified, and he won a one-year reduction of Social Security taxes that would put 2 percent of pay back into workers' paychecks.

Obama said he still opposed the tax cuts for the wealthy, even though he agreed to the extension.

"I'm as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I've been for years," Obama said in a press conference on Dec. 7, 2010. "In the long run, we simply can't afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that they've opposed."

There's a case to be made that Obama is not completely backing off his campaign promises. He agreed to only a two-year extension of the rates, not making them permanent.

However, this was a major campaign promise of Obama's that he repeated again and again. The tax cuts for high earners are now scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, just as Obama completes his first term. At that time, we'll revisit this promise to see where it stands. For now we rate it Promise Broken.

Sources:

The White House, Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, Dec. 7, 2010

Thomas, HR 4583

The White House, Press Conference by the President, Dec. 7, 2010

U.S. Senate Finance Committee, S.A.4753: The Reid-McConnell Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010

No new rules for drug imports in health care law
Updated: Thursday, April 8th, 2010 | By Louis Jacobson

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to "allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S." But such a provision was not included in the final health care law that passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by the president.

The motivation for the promise came from an existing trend of Americans crossing the Canadian border to buy cheaper prescription drugs. Yet for the most part, it remains illegal for Americans to buy prescription drugs there -- for safety reasons, the Food and Drug Administration says.

But in the wake of negotiations with the prescription drug industry -- one of the first big health industry players to support the White House's health care reform effort -- Obama's drug importation promise faded into the background. Now, with passage, it's officially off the table.

Instead, the drug industry will pay billions of dollars annually in new fees beginning in 2012, and brand-name drugmakers will provide a 50 percent discount on prescriptions filled through the Medicare Part D coverage gap beginning in 2011.

Such concessions will undoubtedly aid American consumers' pocketbooks -- perhaps even more than a new reimportation rule would have, though it's hard to know for sure. But the specific promise Obama made was not kept, so we rate this Promise Broken.

Sources:

Text of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, accessed April 7, 2010

Kaiser Family Foundation, "Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals," accessed April 7, 2010

No sign of action
Updated: Wednesday, January 6th, 2010 | By Wes Allison

It was the political equivalent of Barack Obama's eyes being too big for his stomach.

Obama's campaign pledge to require competition for all contracts over $25,000 sure sounded good, but even the most ardent watchdogs say it would be all but impossible.

Indeed, since Obama took office, none of the instructions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget -- which serves as the administration's controller -- has put any limits on the value of no-bid contracts. The guidance from the president and OMB appears to acknowledge that federal agencies may not always bid a project competitively, and instead has encouraged managers to do more to increase competition among contractors.

There is a paper trail:

In a memo March 4, 2009, President Obama ordered the OMB to develop rules to "govern the appropriate use and oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the use of full and open competition and other competitive procurement processes." But no mention of any $25,000 rule.

The OMB followed up with a July 29, 2009, memo ordering agencies to cut by 10 percent the total dollars awarded via three types of so-called "risky" contracts, including no-bid or single-bid contracts. Again, nothing on a $25,000 rule.

Then, on Oct. 27, 2009, the OMB's Office of Federal Procurement issued guidelines for agencies that asked procurement officers to find more ways to use competitive contracts. But it didn't mention the $25,000 rule that candidate Obama had promised either.

Scott Amey, an expert in government contracting and counsel for the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, said Obama deserves credit for addressing the issue, but it's unrealistic to think he could fulfilll his promise.

"There are certain times and certain circumstances where there's public interest or national security that you have to limit competition, or (a contract) might not be full and open," said Amey, who frequently testifies before Congress on the matter.

Ron Utt, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, offers this scenario: The Army realizes it needs 20,000 more heavy sleeping bags for troops in Iraq as winter arrives. "You can put them out for bid, and by the time spring comes around, you may be able to award a contract," he said. "But that doesn't help the soldier who spent the winter freezing."

Instead, the government would probably turn to a supplier with which it already has a master service contract -- an agreement to provide needed goods or services at cost plus an agreed-upon markup.

Utt said Obama's campaign pledge probably reflected his naivete about contracting when he was a candidate. For instance, it would probably not be cost-effective to bid out many smaller contracts, even some over $25,000. "Any savings would be quickly erased by the paperwork" of bidding them out, he said.

Based on the stream of guidance flowing from the OMB and White House to the federal agencies, it seems clear to us the administration does not plan to fulfill the president's promise of requiring competitive bids for every contract worth more than $25,000. And neither the OMB nor the White House disputes this, emphasizing instead their effort to encourage competitive bidding wherever possible.

"It is the policy of the federal government that executive agencies shall not engage in noncompetitive contracts except in those circumstances where their use can be fully justified and where appropriate safeguards have been put in place to protect the taxpayer,” the OMB said in a statement to PolitiFact.

An e-mail from White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield and OMB spokesman Ken Baer said the president has directed agencies to cut so-called "high-risk contracting authorities," which include no-bid contracts, by 10 percent this year alone.

"Improving federal contracting and ensuring that our taxpayer dollars are spent well are top priorities," their e-mail said. "The President has charged federal departments and agencies with saving $40 billion annually by Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 through terminating unnecessary contracts, strengthening acquisition management, ending the overreliance on contractors, and reducing the use of high-risk contracts across government. The government"s major contracting agencies – which account for more than 98 percent of contract spending – are on track to meet this goal, identifying more than $19 billion of savings for the first year of this reform effort."

Progress? Watchdogs such as the Project on Government Oversight say yes. But that's still not fulfilling Obama's pledge to require competitive bidding for all contracts over $25,000. So we rate this one a Promise Broken.

Sources:

Jan. 5, 2010, statement from the Office of Management and Budget and the White House.

Jan. 5, 2010, phone interview with Ron Utt, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Jan. 4, 2010, phone interview with Scott Amey, counsel, Project on Government Oversight.

Congressional testimony of Scott Amey, POGO, on contracting.

President Obama's March 4, 2009, memo to agency heads on government contracting.

July 29, 2009, memo from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag to agency and department heads regarding contracts.

Oct. 27, 2009, memo from the Office of Management and Budget to federal procurement officers.

Federal Contract Awards by Extent of Competition , from USASpending.gov.

OMB Pushes Agencies to Increase Contract Competition , Oct. 27, 2009, Washington Technology magazine.

No proposal to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000
Updated: Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar.

It wasn't part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it's not part of any proposed legislation that we can find.

Today, on Tax Day, Obama gave a speech in which he talked about his other tax promises and how he wants to reshape the tax code to make it simple and more efficient. But he never mentioned his promise of curtailing the income tax for seniors.

The Obama administration has done other things for seniors. Thanks to the stimulus bill, for example, everyone who gets Social Security benefits will receive a $250 check from the government in May. But the bold promise to end taxes for seniors if they make less than $50,000 seems to be forgotten.

We asked the White House about it, but got no response. If this promise is ever revived, we'll revisit our ruling. But for now, this is a Promise Broken.

Sources:

White House, Remarks by the President on taxes , April 15, 2009

Social Security Administration, Economic Recovery One-Time Payments Information , accessed April 15, 2009

Office of Budget and Management, Budget Documents for Fiscal Year 2010 , accessed Feb. 26, 2009

Office of Budget and Management, Summary Tables , accessed Feb. 26, 2009