About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CBS report on "mind-numbing" national debt made no mention of Republican-led Congress' years of deficit spending on Bush tax cuts, Iraq

April 03, 2008 5:46 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: A CBS Evening News report on the national debt, the current level of which both anchor Katie Couric and correspondent Anthony Mason described as "mind-numbing," failed to quote a single Democrat and did not point out the extent to which deficit spending by Republican-led Congresses has contributed to the debt.

46 Comments

During the April 1 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric noted, "The national debt is expected to reach $10 trillion next year, which means it will have nearly doubled this decade." CBS correspondent Anthony Mason went on to report that "the national debt is growing $1 million a minute," and then aired a clip of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) saying, "We have great risk that we're going to become a mediocre country that's in debt, and we're going to handcuff and put a millstone around the next two generations because we won't act like adults now." At the conclusion of Mason's report, Couric asserted, "And that debt is mind-numbing," echoing Mason's earlier statement that the national debt now stands at "a mind-numbing $9.3 trillion." However, CBS News cited no Democrats during the report. Nor did Couric or Mason point out the extent to which deficit spending by Republican-led Congresses, in particular for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the Bush tax cuts, has contributed to the federal debt.

According to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) "Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018," gross federal debt is projected to reach $9.93 trillion by the end of 2009, whereas in 2000, the gross federal debt was $5.63 trillion. As Media Matters for America previously documented, President Bush assumed office with a $125.3 billion surplus for fiscal 2001 (which began October 1, 2000), and according to the standardized budget, which includes adjustments such as cyclical fluctuations, the government has run a deficit in every fiscal year of Bush's presidency, ranging in size from a $157.8 billion deficit in 2002 to a $412.7 billion deficit in 2004. Nevertheless, Bush did not veto a single spending bill during the first six years of his administration, a period in which the House was controlled by Republicans and during which the Senate was controlled by Republicans for all but 18 months.

In a review of spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghansitan released in February, CBO director Peter Orszag noted, "If the Administration's request for 2008 is funded in full, appropriations for military operations and other war-related activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism will rise to $188 billion this year and to a cumulative total of $752 billion since 2001." But as Media Matters previously documented, emergency supplemental spending bills helped to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal years 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003. In its 2006 report, the Iraq Study Group criticized this budget procedure, wherein "funding requests are drawn up outside the normal budget process" and "are not offset by budgetary reductions elsewhere," asserting that it "erodes budget discipline and accountability."

Further contributing to the national debt are the Bush tax cuts. According to a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), based on Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office estimates: "Through fiscal year 2007 tax legislation enacted since 2001 has had a direct cost of $1.3 trillion." The CBPP analysis continued, "Because these tax cuts were not paid for, they are also generating substantial increases in the national debt. The additional debt now being built up will persist even if the tax cuts are allowed to expire on schedule."

From the April 1 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

COURIC: It's time, I'm afraid, for yet another sign that the housing industry is in a slump. The government reported today that home construction fell again in February. That makes 24 straight months of declines.

As the economy slows, tax revenues fall, and the country slides deeper and deeper into debt. The national debt is expected to reach $10 trillion next year, which means it will have nearly doubled this decade.

From the government to corporations to you and me, we're a nation in debt. Beginning tonight, we'll look at how and why we got that way in a special series, "Life and Debt in America." Here's Anthony Mason.

[begin video clip]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a projected stopout at 3.62.

MASON: This hushed computer room in an undisclosed location --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a cover of 2.34.

MASON: -- is the control room of the American debt machine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [unintelligible] has one bid totaling $5 million.

MASON: You're entering the auction room of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt, and this is the first time a TV camera has ever been allowed inside.

ANTHONY RYAN (assistant secretary of the Treasury): What all of these people are doing is they're monitoring all the bidding that's coming in from all of the different dealers.

MASON: This is where the U.S. government raises the money it needs to pay its bills. In other words, you're watching the world's biggest borrower flash its credit card.

This is an awfully sedate room, but there's real money at stake here.

RYAN: There is real money at stake. Today we're auctioning off $13 billion of treasury 10-year notes.

MASON: Treasury notes are basically IOUs that the government pays back with interest. In this auction, that amounts to a $13 billion loan. Without that money -- and a few of these auctions every week -- the government would shut down. Debt is now this nation's lifeblood.

So who's buying this debt?

RYAN: Well, a lot of people.

MASON: Pension funds, mutual funds, individuals, institutions and foreign governments compete to buy U.S. treasuries by offering the cheapest interest rate.

You're trying to get the lowest interest rate for the U.S. government?

RYAN: That's right.

MASON: How much money passes through here every year?

RYAN: Approximately $4 trillion.

MASON: That's nearly half of what America owes the world, now a mind-numbing $9.3 trillion.

There was a time when all the cash the United States government needed for its daily operations was kept in this Treasury Department vault across the street from the White House. But there isn't a safe in the world big enough to do that anymore, because the national debt is growing a million dollars a minute.

SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): It's $31,027 per American.

MASON: Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn.

COBURN: We have great risk that we're going to become a mediocre country that's in debt, and we're going to handcuff and put a millstone around the next two generations because we won't act like adults now.

CHARLES WHEELAN (author of Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science [Norton, 2002]): I think the concern about the national debt is what we're doing with it.

MASON: Last year alone, the U.S. spent $430 billion just on interest payments, nearly as much as we spent on education.

WHEELAN: Albert Einstein called compound interest one of the great wonders of the world. It adds up really fast. And I'm not sure we fully appreciate, either on the public level or on the private level, how quickly you can get in borrowing trouble.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One minute to go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Looks like they're going to try and take it low.

MASON: The heavy bidding in the auction shows U.S. debt is still highly desirable.

RYAN: We've never defaulted and we've always paid interest on time, and we've always repaid principal.

MASON: But some see a day of reckoning approaching, when the world loses faith in the free-spending U.S. economy, when the U.S. finally sinks under the weight of its own debt.

WHEELAN: Is this the most likely scenario? No. Is it something we should be planning for? Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There will be no more bidding in today's 10-year treasury notes securities. Thank you.

[end video clip]

MASON: The Treasury's auction room is kept secret, because any disruption would send shock waves through the world financial markets. In fact, during every debt auction, two backup rooms in New York and West Virginia are always on standby -- Katie.

COURIC: And that debt is mind-numbing.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mr. l (April 03, 2008 5:52 pm ET)
         
      Tom Tomorrow should put Katie's face as the new icon of blah-blah-blah.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (April 03, 2008 5:56 pm ET)
         

      MMFA is disingenuously editorializing.  Bush's tax cuts have not contributed to the national debt, it's the runaway spending that has. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (April 03, 2008 6:08 pm ET)
           
        Actually, it's a combination of Bush's tax cuts and his illegal war in Iraq.  We borrowed money from China to finance both of them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (April 03, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
             

          Nah, tax cuts stimulate the economy.  Individual income tax receipts, according to the CBO, have gone up over 46% in four years.  In 2007, the IRS collected nealy 7% more than 2006 - with the wealthiest top 1% paying 39% of all income taxes, actually up from about 37%.

          The reason for all this "mind-numbing debt" is spending, spending, spending.......Iraq included. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (April 03, 2008 6:34 pm ET)
               
            Tax increases apparently stimulate the economy too.  See the 90s.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (April 03, 2008 6:36 pm ET)
                 
              The economy was stimulated in the 90's because there was a Republican controlled Congress who held the line on spending, not to mention the dot.com boom, etc.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dbeden4153 (April 03, 2008 7:16 pm ET)
                   
                and the Republican controlled congress in the 21st century?  They've spent more in 6 years than our nation has in its entire existence.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (April 03, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
                     
                  Yep. It's mostly the same Republican faces from the 90's, spending our money now.

                  Naturally, they obstructed any spending Clinton wanted to do. All that investment in the public sector, all that aid for working people was just plain unacceptable to Republicans.

                  That money had to go to prop up their pals in private industry and if that was not doable under a D in the White House, nobody got a piece until the R's moved in.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by lemoc (April 03, 2008 11:56 pm ET)
                     

                  "they've spent"...

                  You must be talking about the exponentially increasing entitlement chain letters dreamed up by your Utopian gurus. 

                  Whoever is in charge of the store at a given time has to keep sending out the checks, or you Utopians won't know what top do.

                  Can't wait to hear your excuses you'll have to make to your grandchildren.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by wzwriter (April 04, 2008 9:06 am ET)
                       

                    Can't wait to hear your excuses you'll have to make to your grandchildren.

                    I plan to tell them "Sorry, kids.  I did my part and voted Democratic each election.  But too many people were stupid and voted Republican, which gave us Congresses that destroyed our economy, and George W. Bush, who did everything in his power to destroy the entire country."

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by lemoc (April 06, 2008 1:04 am ET)
                         
                      And they'll say--"But Grandpa, it doesn't compute.  The voting records of Democrats show that they voted for the chain letters with no thought of us younger generations and how we would be paying for  the Workers' Paradises for you, but there would be no way possible that we could end up with the same benefits or even half the same standard of living as you because of the debt you saddled us with.  Gosh Grandpa--are you really that dumb, or did you do that to us on purpose?"
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (April 03, 2008 7:25 pm ET)
                   
                the dot com boom was not until the end of clinton's presidency.  the budget was balanced before that.  when clinton passed his tax increases on the wealthy in his first couple years, it was without a single republican vote, and all the conservatives predicted a severe recession, even depression.  but the economy took off.  when the republicans took over in 94, they would have cut taxes on the wealthy and business.  it was the clinton veto threat that stopped them, and only that.  and when bush came in, taxes cut for the wealthy and deficits return. 
                Report Abuse
                • Author by carlileb5935 (April 03, 2008 7:34 pm ET)
                     

                  Don't try to argue with right-wing Republicans. They're stupid, they're knaves, and they're out to destroy the country.

                  And they will.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by wookie (April 04, 2008 11:28 am ET)
                     
                  Clinton's plans were largely a continuation of FDR's. Recognizing that most of the public who buy stuff are laborers and they should get the help. Then and now the right's emphasis on deregulating everything and encouraging low wages and unsecured credit creates disasters.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by steeve (April 04, 2008 9:04 am ET)
                   

                Did you just say that spending cuts stimulate the economy?  As in, put less money in, and it gets better?

                And it's predictable that when a Democrat has a good economy it's "other factors", but when a Republican does it's insane tax policy.

                The only reason Bush had any stretch of decent times is because there's a trillion of dollars in free deficit money being poured in.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by deeznuts (April 03, 2008 7:00 pm ET)
               

            tax cuts stimulate the economy.

            Oh.
            My.
            God.

            Tommy, can you really be that stupid? I held out hope that you were just annoying, not actually mentally deficient.

            Let there no longer be any doubt as concerns Tommy's wingnuttery. 

            Even W's own economists don't buy that supply-side bullsh*t:

            Alan D Viard, a former Bush White House economist currently at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, recently told the Washington Post: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (April 04, 2008 12:16 pm ET)
                 

              Tommy, can you really be that stupid?

              Yes, he can.  I once again invite one and all to emigrate to Tommyland, where there are no taxes except those to fund high walls and moats filled with crocs to keep out the undesirables.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (April 03, 2008 6:31 pm ET)
           

        It's the "cut spending" robot at it again, who as always never mentions just what spending he'd cut.

        The deficit is too high to eliminate with spending cuts.  There simply isn't hundreds of billions of dollars of waste in a single year of the budget (not counting military spending, which is treasonous to cut).

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (April 03, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
             

          Dept of Education, get rid of it.  IRS, abolish it.  Across the board spending cuts by 10%.  Every federal program vetted for its effectiveness and necessity, including the military.

          Nice start. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by deeznuts (April 03, 2008 7:02 pm ET)
               

            Dept of Education, get rid of it.  IRS, abolish it.

            Aaaaaa!

            The stupid...it burns! 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by steeve (April 04, 2008 9:01 am ET)
                 

              You left out the biggest stupid:  "Across the board spending cuts by 10%"

              Sorry Tommy, but people actually need most of those things.  Not anyone you know, of course.  Just people who for some strange reason can't live on $8 an hour.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by DEMS_SOL (April 04, 2008 10:50 am ET)
           
        Did you also notice that while blaming the republican controlled congress for the defecit spending, MM ignored the fact that it was the republican controled congress that balanced the budget in 1996 and provided  the referenced surplus in 2000.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (April 03, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
         
      "the national debt is growing a million dollars a minute."

      I wonder if that includes the $250,000,000 a day that we're pissing into the sand in Iraq? My guess is that the Numbnuts Administration has juggled the books so that it doesn't even show up in the deficit.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (April 03, 2008 6:09 pm ET)
           

        My guess is that the Numbnuts Administration has juggled the books so that it doesn't even show up in the deficit.

        Probably.  They've already juggled the books so the Iraq war expenditures don't show up in the regular budget.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (April 03, 2008 6:12 pm ET)
           

        Where is that $250 million per day figure coming from?  That sounds high.

        As for the thread. this administration was terrible with regard to the budget.  Very very disappointing.  I don't expect much in this area from either party, to be honest.  But certainly the Bush administration is very rippable on this point.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (April 03, 2008 6:24 pm ET)
             
          Sadly, you are right Bruce.  This current and pathetic crop of big government Republicans under the miserable leadership of Bush have spent money like a drunken sailor.  So we are left with tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans.  Gee, good news. - NOT.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mr. l (April 03, 2008 6:24 pm ET)
             
          I know.... and how do we just wrap it all together?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (April 03, 2008 6:36 pm ET)
             
          My side balanced the budget.  Yours can suck it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (April 03, 2008 7:37 pm ET)
               
            Yup, that's a fact, your side balanced a budget, that included federal spending cuts. Those cuts, according the "Wilson" thread a couple of days ago, included the intelligence budget (that worked out well, didn't it?) and the military as well as tightening up some domestic programs. A lot of the extra revenue to the government was the dot con fiasco that consumed a lot of the venture capital in the country saved during the 80s & 90s. One problem is that a lot of the fiscal conservatives in Congress left Congress and the replacements and hold overs lost that conservative focus. To say that spending cuts alone cannot balance the budget may be true, but because it may not be true, that is not a reason to make the cuts anyway.  Every winter, at a nearby government controlled facility, when the weather gets bad and roads are hazardous, the call goes out for "non-essential" employees to stay home.  If they are non-essential, could it be that a fair portion of them are non-necessary?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by darkmass (April 03, 2008 8:57 pm ET)
                 

              "Those cuts, according the "Wilson" thread a couple of days ago, included the intelligence budget (that worked out well, didn't it?)" - Oscar the grouch

              Oscar, anything you can give us to corroborate that?  I didn't see the "Wilson" thread.

              While you are looking into things, here's what I've got...

              "The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure."

              As seen here: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/22170

              Report Abuse
              • Author by oscar the grouch (April 03, 2008 9:46 pm ET)
                   

                From Monday, March 31 "WSJ Editorial........"

                In her memoir, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House (Simon & Schuster, 2007), Plame provided the following account of her role in Wilson's trip to Niger:

                However, in February 2002, I was still blissfully ignorant of any special visits or pressure from the administration vis a vis Iraq. I just wanted to get some answers. Thinking through the options available, the first and most obvious choice would be to contact our [REDACTED] office in Niger and ask them to investigate these allegations using local sources available on the ground. Unfortunately, the severe budget cuts of the mid-1990s had been particularly devastating for the Africa Division and many of our offices on the continent were closed, including the one in Niamey, Niger. [REDACTED]. Where else to go and who could do it for us?

                OK?

                Report Abuse
              • Author by oscar the grouch (April 03, 2008 9:54 pm ET)
                   

                "Truthout", a truly unbiased website it appears.

                So, who is not telling the truth here? Valerie Plame or Truthout? Or perhaps one of them just "mispoke".

                Report Abuse
                • Author by funnymanpants (April 03, 2008 11:55 pm ET)
                     

                  Oscar wrote:

                  >>So, who is not telling the truth here? Valerie Plame or Truthout? Or perhaps one of them just "mispoke".

                  You are repeating an article from The Wall Street Journal, and then accusing truthout of being an inaccurate site? Beyond that,  I don't know what your quote is supposed to show. Do you really think that budget cuts to the African intelligence gathering agency resulted in the Iraq war?

                  link 

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by darkmass (April 04, 2008 2:37 am ET)
                     

                  Oscar, thank you for providing the context for your observation.  Unless it is proven otherwise (and I'm not going to make that effort), we will assume the WSJ is quoting correctly and is not editing to convey a false impression.  Such things are too easily verified, they would have nothing to gain from such chicanery.

                  Yes, Truthout.org does have an orientation, as does the WSJ in fact.  In the main, Truthout can perhaps be considered a clearinghouse and reposter of news articles that support that worldview.  Those articles come from mainstream U.S. news sources, often the foreign press (but translated into English), and at times honest conservative sources...because if they are diligent, they too are able to illuminate society with truth.  The news articles always have links provided to the original source.  There is, however, another class of articles on Truthout, such as the one I provided a link for.  They are editorials, opinion pieces, investigations...things published to Truthout that have not appeared elsewhere.  They do have world class, and lesser, investigative journalists providing editorial information, others who have served as federal prosecutors, some scientists.  Once in a while, a reasonably well-known ex-vice president.  :^)    The editorials tend to be quite weighty, words are rarely minced.

                  Now, such a source of information may not be your cup of applesauce, and that's okay.  I can understand that.  But in general, I get a feeling of honesty concerning what's collected together, and things are not hidden.  The specific article I linked you to was perfuse with hard numbers, such things can be too easily verified by those willing to do similar research to that done by the author.  So I, at least, tend to believe it.  Nor do I doubt Ms. Plame.

                  And that's the thing.  There is not necessarily a dichotomy here.  Overall funds being cut does contradict that there are subareas that get beefed up.  It's a matter of perceived need and best use of what is available.  Even beside the listing of facts in the link I passed on to you, there is sufficient correlation in the article with readily observed real world events that I believe Bill Clinton did work to beef up antiterrorism aspects of intelligence even as funding was cut world wide.

                  Oh, and keep in mind it was the *first* Bush that started the cutting.

                  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/185/

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mefirst (April 04, 2008 7:33 am ET)
                       

                    this is what the 9-11 commission said about clinton:  "he proposed significantly larger budgets for the fbi, with much of the increase designated for counterterrorism." 

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by oscar the grouch (April 04, 2008 9:36 am ET)
                       
                    The above quoted excerpt was from Plame's book, in her own words. I don't completely doubt the facts noted by Truthout, but reading through their information shows that there is a bias there.  And increased funding for counterterrorism in the US does not equate to increased intelligence gathering around the world.  And Gorlick's memo did lead to a disconnect between the CIA and the FBI. Did the intelligence cuts in Africa lead to Tanzania and Kenya?
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (April 03, 2008 7:36 pm ET)
         

      The media is Republican, run by plutocrats. So this Couric story-- quoting right wingers tsk-tsking, my god!-- is not surprising.

      Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lkenyon665075 (April 03, 2008 9:47 pm ET)
           

        Couric didn't quote Tom Coburn, he actually appeared on a video segment discussing how our government manages our debt.  IMO - the main point of this story was to get an inside look at one way on how it's done.  CBS was allowed to tape inside the auction room of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt -- the first time a TV camera has ever been allowed inside.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/01/eveningnews/main3987972.shtml

        During the 4:05 minute video, Tom Coburn appeared for a few seconds to say all of...

        "We have great risk that we're going to become a mediocre country that's in debt, and we're going to handcuff and put a millstone around the next two generations because we won't act like adults now."

        Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a right wing agenda going on here.  I believe most Americans would acknowledge that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are by far the largest contributors to the accumulating debt.  Are we upset that CBS didn't tell us something we already know??  

        Lastly...

        With all the avenues/markets available for obtaining news/opinions in this day and age - you feel the need for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine?  I personally find it pretty easy to locate each side's spin on any given topic.  Finding the truth is much more difficult. ;) 

        Regards,

        lkenyon 

         


         

         

         

         

         

         

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (April 03, 2008 9:55 pm ET)
           

        AKA the "Lawyer Full Employment Act."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (April 03, 2008 9:48 pm ET)
         
      Just stop the nonsense.  It has been going on since Nixon.  In fact, we might as well blame Keynes!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by maddymort7289 (April 04, 2008 1:37 am ET)
         

      Wasn't Rush Limbaugh on CBS Evening news?  Since then, i don't watch CBS news.  Their standards are too low.  It is amazing how many people still believe the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves by stimulating the economy.  Very interesting and enlightening discussion about what led to our current economic conditions--and the role John McCain's economic advisor played can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13   

       

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lemoc (April 06, 2008 1:13 am ET)
           

        Pray tell--when The Soviet Union fell, and private enterprise made its appearance, and when China began encouraging private enterprise--tax rates previous were 100%, so tax rates of less than 100% resulted in growth.

        Explain that, in light of your above assertion.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by What Happened to Gannon (April 04, 2008 10:59 am ET)
         
      This is a bit OT, but is Couric liberal, conservative, or moderate? I don't know. I can't stand watching her for more than 30 seconds. She's a fish out of water on the evening news.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DEMS_SOL (April 04, 2008 11:07 am ET)
         

      Only in the land of liberalism can a tax cut lead to a deficit.  Deficit's are caused when spending exceeds income.  Even with the personal income tax cuts, the IRS tables show income tax receipts have increased almost 50% over what they were before the tax cuts.  I suppose MM believes without the tax cuts there would have been even more revenue but ther is no way to prove that. 

      If you want to credit the Republican congress for the excessive spending I totally agree - after all congress holds the purse strings of the nation.  But then we also have to credit the republican congress for standing firm against Bill Clinton and balancing the budget and the resulting surpluses of the late 90's.

      Sorry but this is another lame attempt by MM to advance a liberal political agenda under the guise of "misinformation"

      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (April 04, 2008 11:25 am ET)
           
        "Even with the personal income tax cuts, the IRS tables show income tax receipts have increased almost 50% over what they were before the tax cuts. "

        Can you explain this a little better?

        As I read it, you are saying income tax receipts have increased alomost 50% but I'm not clear on who you are saying is receiving the money. Is the individual citizen or the IRS experiencing an incease?
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.