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
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.
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.















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