Feb 2, 2012 3:42pm

Fact Check – Obama and the ‘One-Term Proposition’

Three years ago today, a freshly-inaugurated President Obama said of his plan to fix the financial crisis that “if I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Republicans are marking the anniversary with an election-year Web video insisting that, by his own measure, Obama has failed. You can view it HERE.

“Obama said he had three years to fix the economy,” the opening headline reads in the one-minute spot from the Republican National Committee.  A string of recent statements from White House aides citing a “tough economy” and “very tough economic times”  in 2012 follows.

“Twelve million people don’t have jobs, home prices are at an all-time low and there is no end in sight,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.

“By his own standard, it’s obvious that this president has failed to turn the economy around,” he said. “And just like Obama said, it’s time to make this a one-term proposition.”

But while there is no doubt the U.S. economy continues to struggle, an examination of the context of Obama’s 2009 comments to NBC’s Matt Lauer suggests his “proposition” might not have been as sweeping as Republicans make it out to be.

Obama was responding to specific questions about the Troubled Asset Relief Program and whether its economic benefits would merit the costs, then estimated at $700 billion.

“At some point will you say, ‘Wait a minute, we’ve spent this amount of money. We’re not seeing the results. We’ve got to change course dramatically?’” Lauer asked Obama.

“Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” Obama said. “But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

TARP, which began under President George W. Bush in late 2008, provided infusions of capital to struggling banks, boosted Federal Reserve lending and launched a public-private effort to soften the blow of failed assets weighing on banks’ books.

It is widely credited with averting the collapse of several major U.S. banks and stabilizing the financial sector, while ultimately costing taxpayers significantly less than originally thought.

The lifetime cost of TARP is projected to be $70 billion – one tenth of the amount first allocated by Congress – according to the Government Accountability Office.

The program also included financing for the U.S. auto industry, which has since experienced a resurgence that has led to more jobs and new profitability.

But the outcomes of TARP have not been entirely rosy.  Efforts to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, for example, have fallen far short of their goals.

Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for TARP, called the Home Affordable Modification Program a “colossal failure” in a March 2011 op-ed.

“As the program flounders, foreclosures continue to mount,” he wrote at the time, “with 8 million to 13 million filings forecast over the program’s lifetime.”  The program remains active with $45.6 billion still yet to be paid out.

Meanwhile, the broader debate between Republicans and the administration about whether the economy has “turned around” remains a subjective one, with existing economic indicators to support conclusions on both sides.

There is indeed still plenty of “pain out there” that Obama referred to three years ago, with the national unemployment rate at 8.5 percent in December and 13.1 million out of work.

A new nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report suggests the unemployment rate could even tick back up above 9 percent by the end of the year, with GDP growth lagging to just 1.1 percent.

And while the home foreclosure crisis, which has swept the nation since 2007, turning out millions of homeowners and depressing prices, has slowed, it is far from over, experts say.  Nearly 2 million homes entered foreclosure last year, according to RealtyTrac.

Still, the trend line on job losses verses job creation has gone from negative to positive, charting net private sector job growth for each of the past 22 consecutive months.

The U.S. economy added 200,000 private sector jobs in December, while the unemployment rate of 8.5 percent was the lowest level since March 2009.

All told, the economy added 1.6 million jobs in 2011 after adding 940,000 in 2010, according to the Labor Department. (There’s still a net loss of 1.7 million jobs since Obama took first took office, when things were on the slide.)

As for the foreclosure rate, it was down 34 percent in 2011 from the year before.

Obama told Matt Lauer in 2009 – and has repeated many times since – that “there’s no silver bullets” for the economy and that it’s “going to take some time for us to be able to dig ourselves out of this hole.”

That the pace of recovery needs to quicken is perhaps the only conclusion on which both Republicans and Democrats now agree.

SHOWS:

User Comments

Obama 2012

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2012, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm

Oh God, so let’s go back to the people who ruined the economy? I don’t think so.

Posted by: Sarah | February 2, 2012, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm

Why would anyone believe Obama would voluntarilyleave after one term if he was “inept”? He lies about everything else–blames everybody else–an alibi Ike.

Posted by: jonnie | February 2, 2012, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm

Check out Dan Mitchell’s charts at Cato “Reaganomics vs Obamanomics.” It speaks volumes. With Reagan’s policies, that 1981 recession was over in 6 quarters. This recession has lasted twice as long and judged by the high unemployment rate will go on for longer, much like the Great Depression was prolonged by statist policies. Why is the media not contrasting the policies and their performance?

Posted by: Carlos | February 2, 2012, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm

According to Obama’s own words, he’s fine with only one term and his family is fine with it. In fact, some days he wishes to do something less stressful. This was in June of 2011 that he said that.

Everyone is leaving. Geitner is going after this year is out. His entire economic team is gone.

I think Mr. Obama knows that the golf course and the good life awaits.

It’s a tough economy, tough Congress, deficits, debts, joblessness, all kinds of headaches.

If he chooses the other door, he can go out on speaking tours and earn some good dough, go golfing, vacation in Hawaii, sing to the audience, win the adulation of fans, and live the good life – without any of the burdens and cares of office.

The Democrats who care about Obama should let him retire. I get the sense that Obama wants to retire, he’s tired. He’s aged 8 years in the last 4 years.

He needs a long holiday and a more serene life away from the interminable grind of beltway politics.

Let Mitt Romney take over the headaches of office.

Posted by: Romney Supporter | February 2, 2012, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm

Obama’s biggest mistake was in thinking the Republicans would be willing to help fix the mess they helped create. Instead they focused every ounce of effort into tearing down Obama. Party first, country a distant second, is the GOP of 2012.

Posted by: A Cynic | February 2, 2012, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm

Sarah — You have NO facts to back your statement!! Tell me how, when, what legislation… you can’t blame it on one party!! —— I say lets allow Obama’s prediction to fulfill itself….. because 4 more years would doom America!!!

Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | February 2, 2012, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm

Man, ABC is definitely in the tank. TARP was a colossal failure and so has everything part of obama’s agenda. Oh, and BTW, the only reason that unemployment has dropped is obama has changed how it is calculated.

Posted by: DJ | February 2, 2012, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm

Obama’s biggest mistake was in thinking the Republicans would be willing to help fix the mess they helped create. Instead they focused every ounce of effort into tearing down Obama. Party first, country a distant second, is the GOP of 2012.

Posted by: A Cynic | February 2, 2012, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm

*****

Posted by: miranda | February 2, 2012, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm

Sarah — You have NO facts to back your statement!!

Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | February 2, 2012, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm

As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

“There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems,” said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush’s former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. “Had we, we would have attacked them.”

Posted by: Charlie | February 2, 2012, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm

If Obama failed, I would consider a Republican with a different recipe than What has been the gospel since Reagan which has been t thoroughly tried and discredited. I certainly won’t vote for republicans to continue from where they left off three years ago. That is plain crazy. But unfortunately for them, Obama has successfully turned the economy around. More private sector jobs than all the Bush years put together. We have see consistent growth the past 23 months. So why I do I exactly want another republican to turn the clock back? Any good reason that is attuned to facts not just unsubstantiated drivel?

Posted by: dabu | February 2, 2012, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm

One Term, wow that has a nice ring to it.

Posted by: billy bob | February 2, 2012, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm

DABU | FEBRUARY 2, 2012, 5:11 PM……How many were unemployed when Obama was sworn in vs how many are unemployed now (I’m talking about the actual numbers)? If you want the truth, you’ll have to make some effort.

Posted by: deanbob | February 2, 2012, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm

I think all the Republicans need to do this summer is play back the videos of Obama from 3-4 years ago. That should be more than enough.

Posted by: newcountryman | February 2, 2012, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm

DABU | FEBRUARY 2, 2012, 5:11 PM……How many were unemployed when Obama was sworn in vs how many are unemployed now (I’m talking about the actual numbers)? If you want the truth, you’ll have to make some effort.

Posted by: deanbob | February 2, 2012, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm

Sorry deanbob, you’ve posted this nonsense before and you know it’s bogus.

Using the moment he was sworn in as a start date to blame lost jobs on Obama is just plain stupid.

Bush handed Obama a country in free-fall economic collapse. Close to a million jobs being lost every month through the time just before and just after Obama was inaugurated. The momentum from the Bush collapse was just peaking as Obama took office.

It’s totally bogus to blame those job losses on Obama.

Posted by: truthful one | February 2, 2012, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm

With Reagan’s policies, that 1981 recession was over in 6 quarters
—————————————–

-and those policies involved greatly increasing borrowing and spending.

Posted by: right-wing amnesia remedies | February 2, 2012, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm

Mr. Obama lacks conviction.

Posted by: young_voter | February 2, 2012, 8:43 pm 8:43 pm

Obama’s biggest mistake was in thinking the Republicans would be willing to help fix the mess they helped create. Instead they focused every ounce of effort into tearing down Obama. Party first, country a distant second, is the GOP of 2012.
Posted by: A Cynic | February 2, 2012, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm

Even if your statement was true (which it is not) you omit the FACT that the Republicans had NO power the first 2 years. Obama and the Dems passed whatever they pleased.

Posted by: wheresmymoney | February 3, 2012, 11:00 am 11:00 am

Where Pres. Obama was wrong is in thinking the republicans really care about getting this country straightened out. They forget that the recession started under Bush. They also forget that Bush was given a surplus while Obama was given a recession. What I would like to know is exactly what did Bush spend the surplus on…he did not pay for the two wars he got us into…nor did he pay for his prescription drug program….so where did that money go? I think you will see a different Pres. Obama…his attitude is now…if you want to help me…fine…if not…I am doing it alone and I think he is right to do this.

Posted by: talmag | February 6, 2012, 10:33 am 10:33 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.