Breaking news: Our candidates are lying
If you’re getting sick and tired of election coverage, you can now breathe a sigh of relief. On Wednesday we witnessed the last presidential debate between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, the last great face-off until that fateful Tuesday next month.
It was certainly the least boring and most enlightening of their three debates, which is both gratifying and frustrating, because it should have been that good from the beginning. But despite all of the noble rhetoric to the contrary, what these debates boil down to is a matter of deception and misrepresentation, which is why the Wednesday debate was ultimately so disappointing.
They know that the vast majority of citizens don’t have the time or the inclination to do the research on the candidates, their history, their plans and the likelihood of those plans being implemented, their voting records or even their factual claims during the debates — at least not to the extent necessary to make an informed choice after entering the voting booth. And both of them are counting on it.
Both candidates know these debates are one of the few forums where they are exposed to a significant slice of the American public. I would gamble that for those who aren’t political junkies, the presidential debates are one of the few political events that shape their vote. Add this to our severe disinclination to do any background research whatsoever, and you have a situation ripe for deception and manipulation that, ultimately, becomes a contest of “he said, he said.” For those portions of the debate loaded with contradictory or conflicting information, this is completely unhelpful.
Take, for example, the candidates’ health care plans. On several “fact check” blogs and Web sites, they were each found to be misrepresenting the other’s plan and its impact. But that is overshadowed by the fact that when each of them were talking about the cost of health care, they cited two radically different numbers. McCain said the average cost of health care for a family was $5,800, and Obama said the average cost of health care was $12,000.
If you just did a double take, you’re not alone.
I actually paused the debate at this point and went in search of who had their numbers straight, because that makes a big difference in whose health care plan makes sense. Lo and behold, both candidates were using numbers from different studies that came to different conclusions. McCain’s number came from a study from America’s Health Insurance Plans Center for Policy and Research, and it was for the average of annual premiums paid by families in 2007: $5,799. McCain probably used this number to justify the $5,000 credit for families under his health care plan.
But this still does not fully explain the situation. That very report notes that premium prices vary greatly from state to state, from as low as a $1,254 average for a single person in Wisconsin to a $8,573 average for a single person in Massachusetts, with the national average at $2,613 and California’s at $2,565. McCain’s plan gives $2,500 to single people, which I guess means all Massachusetts singles need to move if he’s elected.
More significantly, the premium paid by the family or single person does not really account for the total cost of health care, which brings us to Obama’s number. The $12,000 estimate comes from a Kaiser Family Foundation report … which adds together the worker’s average contribution of $3,354 with an average employer contribution of $9,325 to produce a total premium of more than $12,000 for coverage for a family. So Obama’s number accounted for the total cost of health care premiums, including employer contributions, and McCain’s did not.
This kind of thing is exactly why the debates do little more than skew our perceptions of reality. Because neither one of the candidates was lying, exactly. But Obama’s argument that McCain’s tax credit was too low was based on the assumption the family did not have an employer contribution to their health care. And many people don’t get employer contributions for their coverage, for a variety of reasons. At the same time, many people do get coverage from their employers, so to say that McCain’s tax credit would amount to a loss presumes that employer contributions don’t or won’t exist. Admittedly, McCain’s plan discourages employers from providing health care contributions by making them taxable, but this doesn’t mean employers won’t provide health care coverage at all.
It’s all very messy and complicated, and figuring out how it all fits together requires motivation and work. Even then, you aren’t left with a black-and-white decision of which candidate’s idea is better, which doesn’t help your motivation at all.
It’s much easier simply to decide that the candidate you don’t like is a liar, and vote accordingly.
That is why the candidates are counting on your laziness or busyness to keep you from researching the whole issue. That’s why the debates seem confusing, conflicting and don’t resolve anything.
If we want more clarity from our candidates, we have to demand it more by being more motivated and holding them accountable. Until then, they will continue to rely on American apathy to get them elected.
It’s up to us whether or not we let that work.
Read the original version of this column online here.
