O'Reilly cherry-picked census numbers to falsely suggest Bush is better on poverty than Clinton
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly compared the poverty rate in 1996 with the poverty rate in 2004 to falsely suggest that President Bush has done more to reduce poverty in the United States than President Clinton. O'Reilly cited the statistics in response to claims, which he described as "complete nonsense," that the Bush administration has neglected impoverished Americans. While O'Reilly is correct that the poverty rate in 1996 was higher than in 2004, he took those numbers out of context to mask a far more significant fact: The poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency. Put another way, the poverty rate was higher now than it was when Clinton left office. During the Clinton presidency, the poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004.
From the September 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The aftermath of [Hurricane] Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. There are about 37 million people living below the poverty line right now. The issue was described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas, a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, "Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate."
Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower. In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton was called the first black president by some. However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.
Did the elite media mention that? Jesse Jackson mention that? Of course they didn't, because it's much more convenient for Evan Thomas and others to imply America under President Bush has turned its back on the poor, but it's absolute nonsense.
O'Reilly's assertion echoed a similar claim by CNN contributor, talk radio host, and Bush-Cheney '04 campaign adviser Rev. Joe Watkins that the United States has experienced a "reduction" in poverty under President Bush.
While "massive neglect" is certainly an exaggeration, O'Reilly himself deals in half-truths. But he's just doing his job carrying water for Bush. I was a big fan of O'Reilly up until 9/11. After 9/11, O'Reilly's show changed. He became very pro-Bush while continuing the line that he was "an independent". Whenever Bush is cornered, or facing a difficult time with the media, O'Reilly is there to defend him on TV and radio. Look at the poll numbers, Bill. Americans are waking up to the fact that this guy is a mediocrity.
Anything he professes is always shown to be a blatent lie. Under bush this entire country has suffered terribly and maybe will never recover from all his failed policies and horrible decisions.
What I want to know is where he gets his spending figures. He must lump together a WHOLE range of programs to get such a high number, including programs that probably have nothing to do with poverty alleviation. The welfare budget is less than $20 billion a year.
Well, $300 billion of that is probably corporate welfare plus affluent welfare. We can't have CEOs rattling diamond studded tin cans on street corners can we?
I feel sorry for the people who limit their news acquisition to Fox as Bill O'rielly encourages them to do. Knowledge is power as the commercial says; which means O'Rielly is helping to keep so many Americans powerless. I just continue to be flabbergasted by the blatant lies O'rielly tells. It’s just sad.
Does anyone know Where BO got the $368 billion for poverty entitlements data??? It seems high.
What is the correct budget poverty data for 05-06
Media Matters does a disservice to all by defining O'Reilly as "falsely suggest[ing]" Bush is better on poverty than Clinton. Those are words you use when someone gets his facts wrong but you can't prove it was intentional. This was obviously well researched and intentionally argued in a manner to mislead. This is disgusting. This would earn a pink slip at any normal media company. What's worse is that O'Reilly also besmirches Jesse Jackson's reputation in the process. There needs to accountability. I for one plan on writing Fox and demand that action be taken.
The saddest part of this story is that there are 37 million people living below the poverty line in the "richest" country in the world.