About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

MSNBC anchor said Obama "would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt" without noting that McCain's proposal would add more than $5 trillion

September 18, 2008 3:15 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: Contessa Brewer cited the Tax Policy Center's finding that Sen. Barack Obama's spending and tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt while ignoring its finding that Sen. John McCain's plan would increase the debt by more than $5 trillion.

43 Comments

On the September 17 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer cited the Tax Policy Center's finding that Sen. Barack Obama's spending and tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt while ignoring the same study's finding that Sen. John McCain's tax and spending plan would increase the debt by more than $5 trillion.

Brewer said to Democratic strategist Patrick Murphy, "[A]ccording to the Tax Policy Center, Obama's combination of spending and tax cuts would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt by the year 2018. Today, the Treasury Department announced it's going to have to auction off these bonds for the Federal Reserve in order to support all these loans that the Fed is making. So how do you justify increasing that kind of spending that will have so much of an effect on the nation's budget problems?"

However, at no time during the interview, which included both Murphy and Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros, did Brewer point out the TPC's findings on McCain's plan or ask Tantaros if McCain could "justify" increasing the debt by $5.1 trillion to nearly $7.4 trillion, as the study also found. The September 2008 report, titled "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," stated:

Both campaigns have complained that our analysis is incomplete because we fail to consider the effects of their spending cuts on the budget. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the federal budget will run a cumulative deficit of $2.3 trillion over the 2009-2018 period under current law (see Summary Table 1).3 If federal spending evolves as CBO predicts, the proposed tax cuts would add to those deficits and substantially increase the national debt. Senator Obama's plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the ten-year cumulative deficit by about $3.6 trillion to $5.9 trillion; Senator McCain's plan would boost it by $5.1 trillion to nearly $7.4 trillion. Adding to their plans proposals made in stump speeches but not confirmed by campaign advisors would lower the cumulative deficit over the decade slightly to $5.4 trillion for Obama and raise it to almost $11 trillion for McCain. Beyond this, the health proposals and campaign promises not in the official descriptions could increase the costs still further.

From the noon ET hour of MSNBC Live on September 17:

BREWER: We're also following breaking news on Wall Street. In the wake of that $85 billion bailout for AIG, the Dow Jones industrials has dropped now nearly 343. And the S&P and Nasdaq, likewise, are declining today. There are investors who are very worried about the future of the financial markets. Both presidential candidates are out with new ads today addressing the situation on Wall Street.

OBAMA [video clip]: This isn't just a string of bad luck. The truth is that while you've been living up to your responsibilities, Washington has not. [break] I approve this message because bitter partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won't solve the problems we face today. But a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will.

McCAIN [video clip]: You, the American workers, are the best in the world. But your economic security has been put at risk by the greed of Wall Street. That's unacceptable. My opponent's only solutions are talk and taxes. I'll reform Wall Street and fix Washington.

BREWER: That was part of two new campaign ads released this morning. But as the candidates hone their economic messages, is either one resonating with voters? Andrea Tantaros is a Republican strategist, Patrick Murphy is a Democratic strategist, and it's a pleasure to see you both today.

Andrea, let's begin with you. John McCain went from saying that the economy's fundamentals are strong to putting out ads saying the economy's in crisis. A decade ago, he supported laws that deregulated banking and insurance industries, and now he says we have to reform those regulations. Is this just a remodeling of himself?

TANTAROS: Well, look. Either candidate, I think, right now is not offering what we really need to hear, or at least not getting specific. I mean, this is the last time -- we want to -- the worst time, I should say, that we want to hear any partisan blame here, because there's plenty of blame to go around. There should be something deeply troubling to both candidates that we are right now nationalizing our financial institutions. The last thing we should be doing is putting our government in charge of these institutions.

And I know both candidates are calling for more regulation. Well, Contessa, there's a difference between lots of regulation, as you know, a little bit of regulation, and then proper regulation. So, I'm not really hearing -- you know, the only thing I'm really hearing is, "Let's hold a commission. Let's hold a dog and pony show." And to go to your point, I don't think any of this is resonating with voters at all. I think voters are scared, and they're just hearing finger-pointing and blame from both sides.

BREWER: Peter [sic], according to the Tax Policy Center, Obama's combination of spending and tax cuts would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt by the year 2018. Today, the Treasury Department announced it's going to have to auction off these bonds for the Federal Reserve in order to support all these loans that the Fed is making. So how do you justify increasing that kind of spending that will have so much of an effect on the nation's budget problems?

MURPHY: Well, I think the first problem that a President Obama is going to have is have to clean up the last eight years of the Bush administration. The Bush administration is the -- you know, the President Bush was the decider, and John McCain has decided that he's the deregulator. He has professed his admiration for deregulation. And when you see the markets -- if you look in the right-hand corner of the screen, and people see that the market is down 345 points today, those aren't rich-person numbers. Those affect everyone's 401(k), institutional investors, pension funds, union funds.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by BottleBlonde (September 18, 2008 3:47 pm ET)
         
      Another example of why Media Matters is here. It furthers the conservative agenda by making Obama look worse than he deserves to look. If one is talking about increasing the deficit, and the opposing party's candidate will increase the deficit even more, mentioning how much Obama will raise it without mentioning that McCain will make it go up even higher makes Obama look worse than he deserves to look. Sure, his plan will increase the deficit, but not as much as McCain.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 18, 2008 5:38 pm ET)
           
        Who runs NBC?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by BottleBlonde (September 18, 2008 7:46 pm ET)
             

          It doesn't matter who runs NBC.

          No one said it was conservative misinformation that was a diabolical plan with ulterior motives.

          Media Matters doesn't allege bias.

          That'd be something that you would do, as we've seen way too often.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (September 18, 2008 3:55 pm ET)
         
      Yea I agree BB and then these pundits ask why isn't Obama more ahead in the polls, or why do voters think Obama will raise their taxes?  It's misleading and not responsible journalism, but what consequences do these reporters face? I've written strong letters to MSNBC detailing my complaints with their reporting, I urge others to do more than just post here, but become involved...Palin/McCain would not only be a disaster for this nation but to the world.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 18, 2008 5:38 pm ET)
           
        Again, who runs NBC?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (September 18, 2008 6:16 pm ET)
             
          Westinghouse is the owner of NBC.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (September 18, 2008 7:33 pm ET)
               
            Or is it General Electric?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (September 18, 2008 10:40 pm ET)
                 
              How would one tell the difference?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by oscar the grouch (September 18, 2008 11:47 pm ET)
                   
                Well, for a little history.  When electricity was it it's early life, Westinghouse proposed that all supply be DC, while GE proposed AC (or is that backwards? Those of us there at the time sometimes have trouble remembering things exactly).
                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (September 19, 2008 8:40 am ET)
                     
                  Westinghouse designed the first commercial AC system.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by eweston8542983 (September 19, 2008 12:14 pm ET)
                       

                    Yah there was a large feud going on betwee Edison and Tesla about the use of AC. Interesting times.

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 18, 2008 3:58 pm ET)
         
      Hey Contessa, GW Bush's governance just yesterday added 3 trillinon dollars to the debt by bailing out AIG ( and other foreign run companies ).
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 18, 2008 4:00 pm ET)
         
      Hey Contessa, your bio said you graduated cum-laude. Doesn't that mean anything to you anymore now that you got it ?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 18, 2008 5:41 pm ET)
           

        Cum laude. Isn't that like a B+ average?

        It's all gonna get worse, too, as Obama rises in the polls. By mid-October, the MSM will be having a feeding frenzy against him.

        Who hires these guys? Figuring this out isn't brain surgery, and yes, the explanation is that easy. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (September 18, 2008 4:14 pm ET)
         

       -- Sen. Barack Obama's spending and tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt...Sen. John McCain's tax and spending plan would increase the debt by more than $5 trillion. -- mmfa

      Two lousy candidates...two lousy proposals...promising everything to everybody...while delivering nothing but more outrageous debt.

      Jeezus pete...the inmates are running the asylum.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 18, 2008 4:19 pm ET)
           

        and based on those two factors you quoted above,

        which one would you rater have ? before you start typing, i said those two factors alone, nothing else.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (September 18, 2008 4:34 pm ET)
             

          Oh no you don't, wolf...you're not going to force me to take a bite out of either of those rotten apples.

          But I'll tell you this...the numbers are all phony. And that includes the TCP, CBO and especially the candidates. The one dead bang certainty is that they will be higher when it's all said and done.

          The spending is out of control...hell, I'll write in your name when I enter the polling booth if you can fix it.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by BottleBlonde (September 18, 2008 4:25 pm ET)
           

        And here we have another example of Wesley being a dishonest punk. They are not equivalent, Wesley. Obama has many better plans than McCain has, and Obama has a better grasp on how to expand our debt as little as possible. Blaming Obama for not being able to immediately undo what Bush has done is typical Republican hypocrisy.

        If I didn't find it so repulsive of a thought, and I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd think that George Bush and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney conspired to not resolve the Iraq War so that it will burden the Democrats, and they conspired to mess up our financial markets and housing markets just to put the Democrats at a disadvantage over the next 4 years.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 18, 2008 4:32 pm ET)
             
          Yeah, that became apparet when GW Bush stated getting OBL was not important anymore, Christ, OBL attacked the USA in the homeland and killed 3000 innocent and 19 guilty. i can always hope for an earthquake to demolish his cave and bury him forever and uncerimonously.  It takes ba$$s to want to be president after GW Bush and Obama seems to be willing to sacrifice a second term to make the really tough choices to accomplish turning this nation around to a pre GW Bush status.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (September 18, 2008 4:43 pm ET)
             

           -- Obama has a better grasp on how to expand our debt as little as possible -- bottleblonde

          The issue should be reducing the debt...not which turdblossom can do the least harm. The "least harm" argument only makes sense when issued from the alimentary canal.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 18, 2008 4:50 pm ET)
               

            Mr Turdblossom himself would be offented by your free use of the term freely equating lesser beings to  Mr Karl "Turdblossom "Rove himself, the emperoir of the Rovian Empire.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (September 18, 2008 5:25 pm ET)
               
            The bulk of the money is locked up in medicare, defense, and paying interest on Bush's debt, as I've explained over and over again. ALL EARMARKS TOGETHER are only $20 billion. The sort of spending cuts that conservatives fantasize about can't touch the actual size of the deficit.

            The only way to balance the budget is to raise taxes, which as Clinton proved can be done without any damage whatsoever. But thanks to your party, that can't happen.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by oscar the grouch (September 18, 2008 7:44 pm ET)
                 

              Spending can be cut, Steeeeeeevie. For just a few years, fund government programs at 1 -2% points less than inflation instead of 3-5% points above and it will work out. Sacrifice for those involved? Sure, but we all have to sacrifice for the good of the future of the country.  You may be able to document only? $20 billion in earmarks, but there is certainly other waste in the budget. Two examples, Dept of Ag has more employees than there are farmers, Dept of Energy has more vehicles than employees. I wish one of the candidates, or both, would have the cajones to tell us we are all going to have to pay more to pay down the $53 trillion in unfunded liability in this country.  They don't because they are already running for a second term.  Looks like my vote goes third party this year, maybe a throwaway, but at least I can spend the next four years complaining instead of apologizing.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by steeve (September 18, 2008 9:29 pm ET)
                   
                Department of Agriculture total discretionary spending: $23 billion. http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy09budsum.pdf

                Department of Energy total discretionary spending: $25 billion. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/Content/Highlights/Highlight2009.pdf

                And if you look at the stuff the budgets are for, they're things that a lot of people badly need. Cuts are possible, but not deep cuts, and even deep cuts only inch us a tiny bit closer to a balanced budget.

                Conservatives are always stumped when asked to come up with an actual balanced budget. All they can do is yell "waste" a few dozen times. They can't actually itemize $300 billion in waste in a single year, because (outside of defense) it just isn't there.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by oscar the grouch (September 18, 2008 10:11 pm ET)
                     
                  Hey, I come up with a balanced budget every year, even managing to pay off debt, contribute to retirement, contribute to charity.  Again, Steeeeevie, it doesn't necessarily take deep cuts, but for example, inflation is 5%, but government grows budget by only 4%, instead of increasing it by 8%, there will come a day when spending and income will be in balance. Given the time, energy and inclination, I bet I could come up with close to $300 Billion (a combination of cuts and revenue enhancements), but I work at a day job and have other commitments.  I don't seem to have the idle time that a lot of posters here have (or they're posting on Company time).  I used two examples only and you mentioned decretionary spending only, so I assume those Depts budgets are in reality larger and could be pared.  $300 Billion is 10% of the Federal Budget, almost anyone should be able to take at least 4% of that figure out without hurting anyone significantly. Maybe some day, when I retire, I'll show you how its done.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by wesley (September 18, 2008 11:46 pm ET)
                       

                    That was very well said, Oscar.

                    The federal revenue goes up every year...whether we raise taxes or cut taxes...it's just a matter of how much it increases. Your plan for reduced spending is the only way we'll ever lower the debt. It's a spending problem not a tax problem.

                    3 Trillion dollars is damn sure enough money to run an effective fed.govt.!

                    Report Abuse
          • Author by BottleBlonde (September 18, 2008 7:50 pm ET)
               

            You are full of it, you dishonest punk.

            Of course who can do the least damage in some ways, as well as the most good in other ways, is the person we need to pick. To insist that Obama has to do the impossible, and ignoring the hole he'll be in because of what Bush has done, is conservative misinformation - its aim is to make Obama look worse than he deserves to look.

            Have you always been a dishonest punk, Wesley?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by oscar the grouch (September 19, 2008 8:23 am ET)
                 
              Hey, Wesley.  Are you POV's brother? BB seems to think you are related (dishonest punk). ;>)
              Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (September 18, 2008 5:43 pm ET)
             

          And here we have another example of Wesley being a dishonest punk. They are not equivalent, Wesley..

          No, didn't you know? They're all the same-- that's what the news tells me.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Sueelldd (September 18, 2008 4:18 pm ET)
         

      it is all part of the stupidity of many in the media to think that Obama is the tax and spend candidate while McCain is not. Yet a GOP President has done more socialist acts since FDR and Bush is no FDR.

      FU Contessa, get the facts straight.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 18, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
           
        It is astounding how the current crop of the GOP candidates tend to not identify themselves as such and run on the " we together " need to fix the problem.Simply astounding and thanks to Chris mathews for being the first to publicly notice the drama. Dino Rossi, here in the state of Washington is using that tactic to convince the publich he is for change and will work across party lines to serve the state.. I say bulls$$t. when things are good, it its because i was good, when things are bad, we must all share in the responsibility. what a bunch of fishs$it..
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (September 19, 2008 1:09 pm ET)
             

          Rossi is a piece of crap.  I love the way his ads claim he's going to solve the state budget crisis and protect the most vulnerable all without raising taxes. Oh yeah and he won't get caught up in partisanship.  There is actually very little partisanship in WA state politics except for Republicans whining because nobody wants to vote for them.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 18, 2008 5:44 pm ET)
           

        Yet a GOP President has done more socialist acts since FDR and Bush is no FDR.

        Yes, but it's socialism for the rich. For the rest of us, it's free enterprise. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by BillJ-MN (September 18, 2008 4:38 pm ET)
         
      But, McCain's gonna do that supply side voodoo that cons do so well (sounds better in the second person).  And it'll magically bring more tax revenue in than the amount it reduces.  Just like they keep telling us it does.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JLyons (September 18, 2008 4:39 pm ET)
         
      I have stated before that Contessa Brewer has to be one of the dumbest people anchoring on TV. She does not know how to think, she just reads off a teleprompter. I would like to know when she got her GED.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (September 18, 2008 4:42 pm ET)
         

      But I'll tell you this...the numbers are all phony. And that includes the TCP, CBO and especially the candidates.

      Aside from the candidates, why are the numbers from the TCP and CBO phony?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (September 18, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
           

        Have you ever checked their track record on projections for budgets/spending/revenue?

        If you had...you wouldn't have needed to ask the question.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (September 18, 2008 5:49 pm ET)
         
      neither should be proposing increasing the debt.  we are going to get to the point where we are simply unable to pay any of this debt off, because we will be paying more in interest than anything else.  we need to return to the clinton tax rates.  i will pay a few more dollars, but i don't mind.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 18, 2008 6:07 pm ET)
           
        Maybe the flat tax proposal years ago might gather some momentum. I agree with all sharing the burden but i also agree we should not let the bufoons that got us in this arena should run off to crawford and retire on a fat pension with no care in the world.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (September 18, 2008 8:55 pm ET)
             
          a straight  flat tax is generally regarded as a regressive tax, placing more of a burden on the lowest incomes.  generally the clinton tax rates, perhaps indexed for inflation, would still fall mainly on the wealthy.  when i say i would pay a few dollars more, that's talking about the last several thousand of my income,  and the rate i'm paying, i think it's 25 percent,  would go up a couple percent, so it really would only be a small amount.   most of the rest is taxed at around 15. 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (September 18, 2008 10:16 pm ET)
               
            Most flat tax proposals I've seen include generous basic personal deductions, making the tax a little more progressive than you state.  I wouldn't mind seeing a two tier flat tax, one rate up to say a figure of about 50% more that my income and a second rate for incomes beyond that point. (Taxes are only fair if only those earning more than me are paying, afterall).
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (September 19, 2008 7:48 am ET)
                 
              then if it is progressive, if  it does have different personal deductions, then it's not a flat tax.  it may be simplifying the tax code but it's not a flat tax.
              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.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace