Morris spouted misleading poverty, deficit claims in attempt to rebut Clinton
On the September 21 broadcast of Fox News host Sean Hannity's nationally syndicated radio show, guest Dick Morris, author and former adviser to President Clinton, attempted to rebut Clinton's recent criticism of President Bush by making false and misleading claims about deficits and poverty.
Contending that "everything that Clinton said in that statement is dead wrong," Morris claimed that, under Bush, federal budget deficits are "half, as a percentage of our economy, of what they were under his [Clinton's] administration." In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the average federal budget deficit from 1993 to 2000 was 0.74 percent of gross domestic product (GDP); from 2001 to 2004, the average was 1.78 percent of GDP. Moreover, Morris ignored that under Clinton, deficits steadily declined from 1992 to 1997, and the budget ran surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Under Bush, a surplus in 2001 became deficits in following years.
Morris also claimed that the U.S. poverty rate is "two points lower than when he [Clinton] took office, and it's lower in the midpoint of Bush's term than it was at the midpoint of his [Clinton's] term." Media Matters for America has previously debunked (here and here) this highly misleading assertion, which is making the rounds among conservative media figures. In fact, under the Clinton administration, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.3 percent in 2000. By contrast, the poverty rate has increased every year of the Bush presidency, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004. Having made a related false claim, The Washington Post corrected an editorial that, in effect, masked Bush's record on poverty. Media Matters noted the error, and the correction followed.
From the September 21 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
MORRIS: Now, let me also say that I think that everything that Clinton said in that statement is dead wrong. I have an article, I think, coming up in tomorrow's Post kind of rebutting it. He said the deficits are out of control. They're not. They're about half, as a percentage of our economy, of what they were under his administration. He said poverty is soaring. It's not. It's two points lower than when he took office, and it's lower in the midpoint of Bush's term than it was at the midpoint in his term. He said that our whole approach is basically to only help middle-class people in the Gulf, and that's transparently absurd.
Oh, Dick.
Dick, Dick, Dick. *sigh*
I don't know what to say except that you're still a dick.
although it is getting rather repetitious. It deserves to be included in the introductory chapters of every book on statistics--IMHO it may be the classic example of using numbers to mislead. What makes it especially useful for teachers of future scientists is how dogged the right-wing pundits are at repeating it, in spite of it having been thoroughly debunked. To me this means that it is effective in persuading a significant number of cable TV viewers that what is false it true and what is true is false.
But it isn't that they are born hating America, this is actually what Republican politicians are trained to do, and they are still at work training the next generation of serial misleaders, as was explained in this Daily Kos diary. Regardless of whether something's true, if it helps them win, they'll keep dishing it out.
Greg Shenaut
morris is clearly a liar, and he knows better. there is simply no way to say bush's record on deficits is better than clinton's. total distortion. but let's not forget, morris is a republican.
Now Media Matters forgets a big point. This nation has not had a surplus, even under Clinton.
If you (honestly) take into account the interest on the national debt, then the lowest our deficit ever got was around 37 billion.
This is actually a benefit to the left, as under Bush the deficit is far larger than just the Budget versus Revenues. Including the interest on debt, Bush isn't even gaining ground on decreasing the deficit, much less the debt.
Nuke,
You are partially right. If you don't count the social security surplus, then Clinton never had a true surplus. This fact was exploited by both sides. The Democrats claimed fiscal responsibility and the Republicans claimed it as well, but also used it to argue for the Bush II tax-cuts.
This spin that the greasy characters like Dick Morris are giving to these poverty figures oozes with slime. It is dispicable because these low lifes know they are oozing out falsehoods on TV to help try and boost Bush. Now tell me how this kind of stuff has anything to do with news. It's nothing but a bunch of sleazeballs playing dirty with some statistics. It is another example of the low estate of our news organizations today. As far as the Washington Post correction goes, I'm happy the the Post corrected itself but how did such blatantly misleading statistics appear in their paper unexamined or analyzed anyway. We are not being served well by our media outlets.
Typical Dick Morris. Statistically, the average height of the pond you drowned in was 2 feet. Facts don't matter; it's the spin, baby!
clinton inherited high poverty rates and high deficits from poppy bush. he turned both those around and moved them in positive directions. now with w and the gop in charge of everything, they are going the wrong way again. anyone that goes to the trouble of looking these figures up knows the truth. therefore, the only conclusion you can come up with is that these rightwingers prefer a lie to the truth, because they think it helps them politically. which means the next conclusion is that these people are without the least shred of morality, which is their self-proclaimed supposed strong point.
how about that hooker good republican morris was paying? somehow that never comes up.
Does he get air time anywhere else but Fox?
Come on man, this guy can get on tv and lie out in the open like that. My concern has now shifted away from these so-called political experts(or hacks) and now it is focused on the media outlets themselves. Do words like validity, reputation, ethics, or even truth have new meanings that i haven't heard. How can they let a guy like this on their show. It took awhile for people to realize that reality tv is scripted, i hope it takes less time for people to understand that the news is quickly following that lead. Sure we can say it's just FOX tv doing their thing, but this is serious. Is it news or just opinion? Is it ratings or the truth that that wins out? I think we are all seeing the answer to that one all to clearly.
Checking out the Big Ten, you'll find many are highly inter-mingled. Recall how ABC/Disney hired Michael Savage. How much synergy is there between Micky and Weiner? Note at the top and bottom of the hour of the 24/7 Bush infomercial (Limbaugh,OReilly,Boortz,Savage) that 29 BILLION DOLLAR Clear Channel (not even near the top ten) [link to www.forbesinc.com] has ABC "news". Microsoft and NBC/GE/Lockheed (a huge DOD contractor) co-own MSNBC which is often cited for lies by MMFA. NBC-Russert showed his true colors in the lead up to the election. There's crossover between GE and NewsCorps, and GE and AT&T.
My point: Morris is a shill. Paid exactly and precisely to say these things.