About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Rove again falsely suggested inconsistency by Obama on stimulus spending

January 16, 2009 5:45 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: On The Live Desk, Karl Rove advanced a falsehood he put forth in a recent Wall Street Journal column by suggesting that President-elect Barack Obama had "trashed the [Bush] administration" for supporting a 2008 stimulus bill. In fact, in remarks that Rove misrepresented in the column, Obama criticized the Bush administration for funding "[a] trillion dollar war in Iraq" with "deficit spending" and for exhibiting "[a] complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting," but he did not criticize the administration for supporting the 2008 stimulus bill.

8 Comments

During the January 16 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, Fox News contributor Karl Rove advanced a falsehood from his January 15 Wall Street Journal column -- that President-elect Barack Obama, who supports enacting a large-scale economic stimulus plan, had criticized passage of a February 2008 stimulus bill because the bill added to the deficit. In his column, Rove asserted that Obama "criticized the 'disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting' in Washington" after "Congress passed" the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008; on The Live Desk, Rove referenced his column and suggested that Obama had "trashed the [Bush] administration for bringing on deficits" by supporting the 2008 stimulus bill. In fact, in March 2008 remarks that Rove misrepresented in his column, Obama criticized the Bush administration for funding "[a] trillion dollar war in Iraq" with "deficit spending" and for exhibiting "[a] complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting," but he did not criticize the administration for supporting the 2008 stimulus bill. To the contrary, later in the same speech, Obama spoke in favor of providing "stimulus that will reach the most vulnerable Americans" as a way to "pursue policies that once again recognize that we are in this together."

In his January 15 Wall Street Journal column, Rove wrote:

Last February, Congress passed a stimulus bill, adding $152 billion to the deficit. Mr. Obama called it "deficit spending" and criticized the "disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting" in Washington. Now he forecasts trillion dollar deficits on his watch.

On The Live Desk, after co-host Trace Gallagher asked Rove if he was "surprised at all about how [Obama] has steered away from this so-called campaign rhetoric toward the policies of this administration," Rove echoed the claim he made in his January 15 column:

ROVE: Well, it's a very interesting question you raise. [Washington Post columnist] Charles Krauthammer has a superb column on it this morning. I wrote about it recently as well, because, during the campaign -- for example, shortly after the $152 billion stimulus bill was passed early in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama went out and trashed the administration for bringing on deficits and for failing to be fiscally responsible. And now he's talking about a trillion dollar -- an $850 billion or trillion dollar stimulus package and a trillion dollar deficit on his watch.

But as Media Matters for America documented, Obama did not mention stimulus spending while criticizing the Bush administration's "deficit spending" and "disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting" in the March 27, 2008, speech that Rove quoted in his column:

OBAMA: The policies of the Bush Administration threw the economy further out of balance. Tax cuts without end for the wealthiest Americans. A trillion dollar war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought, paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting -- coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement -- allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long term consequences. The American economy was bound to suffer a painful correction, and policymakers found themselves with fewer resources to deal with the consequences. [emphasis added]

Later in the same speech, Obama said that he supported "providing a stimulus that will reach the most vulnerable Americans." Rove cited no other evidence on The Live Desk for his suggestion that Obama had "trashed the administration" for supporting the 2008 stimulus bill.

Media Matters previously noted that in his January 8 column, Rove also took quotes out of context to falsely claim that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "labeled" President Bush's "proposals" for reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as "inane."

From the January 16 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha and Trace:

GALLAGHER: I just want to ask you a question about the President-elect, Barack Obama. Are you surprised at all about how he's kind of steered away from this so-called campaign rhetoric toward the policies of this administration? Is that odd or is that standard political operating procedure?

ROVE: Well, it's a very interesting question you raise. Charles Krauthammer has a superb column on it this morning. I wrote about it recently as well, because, during the campaign -- for example, shortly after the $152 billion stimulus bill was passed early in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama went out and trashed the administration for bringing on deficits and for failing to be fiscally responsible. And now he's talking about a trillion dollar -- an $850 billion or trillion dollar stimulus package and a trillion dollar deficit on his watch.

He, during the campaign, attacked the terror surveillance program and yet came back in July to vote for its reauthorization. Some of this is the normal transition you get from being candidate to an officeholder.

But I thought Charles Krauthammer had an excellent point today that when it comes to international and security issues, this is more than just the lip service of someone who is moving from a campaign to governing; it is somebody who has been informed by new information and understands now the value of these tools, which he's being bequeathed by his predecessor.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Cheney2012 (January 16, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
         
      "Tax cuts without end for the wealthiest Americans. A trillion dollar war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought, paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China" This is EXACTLY what Obama's $1 trillion stimulus is doing. Once again MMFA is playing a game if semantics.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Mrs. Teufelshunde (January 16, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
           

        What do you mean?  Obama was speaking to the specific things that Bush decided to spend our money on.  So far as I know, Obama's stimulus package does not include invading a sovereign nation and occupying it/nation-building for the next decade.  If I missed that, please send me a link to his proposal.

        Obama's a Democrat.  He believes in government spending.  I think that's the argument that you're trying to make, that he said he didn't like government spending.  What Obama was ACTUALLY saying was that he didn't like the particulars the Bush administration was spending on.  Do you see how that's different?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (January 18, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
           

        I see you forget that the last liberal to reside in the White House left the current inhabitant a balanced budget and surplus aplenty. Your boys blew it, caused massive debts and deficits by cutting sweet deals for the few. Now you think adherents, like you, of the disgusting Reagan legacy have any relevance in recovery discussions?

        Laughable.  

        Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (January 16, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
         
      Gee, imagine that. Bush and the republicans giving bailout money to tax cheats and other companies that pay little to no US taxes... Offshore tax havens of the US corporate eliteMike Sheehan Published: Friday January 16, 2009 Tax money for tax cheats. It's hard to otherwise describe the continuing federal bailouts that major US companies are enjoying in this woeful era of fiscal disaster, especially when--as a scandalous new report reveals--many of the key players aren't paying taxes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress' investigative watchdog, has found that "a majority of America's largest publicly traded companies and the U.S. government's largest federal contractors use multiple subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to conduct business and avoid paying U.S. taxes," writes Carol D. Leonnig for The Washington Post. The culprits include some corporate giants who are receiving countless millions in bailout money, Leonnig notes. Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan and Carl Levin, who released the report, say that companies such as Citigroup and Morgan Stanley have set up "hundreds of tax haven subsidiaries" in such inconspicuous nations as Luxembourg, Mauritius and the Cayman Islands. Others figuring prominently in the corporate tax-haven list are such varied firms as 3M, American Express, Caterpillar, Cisco, ConocoPhillips, Dell, Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, GM, Kraft, Merck, Pepsi, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Wachovia, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which tallied a whopping 782 foreign subsidiaries in 14 countries. Among the federal contractors listed are Boeing, General Electric, Goodyear, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, IBM, ITT, Motorola, Oracle, and Xerox. "This report shows that some of our country's largest companies and federal contractors, many of which are household names, continue to use offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes," says Sen. Dorgan (D-ND). "[S]ome of those companies have even received emergency economic funds from the government. "[W]e should take action to shut down these tax dodgers," Dorgan says, "and we will be introducing legislation to do just that." The practice of using offshore havens is legal, but the senators hope to gain the support of the Obama administration for legislation to outlaw it, Leonnig writes. The GAO report in full can be seen at this link. http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/repandtest.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 16, 2009 8:18 pm ET)
           

        Republicans - putting party before country since 1981...

        Blackwell: GOP Must Defeat Job-Creating Stimulus Because It Will Ruin GOP’s Election Chances»

        In an article published on Townhall today, RNC Chairman candidate and former Ohio governor Ken Blackwell urges congressional conservatives to oppose the reinvestment and recovery stimulus plan promoted by President-elect Obama. Though he offers standard conservative arguments against the plan — including a screed against the growth of “big government” — Blackwell seemed most concerned about the political benefit Democrats might see from successfully boosting the economy.

        He warned that the bill, which calls for 80 percent job creation in the private sector, could create 600,000 new federal jobs — a problem because it would make it that much harder for for Republicans to win back Virginia:

        While only a few details are known, one overlooked issue is that it could create a major electoral advantage for Democrats at taxpayer expense. That would be unacceptable for what is being touted as a nonpartisan measure, and gives Republicans yet another reason to oppose it if not restructured. […]

        But most federal employees, that are not political appointees, vote Democrat. Since Washington, DC is the seat of government, whenever new federal bureaucrats are created many live in Maryland and Virginia. In 2008, Virginia went Democrat for the first time since 1964, and Mr. Obama won it by 130,000 votes. Creating 600,000 new jobs might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House.

        Blackwell cites House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) as his source for the 600,000 “bureaucrats” figure. In fact, Obama’s council of economic advisers predicts that the plan would create about 240,000 government jobs, compared to, for example, 700,000 in mining and construction. And of course, there’s no reason to assume the bulk of government jobs would be created in the D.C. area, though the District — which has the 6th highest unemployment rate in the nation — could use the new jobs.

        The bottom line is that, in an economy that lost 1.2 million jobs last year, Blackwell’s biggest concern is to block the creation of new jobs because those newly-employed Americans might vote Democratic.

        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.