Without batting an eye. When asked by Bill O'Reilly in his Super Bowl interview about why he opposed school vouchers, the president just casually lied the way he always does.
Asked by Mr. O'Reilly why he opposed school vouchers that "level the playing field" and "give poor people a chance to go to better schools," the president replied, "Actually, every study that's been done on school vouchers, Bill, says that it has very limited impact if any."
Mr. Obama said that the means-tested voucher programs in Milwaukee and Washington, D.C, "didn't actually make that much of a difference," and added, "As a general proposition, vouchers have not significantly improved the performance of kids that are in these poorest communities."
In fact, study after study using gold-standard random-assignment methodology has shown that vouchers not only improve student outcomes but have the biggest impact on low-income minorities. Here's a sampling:
The article by Jason L. Riley went on to list six different studies in which students who participated in the voucher programs showed significant gains over control group students. And the last of the six studies was one released by the Obama administration.
And the Obama administration itself released a report on the D.C. voucher program in 2010. "The students offered vouchers graduated from high school at a rate 12 percentage points higher (82 percent) than students in the control group (70 percent), an impact that was statistically significant at the highest level," according to a summary. "Students in three of six subgroups tested showed significant reading gains because of the voucher offer after four or more years."
It's about the money. Obama's problem with voucher programs is the threat they pose to public education labor unions. The unions are important to Obama because they funnel money to the Democratic party. The income stream is what matters to Obama.
What benefits Obama is what qualifies as truth, to the point where his dishonesty is ordinary, routine, just his usual practice.