Bozell asserted Clinton claim on poverty was "comical" -- but Clinton in fact understated the true figures
In his September 21 nationally syndicated column, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III criticized ABC host George Stephanopoulos's "cotton candy" interview with President Clinton on the September 18 edition of ABC's This Week, deriding as "too comical to correct" Clinton's claim that his administration "moved 100 times as many people out of poverty in eight years as had been moved out in the previous 12 years." But Clinton's positive record on addressing poverty is, in fact, almost a mirror image of the negative record of the preceding 12 years: The presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actually saw a dramatic net increase in the number of impoverished Americans, whereas Clinton's presidency witnessed an even more dramatic net decrease.
The number of poor Americans grew by more than 6 million between 1981 and 1992 -- while decreasing by 7.6 million between 1993 and 2000 -- so Clinton's statement was, in fact, a sizable understatement of the difference. If the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations could claim a net decrease of 70,000 people below the poverty level, Clinton would be numerically correct in claiming that his administration had "moved 100 times as many people out of poverty."
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there were approximately 31,822,000 Americans below the poverty level in 1981, the first year of Reagan's presidency. That number rose sharply to 35,303,000 in 1983, when it began to gradually decrease. In 1990, the numbers began to rise dramatically again, and by 1992, the final year of George H.W. Bush's presidency, the number of Americans below the poverty level had risen to approximately 38,014,000 -- a net increase of 6,192,000. In 1993, when Clinton first assumed office, there were 39,265,000 impovershed Americans. That number decreased every year of Clinton's presidency, and by the end of his second term in 2000 there were 31,581,000 Americans below the poverty level -- a net decrease of 7,684,000.
Bozell concluded his September 21 column by criticizing the media for lobbing softball questions at Clinton, claiming that they offered him "shoeshines" and "backrubs" and that "[t]he public deserves better." But in his June 15 column, Bozell defended Fox News host Neil Cavuto against accusations that he "wasn't tough enough" during a June 8 interview of President Bush. Bozell claimed that Cavuto's interview "was no puff job" and that Cavuto asked "some challenging questions." Among the questions Cavuto asked Bush that Bozell defended were "Do you think you get a bum rap in the media on the economy?" and "Do you ever get mad at your fellow Republicans?"
As far as the misinformation part, what do you expect from Bozell? It is a talking point that is echoed around the pundit class.
As for the soft interview tactics, I haven't seen any good interviews since Rather jumped all over Bush I in 1988. Presidents will never again be subjected to hard interviews becasue they are so separated from us all with there minions of staff and coordinators. I wish we had the British Parliament's method.
abc, it might be more preferable to adopt to the Canadian system. MPs and PM Martin are demolished at just about any chance the opposition gets. There are calls for resignation about as frequently as there are convenings of the House (probably exaggerated, but I hope the point gets across).
ABC,
I love Britain's parlimentary QA sessions. They keep old Tony on his toes. I can't even imagine Bush in such a venue. He couldn't handle it; hence the need for his staged events.
It'd certainly weed out a lot of emperor wannabes. They wouldn't even run for election.
Where have you gone,Dan Rather? Come back in some capacity,because we miss you!
Under Pres.Reagan from 1981-86 when republicans controlled the senate and democrats the house, the poverty rate decreased slightly from 14.0% to 13.6%.
Democrats regained control of both houses of congress in 1987. From that year until 1994 the poverty rate increased by 8%. In fact, during Clinton's first two years, while leading a democrat controlled congress, the number of Americans below the poverty line was the highest in 30 years, peaking at over 39 million.
Republicans gained control of both houses in the 94 elections. Since then the poverty rate has decreased by 14%, shrinking the poverty rolls by over 2 million people.
Similar to mmfa's whine about Miranda...they fail to provide all the facts.
it's very simple. clinton's term started out with a high poverty rate. he brought it down substantially. his 94 tax package didn't get one republican vote. bush came into office, took clinton's low poverty rate and has increased it every year, while at the same time bush has increased the wealth of the top brackets.
- clinton's term started out with a high poverty rate. - mefirst ============================================================== The high poverty rate was handed to him by a congress controlled by democrats for the previous 8 years.
rocketman, you claim that the high poverty rate that clinton was handed was due to eight years of democratic rule of congress. how sadly misinformed you are. in none of those years did they control 2/3 of congress which would have let them overrule reagan and bush. it was the presidents that set the policies.
- you claim that the high poverty rate that clinton was handed was due to eight years of democratic rule of congress - mefirst ============================================================== Yep, you're right. Then when Clinton rolled into office backed by a democrat majority in the house and senate the poverty level remained astronomical.
Only when republicans gained control in both houses did the poverty level decrease.
rocketman, you just ignored what i said about the president sets the policies. and the republicans didn't overturn any of those policies clinton and the democrats put in place in 93 and 94, because clinton would have vetoed them and the gop didn't have the 2/3 votes to override. you're the typical clown. 50 years from now if something good happens it'll be reagan caused it. anything bad, it was clinton. any explanation for how poverty has gone up every year with a gop congress and president? wait don't tell me, everybody's been hiding in the house since 9-11.
- those policies clinton and the democrats put in place in 93 and 94 - mefirst ============================================================== Yep, you're right again. Clinton with a democrat congress had a poverty level of 14.8%. Clinton with a republican congress had a poverty level of 12.8%.
During Clinton's first 4 yrs. there were 10 million more people in poverty than during Pres.Bush's first four years.
yep, you're right again, rocketman. clinton came in office with a huge number of people in poverty from the poppy bush years, and clinton's initial policies, which the republican congress wanted to overturn but couldn't, brought it to a lower level every year. bush came in and those poverty numbers went up every year. clinton's policies=spectacular job creation, budget surpluses, poverty down. w's policies=almost four years to create the first net job, deficits, poverty up.
- a huge number of people in poverty from the poppy bush years - mefirst ============================================================== During the term of Pres.Bush Sr. the poverty rate was 13.8%. During Clinton's first 4 years the rate was 14.3%. Since republicans took over congress the rate has been 12.6%.
Sure glad I learned math the mmfa way.
poverty rate 1993=15.1%, 2000=11.3%, 2004=12.7%. down under clinton, up under bush. so why is it rising under a complete gop control of the government?
Rocketman-Since you were blaming the "Democratic Congress " for what you see as their failures, do you, and I assume your Republican party, now take full responsibility for all the screw ups on their watch as the majority?
Don't confuse him with the facts.
I think this website is the greatest, however this item, appears to be incorrect. As S.S.M. writes, "[t]he number of poor Americans grew by more than 6 million between 1981 and 1992 -- while decreasing by 7.6 million between 1993 and 2000..."
Clinton should have stated that "as many" people moved out of poverty as moved into poverty. What he said WAS actually incorrect: 100 times 6 million is 600 million.
The math here is simple: Clinton said he move 100 times as many people OUT of poverty as 12 years of Reagan/Bush moved OUT of poverty.
Under Clinton 7.6 million moved OUT of poverty divided by 100 = 76,000 moved OUT of poverty by Reagan/Bush, which is incorrect in favor of Reagan/Bush by over 6 million (6 million moved IN to poverty PLUS 76,000) exemplifying the shameless distortionists polices of the Right.
You're right.
If Clinton is "comical", is Bozell a "bozo". I think so.
I am happy to find that the error was with my reading of the quote. Thank you fantagor.
rocketman, you have uncovered the truth, the immutable, unchanging, eternal, irrefutable Truth. The horse race, sports-minded political pundits and hacks will never admit to it, but the continued success of the United States depends on the same spirit of compromise under which it was founded. Bicameral legislature? Compromise. Direct election of senators? Compromise. Socialism vs. Laissez-faire capitalism? The regulated capitalist structure that (warts and all) seems to work the best in terms of providing the means of wealth creation, but ensures (in idealistic theory) the opportunity for everyone to have fair access to the marketplace. The middle way is not sitting on the fence, it is walking the tightrope, a much more difficult enterprise. Goethe said about the stage, "I wish it were as thin as a tightrope so that no amateur would dare tread upon it." Perhaps the same can be said of governance. That is the point, governance over politics. The horse-race is fun, but doesn't serve the objective of our democracy that de Toqueville described as "doing the most good for the most people." So you're right rocketman, with Dem. WH and Dem congress there was high poverty, and other GOP WH and GOP congress there is high poverty, only under Dem WH and GOP Congress has poverty decreased. Compromise is forced when two opposing groups are forced to come to a common conclusion, and compromise demonstrably yields the best results. So, on a personal level, if there was always a Dem WH and GOP congress (slim majority preferred), then fine by me.