Romney Campaign and Republican Reactions to the Third Presidential Debate
Oct. 23 1:05 a.m.

NUMBER 1: President Obama Claimed Sequestration Was Not Something That He Proposed – But His Advisers Devised The Defense Cuts:

President Obama: “The Sequester Is Not Something That I Proposed.” OBAMA: “First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It's something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we're talking about is not reducing our military spending. It's maintaining it.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks, Boca Raton, FL, 10/22/12)

Politico, On The Architect Of The Defense Cuts: “In Fact, The Idea May Have Come In Part From Obama’s Current Chief Of Staff, Jack Lew.” “In fact, the idea may have come in part from Obama’s current chief of staff, Jack Lew. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward reported in his book ‘The Price of Politics’ that Lew, then-Office of Management and Budget director, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors broached the idea of a defense sequester as a threat to Republicans during negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.” (Josh Gerstein and Darren Samuelsohn, “Fact-Checking The Third Presidential Debate,” Politico, 10/22/12)

President Obama’s Administration Was Behind The Idea Of “Massive Defense Cuts.” “The book ‘The Price of Politics,’ by Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward, makes it clear the idea for the draconian spending cuts originated in the White House – and not in Congress. According to the book, excerpts of which were obtained by POLITICO ahead of the Sept. 11 release, President Barack Obama’s top deputies believed the prospect of massive defense cuts would compel Republicans to agree to a deficit-cutting grand bargain.” (Austin Wright, “Bob Woodward Book Could Bolster Republican Attack On W.H.,” Politico, 9/7/12)

Vice President Biden, On The Prospect Of Military & Veterans Cuts: “This Is A Dangerous Area … But We Should Look At It.” “The military was sacred, and it could be political suicide for Democrats to consider cuts for vets. ‘This is a dangerous area,’ he acknowledged, ‘but we should look at it.’” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, p. 115)

NUMBER 2: President Obama Falsely Claimed He Didn’t Want A Status Of Forces Agreement In Iraq:

President Obama, On His Administration’s Attempt To Secure A Status Of Forces Agreement In Iraq: “That’s Not True. … What I Would Not Have Done Is Left 10,000 Troops In Iraq…” ROMNEY: “Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you –”OBAMA: “That's not true.” ROMNEY: “Oh, you didn't -- you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” OBAMA: “No, but what I -- what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks, Boca Raton, FL, 10/22/12)

The New York Times: “Obama Sought To Negotiate A Status Of Forces Agreement That Would Have Allowed United States Troops To Stay In Iraq After 2011.” “Mr. Obama sought to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed United States troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. … The role of the American forces would be to train Iraqi troops, patrol Iraq’s skies and help Iraqi commandos fight Al Qaeda.” (The New York Times, 10/22/12)

“Initially, The Obama Administration Was Prepared To Keep Up To 10,000 Troops In Iraq.” (The New York Times, 10/22/12)
“Several Parts Of The Administration Appeared To Try Hard To Negotiate A Deal For Thousands Of Troops To Remain -- And Failed.” “The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the president's announcement today, but in fact several parts of the administration appeared to try hard to negotiate a deal for thousands of troops to remain -- and failed.” (Josh Rogin, “How The Obama Administration Bungled The Iraq Withdrawal Negotiations,” Foreign Policy, 10/21/11)

Foreign Policy Headline: “How The Obama Administration Bungled The Iraq Withdrawal Negotiations” (Josh Rogin, “How The Obama Administration Bungled The Iraq Withdrawal Negotiations,” Foreign Policy, 10/21/11)

NUMBER 3: President Obama Said He Will Ensure Iran “Will Not Get A Nuclear Weapon” – But His Policies Have Left Iran Even Closer To Nuclear Weapon Capability:

President Obama: “As Long As I'm President Of The United States, Iran Will Not Get A Nuclear Weapon.” OBAMA: “But to the issue of Iran, as long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. I've made that clear when I came into office. We then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks, Boca Raton, FL, 10/22/12)

President Obama’s “Early Overtures To Iran Were Rejected” And Iran’s Nuclear Program Has Expanded. “Obama's early overtures to Iran were rejected, and the expansion of Tehran's nuclear program, which it says is purely peaceful, has created tension between Washington and Israel, which sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence.” (Matt Spetalnick and Mark Felsenthal, “Obama Warns Iran On Nuclear Bid, Containment ‘No Option’,” Reuters, 9/25/12)

Iran Has Succeeded In “Adding Thousands Of Centrifuge Machines To Its Underground Facility” And Has Grown Its Uranium Stockpile. “No firm dates for new negotiations have been set, and Middle East analysts say no breakthrough is likely until after the November election. Meanwhile, Iran’s success in adding thousands of centrifuge machines to its underground facility — and the inexorable growth of its uranium stockpile — continues to stoke fears of an Israeli airstrike. It has also left the White House vulnerable to Republican charges that administration policies, while well-intentioned, have ultimately been fruitless.” (Joby Warrick, “Obama’s Policy On Iran Bears Some Fruit, But Nuclear Program Still Advances,” The Washington Post, 9/24/12)

The Washington Post: “The Result Is That President Obama Is Not Even Leading From Behind On Iran; He Is Simply Behind.” “The result is that President Obama is not even leading from behind on Iran; he is simply behind. At the forefront of the Western effort to pressure Tehran is French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who issued a statement Monday calling on the European Union, the United States, Japan, Canada and ‘other willing countries’ to ‘immediately freeze the assets of Iran’s central bank’ and suspend purchases of Iranian oil.” (Editorial, “More Half-Measures From Obama Administration On Iran,” The Washington Post, 11/22/11)

NUMBER 4: President Obama Claimed He Insisted “China Plays By The Same Rules” – But He’s Failed To Label Them As A Currency Manipulator:

President Obama: “My Attitude Coming Into Office Was That We Are Going To Insist That China Plays By The Same Rules As Everybody Else.” OBAMA: “But with respect to China, China's both an adversary but also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules. So my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that China plays by the same rules as everybody else.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks, Boca Raton, FL, 10/22/12)

Under President Obama, The United States Treasury Department Has Refused To Label China As A Currency Manipulator Seven Times. (Don Lee, “U.S. Declines To Label China A Currency Manipulator,” Los Angeles Times, 5/25/12; Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, “U.S. Again Says China Not Currency Manipulator,” Reuters, 12/28/11; Gregg Robb, “Treasury Says China Isn’t A Currency Manipulator,” Market Watch, 5/27/11; Sewell Chan, “China’s Currency Avoids “Manipulated” Ruling Again,” NYT, 2/04/11; Gregg Robb, “Treasury Does Not Cite China As Currency Manipulator,” Market Watch, 7/8/10; Martin Crutsinger, “Administration Declines To Cite China On Currency Manipulation,” USA Today, 10/15/09; Glenn Somerville and Doug Palmer, “U.S. Again Declines To Brand China Currency Manipulator,” Reuters, 4/15/09)

This Month, The Obama Administration Announced It Would Delay Yet Another Opportunity To Label China As A Currency Manipulator. “The Obama administration is delaying a decision that had been due Monday on whether China is manipulating its currency to gain trade advantages. The Treasury Department says the decision will now come after global finance officials meet in early November.” (“Administration Delays China Currency Report,” The Associated Press, 10/12/12)

President Obama Said He Wouldn’t Declare China A Currency Manipulator Because He Didn’t Want To “Go Out Of Our Way To Embarrass” China. “President Barack Obama, addressing questions Wednesday about China's alleged trade abuses and currency manipulation, said the United States must push back against unfair practices but not ‘go out of our way to embarrass’ the country.” (Henry J. Gomez, “President Barack Obama Warns Against Embarrassing China On Trade Complaints: Plain Dealer Interview,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/27/12)

Senator Sherrod Brown: “The U.S. Treasury Department Has Given China A Free Pass When It Comes To Its Currency Manipulation.” “‘Once again, the U.S. Treasury Department has given China a free pass when it comes to its currency manipulation,’ Brown said. ‘While we’re seeing American manufacturing rebound, China is stepping up its efforts in a number of critical sectors, including clean and solar energy, advanced manufacturing, and auto parts.’” (Senator Sherrod Brown, “Treasury Giving China A ‘Free Pass’ On Currency Manipulation,” Press Release, 5/25/12)

NUMBER 5: President Obama Falsely Claimed Mitt Romney Would Not Have Provided Government Assistance To U.S. Auto Companies:

President Obama: “You Were Very Clear That You Would Not Provide Government Assistance To The U.S. Auto Companies Even If They Went Through Bankruptcy.” OBAMA: “You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true. They would have gone through.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks, Boca Raton, FL, 10/22/12)

FactCheck.org: Mitt Romney “Said That The ‘Federal Government Should Provide Guarantees For Post-Bankruptcy Financing…’” “He argued against a bailout but for a ‘managed bankruptcy’ in which he said that the ‘federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.’” (Brooks Jackson, et al, “FactChecking The Hofstra Debate,” FactCheck.org, 10/17/12)

Time’s Michael Scherer: “Obama Is Wrong. Romney Supported Guarantees In Bankruptcy. ‘The Federal Government Should Provide Guarantees For Post-Bankruptcy Financing’” (Michael Scherer, Twitter Feed, 10/22/12)

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “At The End He Said: The Federal Government Should Provide Guarantees For Post-Bankruptcy Financing  … Romney Seems To Have Had The Record Straight.” WALLACE: “Finally, very briefly on the auto bailout, in an editorial that Romney wrote in November of 2008, which had the headline he didn't write it, let Detroit go bankrupt. He did argue for bankruptcy, a managed bankruptcy but at the end he said: the federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. So at least on that point, again, Romney seems to have had the record straight.” (Fox News, 10/22/12)



Oct. 23 12:26 a.m.


Boston, MA – Florida Senator Marco Rubio made the following statement on tonight’s third presidential debate:
 
“Over the past four years and particularly over the past few weeks, we have witnessed the unraveling of President Obama’s foreign policy. Tonight’s debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama only served to highlight the enormous gap between the President’s words and his actual achievements. Thanks to four years of vacillating diplomacy, economic weakness, and cuts to our military, America’s standing in the world is hitting lows not seen since the Jimmy Carter years. We’re seeing the bitter fruits of this failed strategy in the Middle East on a daily basis – but other regions of the world are also growing more dangerous. It’s time we had a leader in the White House who will stand up for America and restore the essential elements of American power: economic, military, and moral. Mitt Romney is the man for the job.”

Oct. 22 11:53 p.m.


U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) made the following statement on tonight’s third presidential debate:

“The president has many jobs, but perhaps none is more important than the role of Commander-in-Chief. Unfortunately, President Obama has shown a willingness to slash our military, weaken our global alliances, and rack up more than $16 trillion in debt, further weakening our national security. We need a president who will restore America's leadership abroad while strengthening our economic security at home. Mitt Romney represents a decisive break with the current administration's policies, and as he outlined tonight, he has a clear plan to renew America's influence around the world.”


11:46 p.m.

CNN’s David Gergen: “I Think Mitt Romney Did Something Extremely Important To His Campaign Tonight: He Passed The Commander-In-Chief Test.” (CNN, 10/22/12)

The Wall Street Journal’s Patrick O’Connor: “Romney Is Presenting Himself As The Sober Future President, While Obama Is Attacking The Republican Nominee Like A Man Sliding In The Polls.” “Well, the distinctions seem fairly clear at this point: Romney is presenting himself as the sober future president, while Obama is attacking the Republican nominee like a man sliding in the polls.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/22/12)

Politico’s Dylan Byers: “Romney Looks Presidential. Period. & That Is What He Needs From These Three Debates.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

The New York Times’ John Harwood: “Mitt Romney Tried To Be Presidential. I Think He Was.” (CNBC, 10/22/12)

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg: “Romney Passed The Commander-In-Chief Credibility Test.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “I Would Have Thought The Guy That Had Turned Out To Be Mitt Romney Was The President…” WALLACE: “Yeah, let me first give you my general opinion. And that was, I thought in the middle of the debate that if I had been on the desert island for the last four years and I had just been parachuted into this debate, I would have thought the guy that had turned out to be Mitt Romney was the president protecting a lead and that Barack Obama was the challenger trying, somewhat desperately to catch up.” (Fox News, 10/22/12)

CNN’s Piers Morgan: “Romney Actually Very Smart Bringing This All Back To Economy.” “Romney actually very smart bringing this all back to economy. Will resonate better with insular American voters.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “POTUS Is Consistently Trying To Draw Romney Into A More Contentious Debate. It's What Challengers Do Who Think They Are Behind.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “The ‘More Backbone’ Line From Mitt Was Very Strong” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

BuzzFeed’s Zeke Miller: “And Romney Pivots To The Economy In A Very Strong Way” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

CNN’s Sam Feist: “Men In The CNN Focus Group Loved Romney's Answer On Education.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

Politico’s John Bresnahan: “Very Presidential Response By Romney On Schieffer Israel Hypothetical” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

Weekly Standard’s William Kristol: “Tonight, Romney Seems As Fully Capable As—Probably More Capable Than—Barack Obama Of Being The Next President. He Probably Will Be.” (Weekly Standard, 10/22/12)


11:39 p.m.


Arizona Senator John McCain made the following statement on tonight’s third presidential debate:

“Tonight, Mitt Romney showed that as Commander in Chief, he’ll keep America safe by renewing our strength at home and restoring our leadership abroad. By contrast, from his confused and misleading response to the terrorist attack in Libya to the continued massacre in Syria to the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, President Obama’s feckless foreign policy has weakened our standing in the world and made America less safe. We cannot afford another four years of President Obama ‘leading from behind,’ and Mitt Romney’s commitment to peace through strength is exactly what America needs to protect our national security in a dangerous world.”


11:30 p.m.


Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell made the following statement on tonight’s third presidential debate:

“The United States Navy calls Hampton Roads home. Norfolk Naval Station is the largest naval station in the world, and all Virginians are honored to have this great facility in the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, President Obama's dismissive comments about the Navy tonight should be concerning for any voter who cares about the safety and security of Americans at home and abroad. President Obama has not only ignored these concerns -- but his flippant comment about 'horses and bayonets' was an insult to every sailor who has put his or her life on the line for our country. Gov. Romney is clearly the candidate in this race who recognizes the importance of ensuring that our fighting men and women have the resources and the support they need to protect our interests and ensure that no adversary would think to challenge us. Tonight, Virginians, and all Americans, saw that Mitt Romney is the president we need in a challenging and uncertain world.”


11:10 p.m.


Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon made the following statement on tonight’s third presidential debate:

“This evening’s debate presented two very different conceptions of America’s role and responsibilities in the world. President Obama defended his strategy of leading from behind and his record of compromising our interests and ideals alike. He promised to double down on the same policies and continue down the same course. But the fact of the matter is that we cannot afford four more years of the kind of leadership that betrays our friends like Israel, encourages our adversaries like Iran to defy us, and jeopardizes our security through devastating cuts to our defense. The President’s approach of fecklessness and flexibility has projected weakness abroad, and the signs of disorder are hard to miss. Mitt Romney will lead our country in a new direction that is consistent with sound principles and strong leadership.”


10:59 p.m.


Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen made the following statement on tonight’s third presidential debate:

“Under President Obama’s failed leadership, in no part of the world is the United States’ influence greater today than when he took office. Mitt Romney’s optimistic world view was on clear display tonight, and it contrasted sharply with President Obama’s failed record abroad. On the President’s watch, our relationships with key allies like Israel have frayed, violence has erupted in the Middle East, and our military strength is at risk. Our country can’t afford another four years of his failed leadership, and that’s the reason we must elect Mitt Romney as our Commander-in-Chief.”


10:44 p.m.

New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte made the following statement on tonight’s third presidential debate:

“Today, our allies question the character of our commitments and our adversaries seek to challenge us. It’s no wonder why. President Obama has given the cold shoulder to strong allies like Israel. Meanwhile, Iran is four years closer to its goal of nuclear weapons capability, unrest grows in the Middle East, and the President’s ‘reset’ strategy with Russia has failed. In tonight’s debate, we saw two visions for America’s role in the world. President Obama is offering more of the same failed policies and failed leadership. Mitt Romney will reverse this irresponsible course.”

---

Republican Jewish Coalition
  
Romney Campaign and Republicans Leading up to the Third Presidential Debate

Romney for President
October 22, 2012

 
“At the 2008 presidential debates, Candidate Obama promised to implement a foreign policy that would protect our interests and allies abroad. But four years later, America stands weakened around the world, with our safety threatened, our allies increasingly isolated, and hostile nations emboldened. Americans simply can’t afford another four years like the last four years. As president, Mitt Romney will deliver where President Obama has failed by crafting a foreign policy that restores America’s strength and increases our nation’s security abroad.” – Andrea Saul, Romney Campaign Spokesperson

 
Candidate Obama Promised He Wouldn’t Tolerate A Nuclear Iran – But President Obama’s Policies Have Left Iran Closer To Nuclear Weapon Capability:
 
Candidate Obama, In A 2008 Presidential Debate: “We Cannot Tolerate A Nuclear Iran. It Would Be A Game Changer.” OBAMA: “So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.” (Sen. Barack Obama, First Presidential Debate, Oxford, MS, 9/26/08)
 
President Obama’s “Early Overtures To Iran Were Rejected” And Iran’s Nuclear Program Has Expanded. “Obama's early overtures to Iran were rejected, and the expansion of Tehran's nuclear program, which it says is purely peaceful, has created tension between Washington and Israel, which sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence.” (Matt Spetalnick and Mark Felsenthal, “Obama Warns Iran On Nuclear Bid, Containment ‘No Option’,” Reuters, 9/25/12)
 
Iran Has Succeeded In “Adding Thousands Of Centrifuge Machines To Its Underground Facility” And Has Grown Its Uranium Stockpile. “No firm dates for new negotiations have been set, and Middle East analysts say no breakthrough is likely until after the November election. Meanwhile, Iran’s success in adding thousands of centrifuge machines to its underground facility — and the inexorable growth of its uranium stockpile — continues to stoke fears of an Israeli airstrike. It has also left the White House vulnerable to Republican charges that administration policies, while well-intentioned, have ultimately been fruitless.” (Joby Warrick, “Obama’s Policy On Iran Bears Some Fruit, But Nuclear Program Still Advances,” The Washington Post, 9/24/12)

 
Candidate Obama Promised To Stand Up To Russia – But President Obama’s “Reset” Policy Has Been An Abject Failure:
 
In A 2008 Presidential Debate, Candidate Obama Promised To Stand Up To Russia On Protecting America’s Interests Abroad. OBAMA: “But we have to have a president who is clear that you don't deal with Russia based on staring into his eyes and seeing his soul. You deal with Russia based on, what are your -- what are the national security interests of the United States of America? And we have to recognize that the way they've been behaving lately demands a sharp response from the international community and our allies.” (Sen. Barack Obama, First Presidential Debate, Oxford, MS, 9/26/08)
 
·         Candidate Obama Also Pledged To Work With Russia On Nuclear Nonproliferation. OBAMA: “It's important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation. … This is an area where I've led on in the Senate, working with a Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, to deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons. That's an area where we're going to have to work with Russia.” (Sen. Barack Obama, First Presidential Debate, Oxford, MS, 9/26/08)
 
President Obama “Decided To Bet On Deal-Making With Mr. Putin Rather Than On Democratic Change In Russia.” “Remarkably, however, President Obama has responded to Mr. Putin’s return to the presidency by strongly affirming his commitment to partnering with the strongman. His meant-to-be-confidential assurance to outgoing President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday, that ‘after my election I have more flexibility’ to solve ‘all these issues, but particularly missile defense,’ was only the latest sign that Mr. Obama has decided to bet on deal-making with Mr. Putin rather than on democratic change in Russia.” (Editorial, “President Obama’s Bad Bet On Vladimir Putin,” The Washington Post, 3/28/12)
 
·         President Vladimir Putin Returned To Power On A Platform Of “Anti-Americanism,” Including Support For Policies Contrary To U.S. Interests And Military Support For President Al-Assad In Syria. “The return of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency ought to have caused the Obama administration to reshape its policy toward the Kremlin. Putin based his election campaign in large part on anti-Americanism; he has increasingly pursued policies contrary to vital U.S. interests, such as his military support for the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and his threats against NATO’s European missile-defense system. Most important, Mr. Putin’s decade-old autocratic regime is looking shaky.” (Editorial, “President Obama’s Bad Bet On Vladimir Putin,” The Washington Post, 3/28/12
 
Russia Recently Announced It “Will Not Renew A Decades-Old Agreement With Washington On Dismantling Nuclear And Chemical Weapons When It Expires Next Year.” “Russia will not renew a decades-old agreement with Washington on dismantling nuclear and chemical weapons when it expires next year, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted as saying on Wednesday. The death of the 1991 agreement, which had been renewed twice, is the latest in a series of hitches in relations between the United States and Russia and casts doubt on the future of the much-vaunted ‘reset’ in relations between the Cold War-era foes.” (“Russia Says It Will Not Renew Arms Agreement With U.S.,” Reuters, 10/10/12)

 
Candidate Obama Promised To “Enforce Rules Against” China’s Currency Manipulation – But President Obama Has Failed To Stop China’s Cheating:
 
Candidate Obama, In A 2008 Presidential Debate: “We Should Enforce Rules Against China Manipulating Its Currency…” OBAMA: “And what I said was we should include those and make them enforceable. In the same way that we should enforce rules against China manipulating its currency to make our exports more expensive and their exports to us cheaper.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Third Presidential Debate, Hempstead, NY, 10/15/08)
 
Under President Obama, The United States Treasury Department Has Refused To Label China As A Currency Manipulator Seven Times. (Don Lee, “U.S. Declines To Label China A Currency Manipulator,” Los Angeles Times, 5/25/12; Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, “U.S. Again Says China Not Currency Manipulator,” Reuters, 12/28/11; Gregg Robb, “Treasury Says China Isn’t A Currency Manipulator,” Market Watch, 5/27/11; Sewell Chan, “China’s Currency Avoids “Manipulated” Ruling Again,” NYT, 2/04/11; Gregg Robb, “Treasury Does Not Cite China As Currency Manipulator,” Market Watch, 7/8/10; Martin Crutsinger, “Administration Declines To Cite China On Currency Manipulation,” USA Today, 10/15/09; Glenn Somerville and Doug Palmer, “U.S. Again Declines To Brand China Currency Manipulator,” Reuters, 4/15/09)
 
·         The Obama Administration Recently Announced It Would Delay Yet Another Opportunity To Label China As A Currency Manipulator. “The Obama administration is delaying a decision that had been due Monday on whether China is manipulating its currency to gain trade advantages. The Treasury Department says the decision will now come after global finance officials meet in early November.” (“Administration Delays China Currency Report,” The Associated Press, 10/12/12)
 
Asked About China’s Currency Manipulation And Unfair Trade Practices, President Obama Said That He Did Not Want To “Embarrass” China. “President Barack Obama, addressing questions Wednesday about China’s alleged trade abuses and currency manipulation, said the United States must push back against unfair practices but not ‘go out of our way to embarrass’ the country. Doing so would risk ‘an all-out trade war,’ Obama told The Plain Dealer in an exclusive interview.” (Henry Gomez, “President Barack Obama Warns Against Embarrassing China On Trade Complaints: Plain Dealer Interview,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/27/12)
 
The Washington Post: “China's Policy Has Probably Cost Americans Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs And Contributed To China's Destabilizing Pile Of Trillions Of Dollars In Reserves.” “China’s undervalued renminbi is a long-standing, bipartisan concern, and it is not a phony one: In pursuit of growth led by exports, China has held the renminbi down in relation to the dollar, rendering its goods artificially cheap in the U.S. market. The renminbi would gain about 20 percent against the dollar if it were allowed to float freely like other currencies, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. China’s policy has probably cost Americans hundreds of thousands of jobs and contributed to China’s destabilizing pile of trillions of dollars in reserves.” (Editorial, “Breaking China?,” The Washington Post, 8/31/11)

 
Candidate Obama Promised To Fully Fund Veterans’ Care – But President Obama’s Budget Included Sharp Cuts To Military Health Care Funding:
 
Candidate Obama, In A 2008 Presidential Debate: “We Haven't Adequately Funded Veterans' Care.” OBAMA: “We haven't adequately funded veterans' care. I sit on the Veterans Affairs Committee, and we've got -- I meet veterans all across the country who are trying to figure out, ‘How can I get disability payments? I've got post-traumatic stress disorder, and yet I can't get treatment.’” (Sen. Barack Obama, First Presidential Debate, Oxford, MS, 9/26/08)
 
President Obama’s FY2013 Budget Cuts Military Health Care Funding By $12.9 Billion Over The Next Five Years. “In the next fiscal year, the military has outlined a $1.8 billion cut as part of a projected $48.7 billion health care budget covering 9.6 million people. The cuts would total $12.9 billion over five years. To offset the loss, retirees would pay higher enrollment fees based on how much they earn through their military pensions. Retirees and active-duty family members would pay more for pharmacy copayments, too.” (Barrie Barber, “Military Retirees Could See Increase In Health Insurance Costs,” Dayton Daily News, 3/30/12)
 
“The Pentagon Is Proposing Substantial Increases In Health Care Premiums For Working-Age Military Retirees.” “Benefits for military retirees are also targeted. The Pentagon is proposing substantial increases in health care premiums for working-age military retirees. For some retirees, the premiums for TRICARE, the military health-care program, would nearly quadruple from $520 per year to $2,480 in 2017.” (Tom Vanden Brook, “Pentagon Budget Calls For Cuts To Jets, Benefits,” USA Today, 2/13/12)
 
·         Some Retirees “Will See Their Health Care Costs Nearly Quadruple.” “Military-age retirees who make more than $45,179 annually — a pension usually reserved for officers — will see their health care costs nearly quadruple, from $600 annually in fiscal year 2013 to $2,048 in 2017.” (Nancy Youssef, “Heaviest 2013 Defense Budget Cuts Would Fall On Troops,” McClatchy, 2/13/12)
 
Veterans’ Benefit Claims Are Stuck In A “Crushing” Backlog At The Veterans Administration. “These are the faces of what has become known as ‘the backlog’: the crushing inventory of claims for disability, pension and educational benefits that has overwhelmed the Department of Veterans Affairs. For hundreds of thousands of veterans, the result has been long waits for decisions, mishandled documents, confusing communications and infuriating mistakes in their claims.” (James Dao, “Veterans Wait For Benefits As Claims Pile Up,” The New York Times, 9/27/12)