Beck falsely claimed "[o]nly 3 percent" of stimulus plan would be "spent in the next 12 months"
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.
SUMMARY: Fox News' Glenn Beck falsely claimed that "[o]nly 3 percent" of the Democratic economic stimulus plan would be "spent in the next 12 months." Beck's figures were based on a partial Congressional Budget Office cost estimate that excluded faster-moving provisions in the bill. According to the CBO's full cost estimate of the bill, 11.2 percent of the $816 billion bill would be spent in the first seven-and-a-half months after the bill is enacted, and, when including the bill's tax cut provisions, $169 billion -- or 20.7 percent of the bill's total cost -- would take effect in the first seven-and-a-half months.
During the January 27 broadcast of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck falsely asserted, as he also did in his January 26 FoxNews.com column, that "[o]nly 3 percent" of the Democratic economic stimulus plan would be "spent in the next 12 months." Beck's figures were based on a partial Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate that excluded faster-moving provisions in the bill. According to the CBO's full cost estimate of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was released January 26, $92 billion in outlays -- or 11.2 percent of the $816 billion stimulus bill -- would be spent in the first seven-and-a-half months after the bill is enacted. When also accounting for the stimulus bill's tax cut provisions, the full CBO cost estimate found that $169 billion -- or 20.7 percent of the bill's total cost -- would take effect in the first seven-and-a-half months.
In his column, Beck wrote: "According to the CBO, only $26 billion -- just over 3 percent -- will be spent this year. Another $110 billion -- or 13 percent -- will be spent next year." The partial CBO cost estimate, as posted on the Huffington Post website, estimated that the bill would include $26.156 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2009 and $110.167 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2010. But that cost estimate included only approximately $358 billion of the stimulus bill's $604 billion in outlays and none of the bill's tax cut provisions.
According to the CBO's full January 26 cost estimate of the stimulus bill:
Assuming enactment in mid-February, CBO estimates that the bill would increase outlays by $92 billion during the remaining several months of fiscal year 2009, by $225 billion in fiscal year 2010 (which begins on October 1), by $159 billion in 2011, and by a total of $604 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
[...]
Combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $169 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $356 billion in 2010, by $174 billion in 2011, and by $816 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
[...]
Outlays projected for 2009 would occur over a 7 1/2 month period.
Therefore, according to the CBO, $92 billion in outlays -- or 11.2 percent of the $816 billion stimulus plan -- would take effect in the remaining "7 1/2 month period" of fiscal year 2009. Likewise, tax cuts and outlays in the first seven-and-a-half months would account for $169 billion -- or 20.7 percent -- of the $816 billion plan, according to CBO.
From the January 27 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: So let me go through some of these things here with you on the stimulus package. I know you met with the president today on the stimulus package.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): Yeah.
BECK: Help me just understand this. This is about illegal immigration. Help me understand this: quote, this is quoting from the -- it's a 647-page document. This is section 7003: "In general, as soon as practicable, after the date of enactment of this act, the comptroller general of the United States shall conduct a study regarding erroneous tentative non-confirmations under the basic pilot confirmation system established under section 404A of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996."
What are they even talking about? I've had two researchers look at this all day. They even tried to read it backwards. They tried to take every fourth letter and try to figure this out. How can anyone look at this piece of legislation on a stimulus package -- you are voting on this tomorrow. Only 3 percent of it is spent in the next 12 months. Why the rush?
BACHMANN: There is no rush. As a matter of fact, a Democrat, [Rep.] Paul Kanjorski [D-PA], who's the head of a subcommittee, called today for a slowdown on this. This isn't just Republicans now; now, Democrats are skittish.
the comptroller general of the United States shall conduct a study regarding erroneous tentative non-confirmations under the basic pilot confirmation system.....
I defy anyone to tell me what the hell that means? and what does any of this, or education for low income women, or std stuff, have to do with bridges, roads, infrastructure? It's pork for a lifetime.
Chihuahuas yapping through the screen door...
BECK: I've had two researchers look at this all day. They even tried to read it backwards.
Well, there's your problem right there, Glenn... Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann...two rocket scientists if I ever saw one. ;>)
Michele Bachmann... Michele Bachmann.... Why does that sound familiar?
Oh, wait... she's the twit who wanted investigations of the "un-American" members of Congress!
Beck and Bachmann .... add a hamster and the cumulative I.Q. rises to 50.
That's nothin':
I actually caught the middle of show yesterday. He was talking about Blagojevich. His guest to discuss corruption?
Alberto Gonzales!
Don't that beat all???
Funny...! That's that like having Sean Hannity on to discuss honesty in journalism...two subjects about which Hannity knows nothing.
Ooooooo.... Beck had his "researchers" look at it. I feel much better now.
Hell, they looked at it ALL day...even backwards. Then they finally figured out how to tear the envelope open... ;>)
Reseachers...? I swear, if I had the privilege of having my own nationally televised TV show I would buy a few cans of Red Bull and a pack of smokes and stay up all night reading the proposed stimulus package so I could report on it accurately and intelligently.
Neocons five months to 35 years ago: "Fiscal restaint and Capitalism a day keeps the government away!'
Neocons today: 'Dude, could the government BE any slower in handing out money?'
I know! Is he using this as a criticism? Don't these idiots realize that if, say, two years from now the economy is growing again that maybe some of this won't be spent? OMFG! No, we want to make sure that these liberal-commie-democrats give away all the money NOW, so that we can b!tch about them spending all our money!
Exactly. Classic case of you can't win. I'd rather have them spend the money slowly, so therefore, if the economy does climb outta the basement, we won't have to, you know, spend it all.
Wait a second....do you honestly believe that once the money is allocated that the government will say "hey look, the economy is great, lets cut off all the spending we voted for last year and give it back to the tax payers."
What a laugh. Don't be naive! It would be better to break down the bill and vote on the Stimulus portion for this year alone. Then revisit the issue again later.
Let me get this straight. You think that if this stimulus package gets passed and the economy recovers after two years, that some of the money WON'T be spent?
Please don't insult me.
The money WILL be spent regardless of the state of the economy. We'll be damn lucky if we get by with spending "only" a trillion. That's the way government works.
Ah that old chestnut "the fiscal neo-conservative". The species that doesn't exist. If you're going with Republican fiscal conservative, hasn't existed since Eisenhower.
BA degrees and experience. that is what spend happy politicians want you to believe when they reach into your wallet and yank your money for some idiotic spending proposals. that you are too stupid to understand the difficult endeavor or treasury revenues and consumption, so shut up and let us take care of it. baloney.
So we should listen to Glenn Beck and Joe the Plumber instead...?
and don't forget barbie up in Alaska.
I don't know you and you don't know me. To call me stupid renders your argument irrelevant to the subject at hand. Glenn Beck is a former alcoholic and drug user who only recently decided to straighten out and save his family. that doesn't make him believable in matters requiring thoughfullness.
i did not call you stupid, i was speaking in general terms on the way politicians view some people.
Got it. Thank you.
"Hundreds of billions to destroy and rebuild Iraq? Yes, sir, Mr. President. Whatever you say it takes to keep us safe. You're a great American and a true patriot."
"Hundreds of billions to rebuild the U.S.? Where's my microscope??? I'll show this liberal socialist a thing or two!!!"
i don't believe that is the discussion here, but I don't accept blindly any expenditures, foreign or domestic. oh, and how is funding std's and contraception rebuilding the US? just asking
Keeping health costs down...
And also, reducing the dependency on folks with lower incomes on having to use medical services, and never being able to pay for it, and then we have to foot the bill. Also, reducing possibly the output of welfare (something conservatives are always whining about anyway) because there are less children being born to lower income families.
you give people free contraceptives you basically say go for it, contraceptives fail, they are not foolproof against disease or unwanted pregnancy. you are creating a culture of irresponsibility. i'd rather create a culture of responsibility, and restraint, and good choices.
People are going to 'go for it' with or without contraceptives. Given the OPPPORTUNITY to have contraceptives, most people choose to use them.
"contraceptives fail, they are not foolproof against disease or unwanted pregnancy."
Sounds like good information to include in a comprehensive, unbiased sex education cirriculum, as opposed to an "abstinence only" one, which, as we continue to see, doesn't work.
if local schools want to include that as part of their curriculum, they should absolutely do it.
Ah, that old yarn again.
Telling people about contraceptives, or making them available, doesn't make it any more likely that people will have sex. Chances are, if you teach people about them, and then they use them, they'll have sex, but will also then know the consequences of it, failure rates of contraceptives, and also many other things.
Making contraceptives available doesn't make it more likely that people will have sex.
Maybe the young on Mars or Titan are responsible but this is the planet earth. Our young people don't get the education or the health care they need. And responsibility isn't high on the list of things they aspire to.
And before you get all crazy look at the statistics for teen pregnancy, divorce, STDs, etc. in the red states.
Start with Alaska...in the governor's mansion.
If you believe that then I have a collapsed bridge in minnisota to sell you.
how did " contraception" sneak in here ??
"i don't believe that is the discussion here"
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the forum was yours.
"but I don't accept blindly any expenditures, foreign or domestic."
I wasn't talking to you.
"how is funding std's and contraception rebuilding the US?"
It isn't, that's why Obama told the Dems to axe it from the House version of the bill:
"The decision came after President Obama called Democratic leaders to tell them that the $200 million set-aside does not comport with the objectives of the job creation package."
the topic isn't iraq, that wasn't my forum rule. you responded to me so i figured you were talking to me, duh. good for OBama.
"you responded to me so i figured you were talking to me, duh."
No I didn't respond to you, my post was native, duh.
I don't usually post, but in Glen Beck's defense, what he meant to say is published in his BLOG at the link below. He basically omitted the words "3 percent on infrastructure" as reported by the CBO. And this is a valid point, as the president and every mainstream news touts this as an infrastructure bill when it is not. It is a huge spending bill with enough bacon to feed the world.
Why not pull out the $150 Billion or so of this bill that is stimulus and do a quick vote on that and save the rest for separate debates/votes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483345,00.html
It is just a reading of the CBO's report on the stimulus bill. Here's an portion of the BLOG:
"According to the CBO, only $26 billion — just over 3 percent — will be spent this year. Another $110 billion — or 13 percent — will be spent next year. Which means that by the time President Obama's term is halfway through, just 16 percent of the money will have been spent.
I thought President Obama said this is supposed to be a quick "jolt" to the economy?
The president has also billed the stimulus as an investment in America's infrastructure. And if that were true, I'd be all for it. I mean, I-95 here on the East Coast isn't exactly the autobahn. Yet only 3 percent — just $30 billion — of this entire package is dedicated to road and highway spending.
Then you have the promise about creating "green jobs" and clean energy.
Again, you want to seriously get wind and solar and nuclear power off the ground, I'm in. But this isn't serious. Only 2 percent of the money is earmarked for clean energy and only 1/7th of that will be spent over the next 2 years."
Of course alot of the money for the stimulus won't be spent? Since infrastructure projects now only account for 18 or so percent of the "stimulus package" I would not be surprised if only 3% is spent.
Obama should have never given in on the massive amounts of tax breaks to the GOP or on anything. And he did not get a single vote and will only be trashed when this diluted crap make-a-deal package goes through if it does not succed. If Obama wanted to show so testes and hopefully get a second term he should go to the Democrats and go pass the bill because I am going to veto it. Then we will send the bill that should be sent through Congress heavy on stimulus, reasonable middle class cuts, and shutting down huge corporate tax loopholes -- without a single GOP vote. And for a condition of stimulus coming into a district the Congressman/Senator has to vote "yea" for the stimulus on a roll call or will honor his representation of his district and let it fend for itself.
Then send a note to the RNC saying, "Good luck, you elphant backsides."
On the other hand, if there were no concessions made to the GOP on this bill, and the bill doesn't succeed, then Obama gets trashed as well. This way it's a little harder for the Republicans to complain, since any failure can be blamed on the concessions they demanded.
It seems to me that Obama basically called their bluff. They make demands, but then when Obama makes an effort to compromise, they still don't give a single vote. This would seem to be a very poor strategic move on the part of Republicans, because they've essentially proven that they are only interested in obstructionism. If Democrats can hold together and pass legislation without any help from the other side of the aisle, then any demands for concession can be met from now on with "why? You won't vote for it anyway". I don't like the concessions either, but they do turn the image from "Obama's partisan, he won't listen to us" to "Republicans are more interested in playing games than helping the people of this country".
I can respect your point.
However, I would rather go with "my" plan than the crap the GOP has been peddling the last 8 years. I will take my success or failure but not theirs. Since not one of them voted for it they will -- and most likely successfully -- claim the fault is his. It is the reason they ducked and the Senate will do the same.
It is time they learn if they are not going to help -- THEY GET NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!
Pelosi already gave the House Republicans cover. She did not let them pen one part of the bill. If Barry could get a few R's to join then he has some cover. With no R votes then it's all Barry now.