The Economist Needs a Fact-Check

February 17, 2011


BY: CAPITOL HILL CUBANS


Conventional wisdom has it that The Economist knows what it's talking about (or at least, that it fact-checks).

Apparently, that's not the case.

In an editorial today on Presidential vs. Congressional authority to lift U.S. sanctions towards Cuba, it writes:

[S]ince 1992, when the Cuban Democracy Act effectively codified the various provisions of the then-haphazard embargo into federal law, the assumption has been that the only way to meaningfully end the embargo—barring radical political change in Cuba—would be via a vote in Congress.

First of all, it wasn't the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act that codified sanctions. It was the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.

Furthermore, it's not an "assumption" that the only way to end the embargo is through a vote in Congress -- that's what the law says (subsection 102(h) in particular).

It continues:

Mr. Obama has already punched some significant holes in the embargo. For example, he has allowed American telecommunications companies to provide data and mobile-phone services to Cuba, although the Cuban government has not shown any interest in taking up the offer. He has lifted all restrictions on the amount of money Cuban-Americans can send to their families back home, and the number of visits they can make.

Note to the The Economist: Both of these actions are specifically authorized (not presumed or extrapolated) by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act -- the bill you previously thought codified sanctions. So how can these be as a result of Obama "punching significant holes" in the law?