About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Brown, Velshi falsely claimed increased food stamps and unemployment payments are "not stimulus"

January 27, 2009 10:46 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: On Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, Campbell Brown and Ali Velshi repeatedly claimed that provisions in the economic recovery bill that extend food stamps and unemployment insurance payments are, in Velshi's words, "not stimulus." But the same day, the Congressional Budget Office director stated in congressional testimony: "Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010."

21 Comments

On the January 27 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, host Campbell Brown and chief business correspondent Ali Velshi repeatedly claimed that provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that extend food stamps and unemployment insurance payments are, in Velshi's words, "not stimulus." But earlier that day, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas W. Elmendorf stated in testimony before the House Budget Committee: "Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP." Additionally, in 2008 congressional testimony, Mark Zandi -- the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser -- stated that "extending food stamps are [sic] the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump" and cited extending food stamps and unemployment insurance payments as having a greater "Fiscal Bank for the Buck" than any other potential stimulus provision he analyzed, including temporary and permanent tax cuts.

On No Bias, No Bull, Brown asserted: "Food stamps, unemployment benefits not likely to stimulate the economy because these are the people who are in the most dire straits spending the bare minimum." After Velshi replied, "That's right," Brown stated, "So the stimulus part comes from the big spending package that we're going to talk about." Velshi responded: "Right. And, you know, maybe the $500 or $1,000 you get per family. But you're absolutely right. There are some of these things that are more about recovery than stimulus. The administration likes to call it a recovery bill. If you're giving food stamps and you're giving unemployment benefits, that's not stimulus; that's simply helping people out who are in a lot of trouble."

In his January 27 testimony, Elmendorf said:

Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.

A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved. The nonbusiness tax cuts in H.R. 1 would reduce revenues much more in calendar year 2010 than in calendar year 2009 because much of the reduction in taxes would be realized by households when they filed their returns in 2010.

In his July 24, 2008, testimony before the House Committee on Small Business, Zandi stated:

An effective package of stimulus could include a gas tax holiday, expansion of the food stamp program, a payroll tax holiday, aid to state governments, extension of the investment tax incentives, and increased infrastructure spending. The biggest lift from this stimulus would go to lower income households struggling to pay for soaring gasoline and food prices, and small businesses who are getting hit hardest in the current downturn.

More specifically, extending food stamps are the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump. A $1 increase in food stamp payments by $1 boosts GDP by $1.73 (see table). People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients.

Zandi also included in his testimony a table that showed that "Extending UI [unemployment insurance] Benefits" would boost GDP by $1.64 for every dollar spent, a greater "Bank for the Buck" than the tax provisions he analyzed:

From the January 27 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:

BROWN: And tonight, everybody, we're going to start a series, a No Bias, No Bull look at the president's economic plan. And our goal is pretty simple here: breaking it down into real terms. What would it actually mean for you, your family, your job, your neighbors? And is it enough to actually get the economy moving again? Chief business correspondent Ali Velshi is here to look at one of the most important parts of the package, and that is those tax cuts. And Ali, the Obama administration says this is the part of the plan that's aimed at helping working families. What can you tell us?

VELSHI: All right. It's complicated, and, you know, President Obama just said he hopes everybody's read the bill in Congress. This is -- there's a lot of information in here.

Let's start with tax cuts. The centerpiece of this is the $500 per worker or $1,000 per family that Americans will get. That'll come right on to your paycheck. It's not really a tax cut in the traditional sense because it's not ongoing, it's not a reduction in a percentage. Everybody under a certain income level -- and we don't know what that is yet -- is going to get it. But the Obama administration says 95 percent of working Americans will get that tax cut.

Then there's the child tax credit, an extension of that. The parents of 16 million more children will get a benefit under the proposed child tax credit. Food stamps: 30 million people will get enhanced food stamps. This not something that is ultimately going to stimulate the economy. If you're on food stamps, you're buying the minimum anyway. This is just to help people, the increasing number of people, who are out of work and need extra money.

Social Security. There's an immediate $450 to people -- a supplement to Social Security -- for some of the aged, some people on disabilities and things like that. So again, that'll be aid to older people or people suffering with disabilities in this program.

And an extension of unemployment. The Emergency Unemployment Act extended until December 2009. An extension to your ability to buy COBRA, which is your health-care benefits after you've been unemployed, although COBRA does tend to be very, very expensive. Many people who are laid off aren't able to do it.

The total of these tax cuts turn out to be about 275 billion. It's a big portion of the $825 billion plan. Again, a great deal of disagreement about whether or not this will actually work.

BROWN: Well, and go back to a point you made earlier. Food stamps, unemployment benefits not likely to stimulate the economy --

VELSHI: Right.

BROWN: -- because these are the people who are in the most dire straits spending the bare minimum.

VELSHI: That's right.

BROWN: So the stimulus part comes from the big spending package --

VELSHI: Right.

BROWN: -- that we're going to talk about.

VELSHI: And, you know, maybe the $500 or $1,000 you get per family. But you're absolutely right. There are some of these things that are more about recovery than stimulus. The administration likes to call it a recovery bill.

If you're giving food stamps and you're giving unemployment benefits, that's not stimulus; that's simply helping people out who are in a lot of trouble. And as we report here almost every night, that's an increasing number of people.

BROWN: Absolutely, Ali. And we're going to be walking through the --

VELSHI: Yup.

BROWN: -- spending part of the bill --

VELSHI: That's right.

BROWN: -- as we know more about it. With you.

VELSHI: We'll break it down. We'll talk about the health-care parts of it. We want everybody to understand what it is, and then you can decide whether you're in favor of it or not.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mr. l (January 27, 2009 11:11 pm ET)
         

      'things that are more about recovery than stimulus...'  Hey, brainiac!  How do you 'stimulate' something or somebody that's not 'in recovery'?  Are you going to raise the dead and call it 'Zombies Shopping at Monroeville, Again, With Little or NO Cash or Credit'?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Romario (January 27, 2009 11:19 pm ET)
         
      No one watches Campbell Brown's program, so I doubt anyone noticed that exchange between her and Velshi.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (January 27, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
         
      She seems to be with the program. MSM seems bent on increasing the amount of missinformation given out. A new bar to reach without much thought on what reaching that bar will really mean for them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (January 28, 2009 3:10 am ET)
           

        Yeah, MMFA, I'm with eweston on this one ... Stop using facts and misinformation from these partisan hacks like the CBO to prove your point!!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 28, 2009 9:21 am ET)
             

          So... what...?  Are you saying that people with no income and no job will buy things?  And do you seriously think that if people don't start buying again then the ecomony will somehow recover without them?  What exactly do you think the economy IS?  If poeple don't have money they can't buy.  They don't buymeans we don't sell.  We don't sell, companies don;'t get revenue, don't pat salaries... (vicious cycle.)  ANY money that people spend will help the economy.  Any spending that doesn;'t happen for whatever reason will only hurt more.  Do you have a job?  If you want to keep it, you better hope that AT MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE get some money HOWEVER THEY CAN. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 28, 2009 9:22 am ET)
               

            Or did I miss some sarcasm here?  If so - then I guess this is meant for someone else.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Eric Jaffa (January 28, 2009 4:30 am ET)
         

      "There are some of these things that are more about recovery than stimulus."  - Ali Velshi

      I don't know what Ali Velshi means.

      The point of stimulating the economy is to try to help it to recover.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (January 28, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
           

        I read Velshi's statement to mean something like "Obama bad!  Liberals bad!  Booga booga booga!"  I don't think what Obama actually does makes a difference; that will be the message.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (January 28, 2009 10:46 pm ET)
             

          Well, all I know is that if I have money in my pocket, that's stimulus !

          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (January 28, 2009 9:01 am ET)
         

      I know that the Republicans have worked long and hard to plant their myths into the collective consciousness.  They have a considerable segment of the population believing that the Government IS the problem, that all government spending (except for the Pentagon's billions) is wasteful.

      Where do they think this money goes when the government spends it?  It is used to buy things.  It is used to pay people to do things.  It all flows into our economy one way or another.... it doesn't just evaporate.  Sure, some of it goes to China, but that's a separate problem.

      If Joe sixpack is out of work, he doesn't have much money to buy stuff.  If a lot of joe sixpacks in one community are out of work, guess what?  The local businesses suffer and often have to close.  If you give those Joe Sixpacks a little money, they're going to use it to buy stuff from the local businesses.  How is that not "stimulus"?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kbr7171 (January 28, 2009 9:12 am ET)
         
      "Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly..." If that's true then the same would be true for tax cuts but people like Robert Reich & Paul Krugman say tax cuts they wouldn't be significant or quick and warn against them. So someone needs to explain to me how food stamps & unemployment ins can be significant and quick but tax cuts can't.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 28, 2009 9:46 am ET)
           

        It depends on who gets the tax cuts.  If you give most of it to rich people, as Republicans prefer, they won't necessarily spend it.  They may invest it, but that takes time to bear fruit.

        What the economy needs now, more than anything, is for people to buy stuff.  Like it or not, consumerism is what drives our economy.  If you give cash to people who desperately need it, they will spend it immediately.  They have no choice.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by kbr7171 (January 28, 2009 10:56 am ET)
             

          I keep hearing the GOP only wants to give take cuts to the rich but my taxes were lower under the Bush Admin and I'm not rich, I make less than $60K/year. I'm not defending the Bush Admin as a whole just that part. I don't have a problem taxing rich people but why should I be taxed at all by the Feds? You can flat tax the top 5-10% of earners to help the bottom 20-30% and leave the middle class alone.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (January 28, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
               

            I'm all for middle class tax cuts.  Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts were heavily weighted toward the rich.  Maybe that wouldn't be a problem if we weren't pi$$ing away $750,000,000 PER DAY in Iraq.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by kbr7171 (January 29, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
                 

              No, not middle class tax cuts. No taxes for anyone but ht e top 5 or 10% with a sharp cut in spending to balance it.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by pbg (January 28, 2009 9:24 am ET)
         

      Behind this is a frame they believe in --that they believed in under Hoover. Stimulis can only be applied to big corporations or the wealthy--since they are supposedly the engines of the economy. Aid to ordinary people can't be stimulus, because they're just the masses.

      So while Hoover cut taxes to the bone, started deficit spending--there was absolutely no relief for the people. Why, that would be socialism! The end of America! And so all their efforts did nothing to halt the slide.

      It's even more ludicrous today. While the crash of 29 was in large part the middle class gambling on corporate America and losing, in 08 it was corporate America gambling on the middle class and losing--gambling and spinning cotton candy portfolios based on middle-class mortgages.

      And our crash was based on the factthat millions of people could not pay their mortgages. If they could, there'd've been no crash.

      And while Wall Street was extracting billions for themselves out of the system, middle class wages had not gone up in decades, even people with good jobs were getting fired more and more often, a trip to the hospital for a member  of even a prosperous two income family could mean insolvency, and higher education became a tougher and tougher dream--and one involving more debt.

      As corporate America was crippling the middle class, they were also gambling on its health. A recipe for disaster.

      Using the Republican formula, we put the banks back on their feet--and what? Will that make people stop defaulting on their mortgages? It will not. The banks can't make money lending it back and forth to each other.

      Ignore the real prrooblem--the plight of the people--the middle and workig class--and you have the Hoover treatment--that didn't work then, that they still believe in, and will do less than nothing. The middle class is the real engine of the economy--both the resource of labor and creativity, and the market for the goods. You could build a huge factory full of great shining machines, but if the public (your workers) are too poor to buy your product, you'll shut down.

      They have a deeply ingrained prejudice that's nothing more sophisticated than aristocratic pretense--and they'll screw it up just like they did last time if we pay attention to them.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 28, 2009 9:42 am ET)
           

        I think that's the most eloquent description of our current circumstance that I have seen.  I especially like the "cotton candy portfolios".

        The one encouraging thing I've heard is that maybe,  now that manufacturing wealth on Wall Street won't be so easy any more, some of the smart people who've been working there will move to other industries and actually do something constructive, instead of just shuffling paper around.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by kbr7171 (January 28, 2009 11:23 am ET)
           

        "So while Hoover cut taxes to the bone, started deficit spending--there was absolutely no relief for the people."

        That's absolutely false. Hoover leaned on big business, and succeded, to not cut wages. Probably the biggest problem mistake Hoover made was to increase tariffs which caused a backlash by foreign governments to do the same to the US drastically increasing prices on imports.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (January 28, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
           

        (CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP)   WELL SAID!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by TadekKorn (January 28, 2009 7:07 pm ET)
         
      Eventually CNN will merge with FOX. Beck is the pointman in this transition. Brown and Velshi should follow. These are their preparatory vollies (or follies). Like FOX's "no spin zone which leaves the viewer with a case of nauseating virtigo, "No Bias, No Bull" should leave its audience with a powerfully pungent stench! In the wake of these odors, it'll be interesting to follow their ratings. Please (MMfA), keep us posted. I haven't followed Brown and Velshi and don't plan to start now.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (January 29, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
         

      A bit off-topic, but wasn't Campbell Brown the one who claimed that Jimmy Carter was the last president to have his party in control of Congress and "things didn't go so well"? And then her co-host said, "No wait, it was Bill Clinton".

      Wrong, it was GWB.

      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