U.S. presidents running for reelection are fond of asking voters if they are better off now than they were four years ago. President Barack Obama, who is not running for anything except the exit, has adapted this campaign device—but in a way that does little to commend the policies put in place by his administration.

"By every economic measure, we are better off than when I took office," Obama told an audience of Northwestern University students last week.

Almost anything appears better compared to the worst recession since the Great Depression. And January 2009, when Obama took office, was close to the nadir of the 2007-2009 recession, the longest since World War II. Yet for some reason, Obama repeatedly uses this lowest possible benchmark to tout his achievements.

What's more, he has a habit of taking credit for things he had nothing to do with: the energy renaissance, for example, which he calls a "cornerstone" of economic growth. The U.S. may be the world's largest oil and natural gas producer, but the federal government is in no way responsible. Soaring production is solely a function of private-sector innovations in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling.

Between fiscal years 2009 and 2013, oil and natural gas production on federal lands fell 6 percent and 28 percent, respectively. In the same period, production surged 61 percent (oil) and 33 percent (natural gas) on state and private lands, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. The number of leases for drilling on federal land has plummeted. The red tape required to secure a permit has increased the waiting time. And the president is still dragging his feet—and his pen—on the Keystone XL pipeline.

What about those good manufacturing jobs, another "cornerstone" of growth, created by the energy boom? North Dakota didn't achieve its 2.8 percent unemployment rate, the lowest among the states, from wind and solar.

Glowing reports of new "green" jobs—at least until the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Green Goods and Services program succumbed to sequestration—ignore the huge number of compliance positions necessitated by new regulations, according to former BLS Commissioner Keith Hall. If the goal of any society is to produce more with less, an increase in the number of paper pushers in government-subsidized industries is not exactly a sign of success.

What about the president's claim of "getting our fiscal house in order for the long run?" One man's long run is another man's short run. Yes, the deficit as a share of GDP plummeted from almost 10 percent in fiscal 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. But in a statement of the obvious, the Congressional Budget Office pointed out that the debt is still growing. Federal debt held by the public will reach 74 percent of GDP this year, the highest in history except for the years in the aftermath of World War II. Debt-to-GDP is on its way to 100 percent in 2039, according to CBO. So it is a bit premature to declare "mission accomplished," as the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt notes, when the U.S. faces a stark choice in coming decades between reneging on promises it made to future generations and enacting massive tax increases. And not just on the wealthy.

What about the middle class, the focal point of the president's policies? The real median income in the United States was 4 percent lower in 2013 than when Obama took office. The poverty rate is higher. So is the number of long-term unemployed. The percentage of Americans who are working (59 percent) is 1.6 percentage points lower than in early 2009. If this rate would have stayed at the existing level when Obama took office, an additional 4 million people would be employed. And the labor force participation rate, at 62.7 percent, is lowest since 1978. Not exactly a good set of statistics for touting "better off."

Finally, Obama is extrapolating the subdued rise in healthcare costs over the last eight year into the future. Some caution is in order. The Affordable Care Act was designed to increase access to health care. And it has increased demand. Was there anything in the law to encourage providers—the supply side—of health care? That can mean only one thing for prices: they will rise. In the long run, of course. But who wants to wait that long to declare victory?

Caroline Baum is a contributor to e21. You can follow her on Twitter here.