1) Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes. "The Fund will not help speculators, people who bought vacation homes or people who falsely represented their incomes."
Sources:
"Obama: Protecting Home Ownership and Cracking Down on Mortgage Fraud"
Subjects: Economy, Housing, PolitiFact's Top Promises
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
Foreclosure fund has lackluster results so far
Updated: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
Back in February, we rated Obama's promise to create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners as a Promise Kept. In fact, we noted, Obama actually exceeded his promise, sending $75 billion to the fund because the crisis had worsened since the campaign of 2008.
The program, called the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, has been operating for almost a year now. The idea was that lenders would refinance loans for troubled homeowners, and the federal government would make a small payment to the lender as an incentive.
But the problem is that it's not working as hoped. Out of 759,058 mortgages modified on a trial basis through November, only 31,382 homeowners have received permanent modifications. For perspective, Moody's Economy.com estimated that 2 million homes were lost to foreclosures and short sales in 2009, and another 2.4 million will face foreclosure in 2010.
Criticism of the program has been widespread. "HAMP has made only limited progress for nine months now, and the residential foreclosure crisis continues to mount," said Richard Neiman, a member of the congressional oversight panel that monitors the program, in a story by McClatchy Newspapers.
''For some folks, it is doing more harm than good, because ultimately, at the end of the day, they are going back into the foreclosure morass," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, to the New York Times.
The Obama administration continues to support the program, saying that the modification program is helping some homeowners
For our purposes here at PolitiFact, it's hard to let our Promise Kept rating stand when the fund has fallen short of its intended promise. We're going to roll back this promise to a Compromise, and keep monitoring the situation to see if how the mortgage modification fund ultimately concludes.
Sources:
New York Times, U.S. Loan Effort Is Seen as Adding to Housing Woes, Jan. 1, 2010
McClatchy Newspapers, Homeowners often rejected under Obama's home plan, Dec. 17, 2009
FinancialStability.gov, Obama administration releases new data on modification program, Dec. 10, 2009
Obama unveils plan to aid homeowners
Updated: Thursday, February 19th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
What a difference a year makes. In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama talked about a plan to help homeowners with subprime mortgages refinance loans or sell their homes. About $10 billion should suffice, he said at the time.
The months went by, the economy worsened, and Obama won the election. On Feb. 18, 2009, President Obama unveiled his plan. Price tag: $75 billion.
By providing incentives to both lenders and borrowers, the plan allows some homeowners to refinance loans. It excludes investors, speculators, people who fraudulently obtained loans, and people who purchased homes so beyond their means that even refinancing won't help them.
"The plan I'm announcing focuses on rescuing families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly," Obama said. "It will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild. It will prevent the worst consequences of this crisis from wreaking even greater havoc on the economy. And by bringing down the foreclosure rate, it will help to shore up housing prices for everyone."
The plan may end up more expensive than $75 billion because it also provides a guarantee of up to $200 billion in capital for federal mortgage holders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That guarantee may or may not be necessary, said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
A few parts of Obama's overall plan require approval from Congress, but most of the money comes from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, that Congress approved in 2008, Geithner said.
By putting $75 billion toward the program, Obama exceeded the terms of his campaign promise. Promise Kept.
Sources:
The White House Web site, President Obama's Housing Plan , Feb. 18, 2009
The White House Web site, Press Briefing with Treasury Secretary Geithner, HUD Secretary Donovan, and FDIC Chairman Bair , Feb. 18, 2009
The Boston Globe, President steers $275b to housing , Feb. 19, 2009
The Boston Globe, Questions, answers about the program , Feb. 19, 2009
Bloomberg.com, Obama housing plan questions and answers , Feb. 18, 2009
2) Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)
Sources:
Obama campaign interviews with the Tax Policy Center
Subjects: PolitiFact's Top Promises, Taxes
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
Tax deal signals Bush tax cuts will continue for those with higher incomes
Updated: Tuesday, December 7th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
President Barack Obama sacrificed one of his top campaign promises -- raising taxes on high earners -- in a compromise with Republicans to extend current tax rates for everyone for another two years.
Obama also got a major extension of unemployment insurance, an expansion of college tax credits that were part of the 2009 stimulus, a measure to allow businesses to expense all of their investments in 2011 and a payroll tax reduction in 2011 that will increase take-home pay for workers.
Still, the deal means that upper-income people will pay the same lower rates for at least two more years.
Obama said he still opposes continuing the current tax rates for higher earners, but that he has been unable to persuade a majority of the Senate to go along with his position. He said he will continue to argue against making the tax rates permanent.
Whether the deal makes it through Congress remains to be seen, and staff members are still working out details of the proposed legislation. But the announcement of a framework indicates clearly that Obama is not holding out for his promise. For now, we're moving this promise to Stalled.
Sources:
The White House, Statement by the President on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits, Dec. 6, 2010
The White House, Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, Dec. 7, 2010
The White House, Press Conference by the President, Dec. 7, 2010
Obama budget forecasts tax increases for higher incomes
Updated: Thursday, February 26th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
President Obama's Office of Management and Budget unveiled a broad outline of its plans for the 2010 budget on Feb. 26, 2009, highlighting investments in health, energy and education.
To pay for some of those items, Obama proposed allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled on people who make more than $200,000 and couples who make more than $250,000. For those income levels, his plan increases rates on the two highest income tax brackets, raising the 33 percent bracket to 36 percent and the 35 percent bracket to 39.6 percent. Under Obama's plan, those tax cuts expire, as scheduled, in 2011.
When asked whether those tax increases would hinder economic growth during a recession, spokesman Robert Gibbs reiterated that taxes for the wealthy would not increase until 2011, almost two years from this writing.
President Obama "doesn't believe that the changes that are being made would hinder economic growth," Gibbs added. "I would point out that many of these rates for families that make above $250,000 a year revert to the rates that we saw throughout the '90s, when this economy enjoyed fairly robust economic growth."
To be clear, the proposal is now simply an outline of Obama's budget, and the budget still has to be approved by Congress, where Republicans are likely to oppose any effort to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So for now, we rate this promise In the Works.
Sources:
Office of Budget and Management, Budget Documents for Fiscal Year 2010 , accessed Feb. 26, 2009
Office of Budget and Management, Summary Tables , Table S-6, page 123, accessed Feb. 26, 2009
C-SPAN, Peter Orszag briefs reporters on the 2010 budget plan , Feb. 26, 2009
C-SPAN, White House Briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs , Feb. 26, 2009
3) Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center
"As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo."
Sources:
"Barack Obama: The War We Need to Win"
Subjects: Foreign Policy, Human Rights, PolitiFact's Top Promises, Terrorism
Obama announces changes to Guantanamo detention policy
Updated: Wednesday, March 9th, 2011 | By Robert Farley
On March 7, 2011, President Barack Obama signed an executive order making a number of changes to policies regarding those detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a reversal of his previous policy, the order resumes military trials for Gitmo detainees. It also establishes a "periodic review" process for for long-held Guantanamo detainees who have not been charged, convicted or designated for transfer, "but must continue to be detained because they 'in effect, remain at war with the United States,'" according to a White House fact-sheet.
The new policy was viewed by many media outlets as an acknowledgment by the administration that it could not keep Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo facility.
The lede of a Washington Post story said the president's executive order "will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security" and that the executive order "all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy."
The New York Times, meanwhile, said that while the order permits military trials to resume, it is also "implicitly admitting the failure of his pledge to close the prison camp."
And ABC News, said the order "sends mixed signals about the future of the controversial detention center and the president's own standing on the issue, experts say."
Although Obama did not mention the fate of Guantanamo in his brief released statement, the accompanying fact-sheet released by the White House maintains that the administration "remains committed to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay" and makes the case that the policy changes are "in keeping with" the president's long-term strategy toward that end.
But civil rights groups quickly denounced Obama's order as an admission that he has turned his back on his campaign promise.
"While appearing to be a step in the right direction, providing more process to Guantanamo detainees is just window dressing for the reality that today"s executive order institutionalizes indefinite detention, which is unlawful, unwise and un-American," Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a released statement. "The detention of Guantanamo detainees for nine years without charge or trial is a stain on America"s reputation that should be ended immediately, not given a stamp of approval."
"The only way to restore the rule of law is to put an end to indefinite detention at Guantanamo and the broken commissions system, and to prosecute terrorism suspects in federal criminal courts," Romero stated. "Today"s announcement takes us back a step when we should be moving forward toward closing Guantanamo and ending its shameful policies."
Tom Parker, an official with Amnesty International said the administration's insistence that it remains committed to closing Guantanamo is merely "lip service to the things President Obama previously stated."
"It's very clear he is not prepared to make the tough decisions it would require to close it," Parker said.
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Parker said, "With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law by referring detainee cases from Guantanamo Bay to federal courts rather than the widely discredited military commissions."
The administration, however, also maintains that it is committed to efforts to try some cases in federal court, despite Congress enacting significant roadblocks to that.
"As the Administration has long stated, it is essential that the government have the ability to use both military commissions and federal courts as tools to keep this country safe," Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a released statement. "Unfortunately, some in Congress have unwisely sought to undermine this process by imposing restrictions that challenge the Executive Branch"s ability to bring to justice terrorists who seek to do Americans harm. We oppose those restrictions and will continue to seek their repeal."
That's hardly giving up, many experts argue.
Mason Clutter, policy counsel for the Constitution Project, a bipartisan group that has called for shutting the prison, pointed to a provision of the order that reads: "In the event detainees covered by this order are transferred from Guantanamo to another U.S. detention facility where they remain in law of war detention, this order shall continue to apply to them."
That suggests the administration is still committed to pursuing other alternatives to Guantanamo, Clutter said,
So does she think that will happen by the end of an Obama first term?
"Absolutely not," Clutter said.
There are still 172 people being held at Guantanamo, Clutter said. Congress has pretty well tied the administration's hands, prohibiting prosecution in U.S. federal courts and making it extremely difficult to transfer them to other countries, according to Clutter.
"Even if the review board determines someone should be released," Clutter said, "it will be hard to transfer them out of Guantanamo."
In other words, for the time being, there are no options other than Guantanamo. Until they figure out what to do with all of the detainees, Clutter said, it seems pretty clear they will remain at Guantanamo.
Duke University law professor Scott Silliman thinks it's premature to call this promise broken. The actions taken by Obama seek to reduce the number of detainees at Guantanamo over time. Obama has expanded the review process for those for whom there will never be a criminal trial.
"He hasn't given up on closing Guantanamo Bay," Silliman said. "Obviously, it's not going to happen soon." Given the political reality of the situation, he said, "Guantanamo is probably going to be open for a couple more years."
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, also contests the idea that that Obama's actions amount to an admission that he has broken his promise to close Guantanamo.
"I don't know where it's come from that they've thrown in the towel," Martin said.
The White House has long said it intended to try some of the detainees in military court. Martin said. And it has long maintained that it intended to hold some as law of war detentions (detentions based on legal principles of international law for nations during wartime). She noted that Congress' prohibition on transfers to federal courts in the U.S. expires in September and that Obama ought to have at least until then to change Congress' mind.
We disagree. Obama has now had a full two years in office, and the possibility of keeping this extremely difficult promise seems even more remote now than when his presidency began. Some argue that Congress is largely to blame, while others say Obama simply made a political calculation not to expend too much political capital on it. But blame is not the final arbiter of whether a promise is kept or broken. The administration has clearly not backed off claims that it continues to pursue this promise. But even those who think this promise is merely stalled instead of broken acknowledge that it's unlikely Guantanamo will be closed by the end of Obama's four-year term. We're not inclined to extend the timeline for this promise into a second term when resolution between now and then seems unlikely. We will revisit our rating should the situation change dramatically, but for now, we are moving this to a Promise Broken.
Sources:
White House website, Statement by President Barack Obama on "New Actions on Guantanamo Bay and Detainee Policy," March 7, 2011
White House website, Fact Sheet: New Actions on Guantanamo and Detainee Policy, March 7, 2011
White House website, Executive Order: Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, March 7, 2011
ACLU website, Press release: President Obama Issues Executive Order Institutionalizing Indefinite Detention, March 7, 2011
U.S. Department of Justice, Statement of the Attorney General on Guantanamo Bay and Detainee Policy, March 7, 2011
Washington Post, Op-Ed: "Obama's new Gitmo policy is a lot like Bush's old policy," by Dana Milbank, March 8, 2011
Washington Post, "Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay," by Peter Finn and Anne E. Kornblut, March 8, 2011
New York Times, "Obama Clears Way for Guantanamo Trials," by Scott Shane and Mark Landler, March 7, 2011
ABC News, "Decision to Resume Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions Muddies the Water," by Huma Khan, March 8, 2011
Pro Publica, "Obama Makes Indefinite Detention and Military Commissions His Own," by Dafna Linzer, March 8, 2011
Salon, "Obama's new executive order on Guantanamo," by Glenn Greenwald, March 8, 2011
Tribune Newspapers, "Guantanamo trials are resuming despite pledge," by Richard A. Serrano, March 8, 2011
Interview with Tom Parker Amnesty International, March 8, 2011
Interview with Mason Clutter, policy counsel for the Constitution Project, March 8, 2011
Interview with Duke University law professor Scott Silliman, March 8, 2011
Interview with Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, March 8, 2011
Obama and Congress remain at odds on closing Guantanamo
Updated: Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
President Barack Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center has switched from In the Works to Stalled and back again (and again). All that movement reflects a simple dynamic: Obama really wants to close the center. But Congress really doesn't.
The latest turn of events was the law authorizing defense spending for 2011. In addition to funding the military for the year, members of Congress attached several stipulations about Guantanamo. The law says no funds canbe used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States, and no funds can be used to transfer detainees to the custody of foreign countries, unless specific conditions are met about how the prisoners will be held.
Obama didn't like those provisions and issued a statement deploring them. He said the limitation on transferring prisoners to the U.S. is "a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority ... ." Of the new requirements on transferring prisoners to foreign governments, Obama said it could "hinder the conduct of delicate negotiations with foreign countries and therefore the effort to conclude detainee transfers in accord with our national security."
Obama stopped short of saying he would disregard the law, something presidents sometimes do via "signing statements." President George W. Bush issued many signing statements as president that said he would disregard parts of laws passed by Congress that he believed infringed on his executive authority. During the campaign, Obama said he would not "abuse" signing statements.
But nowhere did Obama say he would disregard the new restrictions. Instead, he said he would seek to repeal of the restrictions.
"Despite my strong objection to these provisions, which my Administration has consistently opposed, I have signed this Act because of the importance of authorizing appropriations for, among other things, our military activities in 2011," Obama said in the statement. "Nevertheless, my Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future."
Based on Obama's statement, he clearly still wants unfettered authority to move prisoners out of the Guantanamo Bay facility. And at a press conference at the end of the year, he said it was important to close Guantanamo because it is "probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations."
"It is important for us, even as we're going aggressively after the bad guys, to make sure that we're also living up to our values and our ideals and our principles," Obama said at the press conference. "And that's what closing Guantanamo is about -- not because I think that the people who are running Guantanamo are doing a bad job, but rather because it's become a symbol. And I think we can do just as good of a job housing them somewhere else."
Obama may want to close Guantanamo, but legal impediments still stand in the way of him achieving his goal. The meter remains at Stalled.
Sources:
The White House, Statement by the President on H.R. 6523, Jan. 7, 2011
The New York Times, New Measure to Hinder Closing of Guantánamo, Jan. 8, 2011
THOMAS, Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
The White House, News Conference by The President, Dec. 22, 2010
Plan to close Guantanamo faces opposition from Congress
Updated: Thursday, September 16th, 2010 | By Lukas Pleva
Talk about a rating roller coaster! When we first reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in January 2009, we rated it In the Works. By May 2009, we moved it to Stalled, since the White House was facing significant opposition from Congress. In mid-October, it went back to In the Works, as Congress allowed some detainees to be temporarily moved to the United States for prosecution. That rating remained unchanged after our last update in January 2010.
We're well into the second year of Obama's administration, so we wanted to see whether things had changed since January.
First, however, a quick note. We've gotten a ton of e-mails from readers urging us to rate this Promise Broken. Obama promised to close the detention center within a year of taking office, the argument goes, and he has not done that. As we pointed out in our last update, however, he made that statement after taking office, not during the campaign. The Obameter only tracks promises that the President made on the campaign trail, when there was no such self-imposed deadline.
That said, let's look at how things have been unfolding.
In December 2009, the administration announced that it would ask Congress to appropriate money to purchase the Thomson Correctional Center in northwest Illinois to house Gitmo detainees. The plan took a blow, however, in May 2010, when the House Armed Services Committee inserted language into the 2011 defense bill which specifically prohibits the use of funds to purchase or modify any U.S. facility for Gitmo prisoners. The measure was adopted by the full House on May 28, 2010 in a 282-131 vote. The Senate Armed Services Committee adopted a similar proposal on May 28, 2010. The two proposals have yet to become law, however. In June, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich announced that the administration plans to go ahead with the purchase of the facility for regular domestic federal prisoners.
Even more telling, however, are statements that the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md, made in July 2010. Talking about closing Guantanamo, Hoyer said that "that's not an issue being discussed very broadly. I think that you're not going to see it discussed very broadly in the near term."
Finally, in May 2010 the Guantanamo Review Task Force submitted a report to Congress, which includes recommendations on how to proceed with each of the detainees. But House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, said that Guantanamo is not at the top of his priority list. "A war is going on. That"s my concern." Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said that moving prisoners from Gitmo to Illinois is "off the radar screen."
The White House maintains that President Obama is committed to closing Guantanamo, but several high-ranking lawmakers make it clear that this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. As always, we'll keep our eyes open, but for now, we are changing the rating to Stalled.
Sources:
Roll Call, Guantánamo Debate Has Gone Silent on Capitol Hill, by Jennifer Bendery, July 21, 2010
ABC News Political Punch, Some Gitmo Detainees Headed to Illinois Prison, Obama Administration to Announce Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2009
The Washington Post, Most Guantanamo detainees low-level fighters, task force report says, by Peter Finn, May 29, 2010
The Washington Times, Obama's Gitmo plan takes another hit, by Stephen Dinan, May 28, 2010
Miami Herald, White House moves ahead on Illinois prison purchase, June 22, 2010
The New York Times, House Panel Rejects a Plan to Shift Detainees to Illinois, by Charlie Savage, May 20, 2010
Fox News Blogs, Key Senate Committee Rejects Obama Request for Alternate Gitmo Prison, May 28, 2010
Don Manzullo, Senate Appropriators Approve Plan to Buy and Use Thomson as Federal Prison Without Terrorists, July 23, 2010
Chicago Tribune, House votes to prohibit moving Gitmo detainees, by Katherine Skiba, May 30, 2010
The Washington Post, Votes Database: Vote 335, accessed July 26, 2010
Against obstacles, Obama still works toward closure
Updated: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Christmas Day, conservatives renewed calls for Obama to abandon his plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
"Guantanamo remains the proper place for holding terrorists, especially those who may not be able to be detained as securely in a third country," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader.
After the attack, Obama halted transfers of detainees to Yemen, the country where the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, may have received instructions on how to blow up the aircraft. But White House officials said Obama remains committed to closing the facility, and the plan to close the prison seem to keep moving forward, slowly.
The Obama administration has identified a prison in Thomson, Ill., that it hopes to acquire and renovate for detainees now at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, and officials are working out details for funding the plan. The Senate seems amenable to the idea; in November, the Senate rejected a measure to restrict funds for the facility.
Obama said after the inauguration that he hoped to close Guantanamo within one year, and administration officials admit they won't make that deadline. During the campaign, Obama gave himself no such deadline, and we're judging him here on his campaign promises. He said he would close Guantanamo Bay, and concrete steps are being taken to do so. The promise remains In the Works.
Sources:
U.S. Senate, Senate vote, To prohibit the use of funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act to construct or modify a facility in the United States or its territories to permanently or temporarily hold any individual held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nov. 17, 2009
The Washington Post, In Senate vote, signs of shift on detainees, Nov. 18, 2009
Bloomberg, Guantanamo Detainees Won"t Be Sent to Yemen for Now, Jan. 5, 2009
Congress moves to allow some detainees on U.S. soil
Updated: Friday, October 16th, 2009 | By Catharine Richert
President Barack Obama is again making progress in his effort to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The House of Representatives voted Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009, to allow some prisoners there to be temporarily transferred to the United States for prosecution.
Promise No. 177 made its first appearance on the Obameter on Jan. 21, 2009, the day after Obama was sworn into office. The new president had just directed prosecutors to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at the facility. A day later, the administration issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.
But by May, Obama's plans had begun to unravel. Congressional Republicans and Democrats said Obama needed to detail what he would do with the approximately 240 detainees held at the prison.
"The president, unwisely, in my view, announced an arbitrary timeline for closing Guantanamo of next January without a plan to deal with the terrorists who are incarcerated down there," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell at the time.
The opposition culminated in a May 20 vote, when the Senate voted to strip $80 million meant to shutter the facility from a war spending bill. House Democrats had already refused to include the funding in their version of the legislation.
Without support in Congress, Obama's plan to close down Guantanamo Bay had clearly reached a roadblock, so we decided to move Obama's promise from In the Works to Stalled.
Now, nearly five months later — with his one-year deadline looming — Democrats have changed their tune. In the Homeland Security Department funding bill is a provision that would allow detainees to temporarily be transferred to U.S. soil for prosecution. Nevertheless, members of Congress still want the White House to come up with a plan for the future of the detainees and the facility. And the legislation is expected to face opposition in the Senate.
But given these latest developments in the Guantanamo Bay debate, we're going to move this promise back to In the Works. We'll be watching the issue closely to see whether the rating holds.
Sources:
Politico, House Democrats give Obama Gitmo space , by David Rogers, Oct. 16, 2009
Reuters, US House backs Guantanamo prisoner transfer , by Andy Sullivan, Oct. 15, 2009
More difficulties, this time from inside White House
Updated: Friday, September 25th, 2009 | By Catharine Richert
Promise No. 177 has hit another snag.
On the campaign trail, President Barack Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Two days after he took office, he vowed to close it within a year — by Jan. 22, 2010.
But his effort has been slowed by the difficulty in finding a place to house the approximately 240 prisoners held there and resistance from Congress. In May, the Senate refused to fund Obama's efforts to close the center until he provided more detail on what, exactly, he intended to do with the detainees housed there. Now, Gregory Craig, the White House insider who was put in charge of the effort, is being removed from the project, according to a Sept. 25, 2009, Washington Post article.
The Post article, co-written with ProPublica, said the White House will have difficulty meeting the deadline four months from now.
So, closing the detention center continues to encounter difficulties. We'll keep it at Stalled.
Sources:
Washington Post and ProPublica, White House regroups on Guantanamo , Sept. 25, 2009
Congress balks at Obama's plan
Updated: Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 | By Catharine Richert
President Barack Obama's plan to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has run into significant opposition, most notably from members of his own party who stripped millions of dollars to shutter the facility from a war funding bill.
Closing the prison has been one of Obama's signature issues since he was a candidate. On January 20, 2009, the day he was sworn in, he directed prosecutors to file a motion to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at the facility. Two days later, the administration issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.
For weeks, Republicans have opposed Obama's plan, voicing concern that the administration has not said what will happen to the approximately 240 detainees housed at the center.
"The president, unwisely, in my view, announced an arbitrary timeline for closing Guantanamo of next January without a plan to deal with the terrorists who are incarcerated down there," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
House Democrats have similar concerns; they refused to include the $80 million requested by the administration to close the facility in the war spending bill. Senate Democrats initially included the money in their $91.3 billion version of the measure, but then stripped it out by a 90-6 vote on May 20.
"This is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this," said Democratic leader Harry Reid. "Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president," though Reid stressed that he still believes closing the facility is a good idea.
Just five months ago, Reid had softer words for Obama's executive order, saying that, at first blush, it appeared "to lay out a responsible and careful path that maintains every effective tool needed to defeat terrorists. In fact, I am convinced these changes will strengthen and enhance our counterterrorism efforts."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration still aims to follow the executive order and seal off the facility within a year. Meanwhile, Obama plans to offer more details on his strategy for dealing with the prisoners in speech on May 21.
Obama's efforts to close down Guantanamo Bay are not dead, but they have clearly reached a roadblock. Based on these latest actions, we're moving the Obameter to Stalled and will be watching how it develops over the next few months.
Sources:
CQ Politics, Sen. Mitch McConnell's Comments on Guantanamo Bay , May 19, 2009
CQ Politics, Sen. Harry Reid's comments on Guantanamo Bay , May 19, 2009
White House, Transcript of Briefing of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs , May 19, 2009
Executive Order to close Gitmo
Updated: Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 | By Robert Farley
On his second full day in office, President Obama issued an executive order to review the disposition of prisoners being held at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ordered that the detention facility be closed within a year.
According to the administration, closure of the facility is the ultimate goal. The order establishes a review process with the goal of disposing of the detainees before closing the facility.
According to the White House, "The Order sets up an immediate review to determine whether it is possible to transfer detainees to third countries, consistent with national security. If transfer is not approved, a second review will determine whether prosecution is possible and in what forum. The preference is for prosecution in Article III courts or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but military commissions, perhaps with revised authorities, would remain an option. If there are detainees who cannot be transferred or prosecuted, the review will examine the lawful options for dealing with them. The Attorney General will coordinate the review and the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security as well as the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will participate."
The order also requires that conditions of confinement at Guantanamo, until its closure, comply with the Geneva Conventions.
"The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals," Obama said after signing the order.
The executive order clearly comports with Obama's campaign pledge to close Gitmo, and now sets the timeline for one year. But there is still work to be done, and until the detention center actually closes, we'll keep the status at In the Works.
Sources:
Whitehouse.gov, Executive Order: Review and Disposition of Indiviuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base and Closure of Detention Facility , Jan. 22, 2009
Obama gets 120 days to review cases at Gitmo
Updated: Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 | By Robert Farley
On the day he was inaugurated, the Obama administration took a major step toward his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center when it directed prosecutors to file a motion seeking to suspend legal proceedings against detainees.
The motion asks for 120 days in order to give the administration "time to review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently before military commissions, specifically."
A judge in one of the war crimes cases, Army Col. Stephen Henley, issued a ruling Wednesday agreeing to suspend the proceedings at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending the 120-day review.
According to the motion filed at the request of President Obama, the 120-day suspension of proceedings will provide the administration "time to conduct a review of detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to evaluate the cases of detainees not approved for release or transfer to determine whether prosecution may be warranted for any offenses those detainees may have committed, and to determine which forum best suits any future prosecution."
The review is seen as a major first step toward his promise of ultimately closing the controversial detention facility opened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights organizations that have criticized the legal processes at Guantanamo as unconstitutional.
"On Day One, President Obama kept his promise to halt the unconstitutional military commissions by ordering the prosecution to seek a 120-day suspension," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Had the proceedings continued, the Bush administration would have permanently tied his hands and stopped him from being able to fulfill a top-level campaign promise. Within the next 120 days, we trust that the president's team will be studying and finalizing plans and a timeline for permanently closing Guantanamo, shuttering the military commissions and ensuring justice is served in the best of American traditions. President Obama's 'time out' comes at the perfect time in these shameful military commissions and shows he means business on Day One. President Obama has to restore an America we can be proud of again by once and for all shutting down Guantanamo and its shameful military commissions."
There's still a ways to go for Obama to fulfill the promise of closing the facility. But this motion was a significant first step, enough for us to move the needle to In the Works.
Sources:
U.S. v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al., Request For 120-Day Continuance In The Interest Of Justice , Jan. 20, 2009
Washington Post, Obama Seeks Halt to Legal Proceedings at Guantanamo , by Peter Finn, Jan. 21, 2009
4) Centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters
"Will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format."
Sources:
Obama ethics plan
Subjects: Ethics, PolitiFact's Top Promises, Technology, Transparency
After nearly two years, no sign of centralized database
Updated: Monday, January 10th, 2011 | By Louis Jacobson
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to "create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format." As we noted in our previous update, much of this was actually implemented after passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush in 2007, thanks to Obama's leadership in the Senate.
Under that law, the clerk of the House and the secretary of the Senate maintain databases of lobbying reports and campaign contributions by lobbyists and lobbyist-controlled political action committees. The databases provide much more information on lobbying and campaign contribution filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format than was previously available.
However, as we noted previously, the data is not located in a single, unified database but in a series of separate databases. And in the 14 months since our last update was published, there's been no further progress on centralizing them, experts said.
"No such single database yet exists," said Daniel Schuman, policy counsel for the Sunlight Foundation, a pro-transparency group.
In general, the administration has taken steps to improve public access to Internet-based data, whether it's on the stimulus-tracking Recovery.gov website or a series of other online portals. But we interpret the word "centralized" as the crux of this promise, since it would offer information-seekers the most convenient access to the data the administration says it wants to make available. And that hasn't happened yet. If it does emerge before Obama leaves office, we'll change our rating, but for now, we're calling this a Promise Broken.
Sources:
White House, Open Government Initiative innovations page, accessed Jan. 7, 2011
E-mail interview with Daniel Schuman, policy counsel for the Sunlight Foundation, Jan. 7, 2011
E-mail interview with Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, Jan. 6, 2011
E-mail interview with Jim Harper, director of information policy studies, Cato Institute, Jan. 6, 2011
Access to data is improved, but not as much as promised
Updated: Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 | By Louis Jacobson
As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to "create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format." Much of this was actually implemented after passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 thanks to Obama's leadership in the Senate.
Under that law, the clerk of the House and the secretary of the Senate maintain databases of lobbying reports and campaign contributions by lobbyists and lobbyist-controlled political action committees. The databases do indeed provide lobbying and campaign contribution filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format, watchdogs say. In fact, many media outlets have used these databases to research investigative stories.
"We have put more info online than ever before, in a searchable, sortable, downloadable format," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen.
But Holman and others add that HLOGA does not fully meet the standard Obama set out in his campaign promise. The databases available do not include ethics records, and they are not a single, unified database, but rather a series of separate databases.
Meanwhile, the administration has made a number of improvements in other varieties of disclosure, mostly in a piecemeal fashion. Organizations seeking money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program or the economic stimulus bill must disclose their lobbying activities, for instance, and these must in turn be offered to the public electronically. Some watchdogs have said the follow-through on these initiatives has been imperfect, but the administration has at least established the rules.
In addition, the public can now obtain financial disclosure forms for executive branch officials -- though at least for now, the forms have to be requested individually, rather than being immediately downloadable from the Internet. Finally, the White House is now posting visitor logs on the Web.
Transparency advocates agree that the administration's efforts fall short of ideal -- and fall short of Obama's campaign promise. But they add that disclosure of key information is now much more extensive and more user-friendly than it was just a few years ago. And they sense that, despite the current shortcomings, the White House is committed to improving transparency. So we'll rate their efforts on this promise as In the Works.
Sources:
Congressional Quarterly, Senate floor vote results on S. 1 from the 110th Congress, Jan. 18, 2007
The White House, SF 278 request form , accessed Nov. 19, 2009
Treasury Department, "Treasury Secretary Opens Term With New Rules To Bolster Transparency, Limit Lobbyist Influence in Federal investment Decisions" ( news release ), Jan. 27, 2009
Daniel Schuman, "The TARP Lobbying Rules: What They Say And What They Mean For Transparency" (Sunlight Foundation blog post ), Oct. 15, 2009
Daniel Schuman, "TARP Lobbying Disclosure: What a Difference a Day Makes" (Sunlight Foundation blog post ), Oct. 15, 2009
Daniel Schuman, "Stimulus Lobbying Rules, Take Two" (Sunlight Foundation blog post ), July 27, 2009
Interview with Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, Nov. 19, 2009
Interview with Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, Nov. 19. 2009
Interview with Interview with Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, Nov. 19, 2009
E-mail interview with Brett G. Kappel, counsel at the law firm Arent Fox LLP, Nov. 19, 2009
Interview with Jim Harper, director of information policy studies, Cato Institute, Nov. 19, 2009
5) Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming
"Will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming - an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face."
Sources:
"Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future," Portsmouth, N.H., Oct. 8, 2007
Subjects: Cap and Trade, Energy, Environment, PolitiFact's Top Promises, Regulation
The last time we checked in on cap and trade, its prospects didn't look good. The legislation had passed in the House in 2009, but had not been taken up in the Senate. And last week, President Barack Obama himself acknowledged the proposal was doomed.
What is cap and trade? The idea is that the government sets a limit (the cap) on how much carbon different companies can emit. The government then issues permits to companies -- typically electric utilities and manufacturers --and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively.
Republicans, however, attacked the plan as a job-killing energy tax, a description that is not entirely accurate. The plan never made it to a vote in the Senate.
Last week, Republicans won elections across the country, increasing their presence in the Senate and winning the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. At a press conference the next day, Obama acknowledged a changed political landscape while holding out hope for other issues.
"I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year," he said. "And so it's doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after. But that doesn't mean there isn't agreement that we should have a better energy policy. And so let's find those areas where we can agree."
"Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way," he said later. "It was a means, not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."
Obama may make headway on some of his other promises on energy and the environment, but it's clear he's giving up on this one because it can't make it through Congress. We rate it Promise Broken.
We last reported on President Obama's campaign pledge to implement a cap and trade system in January 2010. At the time, we rated the promise In the Works, since the House had passed a comprehensive energy bill in June 2009. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., released their own version of a cap-and-trade bill in May of this year.
It's been awhile since our last update, so we wanted to see how things have been unfolding.
Turns out, things have not been going so well in the Senate. On July 22, 2010, the Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters that Democrats "don"t have the votes" to pass a comprehensive bill that would put caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, Reid said that he will introduce a bill to reform the regulatory process for gas and oil drilling, provide incentives for production and purchase of natural-gas fueled vehicles, and possibly lift the liability cap for companies that cause oil spills. Still, even these scaled-down provisions are facing opposition from political and industry groups.
Reid said that the leadership had to shelve the cap-and-trade bill -- which would set limits on carbon emissions -- because of Republican opposition, though Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, said that even Reid's own party does not unanimously support the measure. Kerry and Lieberman are hopeful that they can continue to work in September on a proposal to cut emissions from electric companies, but Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan said that he doesn't think that there will be time for "two energy packages on the floor this year."
We'll keep our eyes open to see what happens in September, but for now, it's clear that cap-and-trade will have to wait. We change the rating to Stalled.
It's been a while since we updated President Barack Obama's promise to create a cap-and-trade system -- and there's a lot to report.
After Obama included the concept in his budget, House heavyweights Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts introduced legislation that would lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government.
The House passed the legislation 219-212 on June 26, 2009.
In the Senate, things got a little more dramatic. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Barabara Boxer of California did not introduce their cap-and-trade bill until late September. Nevertheless, the legislation was incomplete; a big part of the bill language were omitted, leaving lots of room for negotiation. About a month later, Boxer released more details on her bill and pushed forward on debate despite objections from Republicans. Recognizing the legislation had no legs without GOP support, Kerry backed away from the bill and joined Republican Lindsay Graham and independent Joe Lieberman to draft a bipartisan version.
The idea, of course, was to have a bill passed in time for the landmark climate change meeting in Copenhagen, where world leaders were supposed to hash out an agreement to lower global greenhouse gas emissions. After two weeks of haggling, the final accord turned out to be only a statement of intention to take action on climate change. Without a binding treaty, some of the steam has been taken out of the domestic climate change debate.
And then there's health care, an issue that has overshadowed nearly everything else Congress has tried to tackle this year. Lawmakers plan to take up the massive health system overhaul again once Congress is back in session. After that, they'll turn back to cap-and-trade, with Senate leaders likely cobbling together the final version of the upper chamber's climate bill.
Clearly, this promise is still In the Works; cap-and-trade represents a major change, so we wouldn't expect this pledge to be fulfilled overnight. For now, we'll follow the issue closely and offer updates throughout 2010.
CQ Weekly, 2009 Legislative Summary: Climate Change Mitigation, by Coral Davenport, Jan. 4, 2010
Barack Obama said during the campaign he would attack global warming by setting up a cap-and-trade system.
The idea behind cap-and-trade is that the government sets a limit on how much carbon different companies, such as electric utilities or manufacturers, can emit (the cap). The government then issues permits to companies and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed so they can conduct business (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively.
When President Obama released his budget on Feb. 26, 2009, he included the cap-and-trade system as part of his plans. The initiative would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 2005 levels, by about 14 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
The policy would result in "dramatically reduced acid rain at much lower costs than the traditional government regulations and mandates of the past," said Obama's budget outline.
Obama also hopes the program will generate revenues for the government of about $150 billion over 10 years, starting in 2012. That money will go to paying for some of Obama's other initiatives, including helping communities transition to a green economy, according to the budget outline.
Republicans say the cap-and-trade system will result in higher electricity rates and higher prices for consumers. Those increases are a de facto energy tax, they argue.
Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, said electricity costs may go up but most Americans would see other benefits to offset the higher costs.
"I just reject the theory that the only thing that drives economic performance is the marginal tax rate on wealthy Americans and the only way of being promarket is to funnel billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to corporations," Orszag said in an interview.
So cap-and-trade is in the budget outline. Orszag's remarks signal that the Obama administration intends to aggressively defend the plan in the face of opposition. We move this promise to In the Works.
No comments:
Post a Comment