Speaking of straining credulity

SPEAKING OF STRAINING CREDULITY…. It’s National Review‘s casual disregard for reality that’s perhaps most frustrating.

Conrad Black has a new NR piece, which insists that President Obama “strained credulity” when he claimed to have “cut the taxes of 95 percent of Americans” in the State of the Union address. Black supported this with nothing — he simply asserts that the president’s claim is untrustworthy.

National Review‘s Denis Boyles touted Black’s argument, adding, “If the taxes of 95 percent of Americans actully [sic] had been cut, surely somebody other than Obama would have noticed.”

This isn’t a dispute that lends itself to subjective analysis. The president told Americans, “We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.” Either that’s true or it’s not. Reality isn’t based on what people have “noticed” or perceive to be accurate. Either Obama is right and National Review didn’t bother to check its facts, or the opposite is true..

Care to take a guess which side is correct?

Obama’s claim is based on a tax cut intended to offset payroll taxes. Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009. […]

Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama’s statement True.

I will concede that many Americans are probably unaware of this. If someone conducted a poll, the number of American who think the president cut taxes for 95% of working families is probably pretty low. Maybe if conservative media outlets were more concerned with accuracy, the public would be better informed about current events.

Either way, facts are stubborn things.