Media Matters President Eric Burns fact-checks Pence's claim that he "fought the earmarking culture and run away spending" during Bush presidency
March 04, 2009 5:56 pm ET
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Burns should fact check himself first.
Burns said: .. Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut, that actually destroyed the surplus that we had coming out of the Clinton years...
That is not true. The surpluses (projected fairy tales) were based on the dot.com era bubble of corp corruption (Enron -most all of that corruption Burns speaks of - was during the Clinton years) and fraud gone mad. When it crashed in march of 2000 - there would be no future surpluses, as the economy crashed and tax revenue stopped growing.
The surpulus would have disappeared whether Gore or Bush ended up President. No serious economist would argue that fact. One can argue that Gore might have spent less (good luck with that one), or whatever - but the country was going deep into deficit spending by 2002-2003 regardless of what any president did.
By year-end 2003, the shift from projected surpluses to realized deficits (delta) i.e., the net total for 3 years running was approximately $1.3 Trillion. Of that $1.3 Trillion, approx. $300 billion can be tied to the total tax cuts on the books and Iraq war costs.
Now you also need to understand. From 2003 -2007, following the Bush tax cuts, Federal tax revenue soared a record 44%. So blame that on the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war costs, I guess?? Can anyone have an intelligent conversation anymore.
You did not hear me say that I supported the top end of the Bush tax cuts, did you?
And for goodness sakes - get off the Enron thing. Those were the Clinton years, the CA energy crisis yeras. His administration was the friend to Enron. They got big and powerful - and overvalued. All they did when Bush came in, and refused to renew the $billions in guaranteed US loans extended to them, - was what? Oh, they folded. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why the progressive left was demanding that Clinton's Treasury Secretary (the one that just stepped down from Citi), well: Rubin Shouldn't Escape Enron Investigation.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0117-08.htm>>Now you also need to understand. From 2003 -2007, following the Bush tax cuts, Federal tax revenue soared a record 44%.
What is your source for this? And are you denying that Bush ran up the highest deficit in history?
This is common knowedge, funnypants. The source is the nonpartisan federal budet record. Saying it is not a poliical thing - it is a fact. It's up to you to devote a full ten seconds of thought process to try to see it. Nothing to it.
Am I denying - Well, he gets his credit for piling it up, no doubt. I find it diffucult to believe that Gore would not have run up one, more or less the same. Gore is on record noting that they left a collapse to Bush. That the media will never ask the question of Gore or Clinton, indeed, is a media matters issue. The collapse of the bubble economy in the 90s' was a death blow - only superceeded by this one. The fact that Bush's tax cuts, combined with the extremly dangerous housing bubble artificially created by HUD (late 90's and in 2000) and enhanced by Federal Reserve policy, kept us from collapsing following the dot.com crash by creating a reprive bubble economy, is of no value to any of us today, is it?
Like your progressive sources:
Dean Baker, Nov. '08. This is a pretty fair shot: "While the Bush administration must take responsibility for the current crisis (they have been in power the last eight years), the stage was set during the Clinton years. The Clinton team set the economy on the path of one-sided financial deregulation and bubble driven growth that brought us where we are today."
Noting that Baker warned of the disaster of the Clinton Bubble as it occured, and later, compared the financial leadership of the Clinton years as the worst since Herbert Hoover. You wish to argue that Bush did no better - fine with me.
We have been living from one bubble economy to another. There is no green pasture to be found after one.
>>This is common knowedge, funnypants. The source is the nonpartisan federal budet record. Saying it is not a poliical thing - it is a fact. It's up to you to devote a full ten seconds of thought process to try to see it. Nothing to it.
Translation: I don't have a source, so I'll just blow a lot of hot air. I just checked the Heritage foundation, a right wing think tank, and they claim that "Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)," but in 2000 it was 20.9 percent.
>>Am I denying - Well, he gets his credit for piling it up, no doubt. I find it diffucult to believe that Gore would not have run up one, more or less the same.
That's a hypothetical. As far as what Dean Baker said, I don't really care. You are throwing out preposterous claims and not addressing the item on MMFA. Do you care to address that?
>>Noting that Baker warned of the disaster of the Clinton Bubble as it occured, and later, compared the financial leadership of the Clinton years as the worst since Herbert Hoover. You wish to argue that Bush did no better - fine with me.
By the way, who the f*** is Dean Baker? You make it sound as if he is God and that his opinions are fact.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/bursting_bubbles/
>>Dean Baker is a darling of the national media.
And who the heck cares? It has no bearing on the item, nor does he offer more than an opinion.
I watch the news, much of it on public TV, and I don't ever remember hearing of this guy, but you want to claim that he's this great source that we should all bow down to and show fealty to?
And you have to provide links, and not just show us the hole you pulled your 'facts' out of.
My goodness. Look at the darn Federal budet history: http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903040028?f=cf_clips
Don't look at some % of GDP crap. Federal tax revenue went from $1.78 Trillion, in 2003 - to $2.57 Trillion in 2007 (44% increase). And now it is crashing.
The only surpise to me back in 2000-2003 is that we came out of the collapse. Would have been better if we'd got this over with then.
And I did address the matter. Burns pushed the line that Bush caused the return to deficits. That is not true. I posted my case - and you did not stop and think for 10 seconds about it - as I suggested. Krugman is on record, that the return to deficits were inevitable, once the Clinton era bubble collapsed. Baker is on record. Canova is on record. Heritage is on record. Cato is on record. For goodness sakes, we had a monsterous crash in March of 2000. $8 - 10 $trillion would be lost. Thousand of companies would close their doors, and it would trickle down thru industry after industy. Almost 2 million would lose their jobs (and had it not been for the stupid housing bubble, we'd never had the recovery.) Now millions of folks again are suffering - and it's only started. Think Dow 3,000 - years from now. I'm an optimist
>>Don't look at some % of GDP crap. Federal tax revenue went from $1.78 Trillion, in 2003 - to $2.57 Trillion in 2007 (44% increase). And now it is crashing.
God you are full of crap! I asked you for a source for your absurd claim, and you link to this very item! And yes, you have to look at the GDP. It is blatantly dishonest not to do so. You also have to adjust for inflation. You still haven't provided a link. So you are just making things up. No surprise.
I LOVE hearing right-wingers try their best to explain how G-Dub got us into debt. Make all the excuses you want, my friend. The election of Gore v. Bush was decied on how we would spend the surplus. In the end, Clinton left a surplus and a BOOMING economy and eight years later we are DYING. Try all you want to explain and deny and you just can't change the facts or convince the public of your lies.
Also, let's all take a chance to give Rick Sanchez credit. Wow! It is not easy in today's world to accept ridicule and opinions that make you look stupid. But, Media Matters has done that to Sanchez and he CONTINUES to be one of the only ones to give them a voice. Thank you Rick and believe that you are getting more people to listen to you with this belief in criticism.
In the end, Clinton left a surplus and a BOOMING economy
Oh my. And just what econmic indicator out there did not reverse course on a dime during the 12 last months of the Clinton bubble, sir. Clinton left Bush a collapsing economy. Bush left Obama a collapsing economy. Carter left Reagan a collapsing economy. Bush #1 left Clinton a recovering economy -- Now. Did I blame anyone - or just state the facs. Grow up. Clinton left Bush a collapsing economy, and a paper fairy tale surplus, that was destined to go deep into the red, quickly no matter who had won that 2000 election.
Do a little research. Think about Enron - the 90's. Enron - the 90's. Enron - the 90's. Think about the millions of people loosing their 401-k's back then. CA reeling from the crisis. Telling thier children, they could not go to the state university. Think about the CA energy crisis of 2000. Think about the 3-5 million human beings that died between 1997 and Jan 20th, 2001 in the DR Congo, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, just after Clinton promised "Never Again," from genocide, civil war, rape wars, starvation and disease. Has the entire slate of history been wiped clean?
Forparity wrote:
>>or just state the facs. Grow up. Clinton left Bush a collapsing economy, and a paper fairy tale surplus
Are you for real? You said that Bush increased revenues, when in fact the opposite happened! I asked your for a link, and you link to this very item. Is there any reason to take you seriously when you can't get a basic fact right?
Oh, and Dean is not the "darling" of the national media. He is a far leftist (and there is nothing wrong with that) who most people have not heard of.
>>Do a little research. Think about Enron - the 90's. Enron - the 90's. Enron - the 90's. Think about the millions of people loosing their 401-k's back then. CA reeling from the crisis. Telling thier children, they could not go to the state university. Think about the CA energy crisis of 2000. Think about the 3-5 million human beings that died between 1997 and Jan 20th, 2001 in the DR Congo, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, just after Clinton promised "Never Again," from genocide, civil war, rape wars, starvation and disease. Has the entire slate of history been wiped clean?
Okay now I get it. You're a right-wing radio listener. This is just a rant.
Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves.
link
And
What you see is that there was a huge revenue increase during the Clinton years. There was also the much-touted revenue surge of the later Bush years, but this followed a spectacular revenue plunge earlier. At this point real revenue per capita is only slightly higher than it was at the end of the 1990s. That’s actually abnormal: given the long-term growth of the US economy, we should have expected a continuing upward trend in revenues per capita.
link
OK OK - you've convinced me that you are indeed a huge fan of venture capitalism gone mad, unchecked corporate fraud and greed, sending jobs abroad, globalism, and the rich getting richer.
The top 1% of income earners in the US earned 14% of all income earned in 1993. By 2000, it had risen to 21%. Under Bush it dropped, then rose back up to 21%. What a failure he was. Bet it's dropping again.
CEO pay to average worker pay. It was meoteric under Clinton - and has fallen under Bush. The 2007 ratio, not on the chart yet, is 344:1. The 2008 number will be lower (just a gut feeling). Bush failed to keep up with the Clinton's - ya got a point.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/images/2006_trend_chart.gif>>OK OK - you've convinced me that you are indeed a huge fan of venture capitalism gone mad, unchecked corporate fraud and greed, sending jobs abroad, globalism, and the rich getting richer.
And you are a nut. You are flat wrong on the revenue increasing, so now you have thrown out about five different arguments against Clinton. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, but you like to rant.
And further, even if you don't use the GDP (which is blatantly dishonest), revenues were still higher under Clinton:
link
The source MMFA uses is the nonpartisan federal budet record.
Somebody pull up the guys voting record and we'll see if He "fought" Bush's spending.
How about the 14,000 plus earmarks in 2005 ?
5 trillion in new debt 2001-2008
Funding of wars off the books.....did he fight to have it included in the budget rather than through emergency supplementals ?
Did he fight against Medicare Plan D ?