By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON - There they go again. Or do they?
Will Mitt Romney miscount the number of unemployed, as he has before? Will President Barack Obama's dubious claim of a peace dividend, bopped down in the last debate, rise again? When Obama and his Republican challenger debate Tuesday night, the media's fact-checking corps will be watching for problematic claims that have popped up repeatedly in the campaign, as well as brand new ones.
You can play fact-check Whac-a-Mole on debate night, too. You might have your hands full: The format, driven by questions from the audience, could shake things even looser than usual.
To be sure, you're not likely to catch one of them saying it's daytime when it's night. Shades of mistruth are more common than whoppers. Often, the offense is one of omission: an accurate as-far-as-it-goes assertion that ignores something really important, like the other side of the ledger. And, at times, the debaters tweak a statement to make it closer to right. You just never know.
To assist in armchair fact-checking, here's a guide to 10 of the leading misleading statements of the campaign:
_From the State of the Union on, the president has told the nation he wants to take "some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America," as he put it in the last debate. There is no such pile of cash. The wars were financed mostly with borrowing. So treating the end of wars as a financial bonanza just means continuing to go deeper in debt to fix roads, bridges and the like. The potential benefit is that borrowing is put to more use at home. But it's still borrowing.
_The president talks frequently about a plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion. Impressive number, but it's not cut and dried. For one thing, he's banking more than $2 trillion already achieved in law, after a deal with Republicans last year. Moreover, he uses creative accounting to hide a huge cache of spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. So any claim like the one in the last debate, "I've proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan," could rate a bop.
_"Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." Here Obama uses an estimate from the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, that Romney's tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by $465 billion in 2015. Multiply that by 10 years _ a common budgeting procedure in Washington _ and he is in the ballpark in talking about $5 trillion. But Obama leaves out Romney's proposals to reduce or eliminate tax credits, deductions and exemptions. He is only counting half the plan. Romney has not specified what tax breaks he'd cut, opening himself to criticism that he's been stubbornly vague on vital elements of his plan. But there's no question he says he will pull some back, reducing the cost of his tax package.
_Obama has something to crow about when he talks about the auto bailout, which almost certainly saved General Motors and Chrysler. His estimate that up to 1 million jobs were saved is based on a 2010 study by the Center for Automotive Research, an industry think tank. But Obama rarely acknowledges that his predecessor, George W. Bush, began the auto bailout that he inherited and expanded. Vice President Joe Biden declared flatly in his debate last week, "We went out and rescued General Motors."
It's also not readily conceded that the government will lose billions on the deal. It's out about $1 billion on the $12.5 billion Chrysler bailout. At GM, the government is $27 billion in the hole right now on a $49.5 billion bailout. The ultimate loss will depend on the price of GM stock when the government sells its stake. Shares are trading for less than half the $53 price needed for the government to recoup all its money on the GM deal.
_The president and vice-president have both been cagey on $716 billion in Medicare cuts set in motion by Obama's health care law over 10 years. To hear Biden talk, the government took the money out of Medicare with one hand and is restoring it with the other: "What we did is, we saved $716 billion and put it back, applied it to Medicare."
Not really. The cuts are from payments to Medicare service providers, like hospitals, and some of the money is going toward improved preventive care and other benefits under the program. But most isn't. The bulk is being used to expand health care coverage for the general population. And there is no guarantee that the cuts to providers won't hurt the services they provide down the road.