Ignoring CBO, AP uncritically reported GOP claim that recovery bill is Dem "spending spree unlikely to jolt the economy"
SUMMARY: The AP uncritically reported that Sen. Mitch McConnell and "other Republicans" stated that the economic recovery bill "allows Democrats to go on a spending spree unlikely to jolt the economy." But the AP did not point out that the Congressional Budget Office "anticipates that implementation of H.R. 1 would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years," or that CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said the bill "would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation."
In a February 1 article, the Associated Press' Douglass K. Daniel uncritically reported that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act contains "unnecessary spending," and that he and "other Republicans" stated that the bill "doesn't pump enough into the private sector through tax cuts and allows Democrats to go on a spending spree unlikely to jolt the economy." Daniel's article did not point out, as Media Matters for America has noted, that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated in its January 26 cost estimate of H.R. 1, the House version of the bill: "CBO anticipates that implementation of H.R. 1 would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years." Further, in his January 27 written testimony before the House Committee on the Budget, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said that H.R. 1 would "provide massive fiscal stimulus that includes a combination of government spending increases and revenue reductions." Elmendorf also stated: "In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation."
By 6:45 p.m. on February 1, Internet gossip Matt Drudge featured the AP report on his website:
From the article:
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday the massive stimulus bill backed by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could go down to defeat if it's not stripped of unnecessary spending and focused more on housing issues and tax cut.
The Senate version of the bill, which topped out at nearly $900 billion, is headed to the floor for debate. The House bill totaled about $819 billion and earned no Republican votes, even though it easily passed the Democratic-controlled House. At some point lawmakers will need to compromise on the competing versions.
McConnell and other Republicans suggested that the bill needed an overhaul because it doesn't pump enough into the private sector through tax cuts and allows Democrats to go on a spending spree unlikely to jolt the economy. The Republican leader also complained that Democrats had not been as bipartisan in writing the bill as Obama had said he wanted.
"I think it may be time ... for the president to kind of get a hold of these Democrats in the Senate and the House, who have rather significant majorities, and shake them a little bit and say, 'Look, let's do this the right way,'" McConnell said. "I can't believe that the president isn't embarrassed about the products that have been produced so far."
I have to admit; the GOP has done a good job of distributing its Kool Aid. People like Mika Brezinsky, who is presumably a moderate, said categorically this morning: "Spending money on these social programs won't stimulate the economy; it just won't". If Joe Scarborough had been in the studio, I would have assumed he had his hand up her back pulling the strings.
The Tickle-Downers keep insisting on this talking point, but I have yet to hear one explain why it won't help, or why tax cuts for Corporations and rich people would work better or faster. Do tax cuts really help a company that isn't making money? Will people invest in a falling market, even if you cut their capital gains taxes to zero?
In my opinion, they just oppose anything resembling welfare on ideological grounds. Just look at some of the posts we get here from Conservatives, who like to remind us that it's "not their responsibility" to pay for social programs.
And Mika is quailified to say that ... how, exactly? Commercial cable TV news and talk is just not worth very much these days, I am afraid. Turn them off, I say.
Probably good advice. One thing I seldom hear on these talking-head shows is how Wall Street shenanigans turned a Home Mortgage Bubble into a flaming Hindenburg.
Probably because unlike the radio broadcaster during the Hinderburg disaster, they have no humanity.
Remember the old saying: that its easier to destroy than it is to build...
The last 28 years of destroying this country with the likes of Reagonomics, useless wars, tax cuts for those that don't needs it, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc, etc...
I think its fair to say that it will take a miracle for this country to recover...
The odds are stacked against us. The corporate whores will not go down easy. They will fight hard to keep their ill gotten gains. They will lie, cheat, and steal to keep their way of life intact.
The AP, like all the other corporate owned media need to come to realize that the internet is why their lies will no longer work!
The louder the corporate whores scream that something is bad... I have come to realize that 99 out 100 times... it is good... and we need it!
With that said.... I would absolutely encourage everyone to support any legislation that saves and strengthens Net-Neutrality!
People... if we lose the internet to corporate interests like we have lost our main stream media, newspapers, and radio stations... it won't matter who's in charge... the truth would be lost among the garbage spewed forth by what is called the media today!
I tend to agree. I fear that the hole we've dug for ourselves may just be too deep this time.
Meanwhile, the Corporate Media Whores are chanting the Tax Cut Mantra, as if it's some kind of silver bullet for any and all economic problems.
i would agree that there might be some things here that are marginal at best. and why they decided to give the republicans some ammuntion like the contraceptive program is beyond me. [a good idea, just not in this bill]
but the fact is that the republicans are not going to vote for this anyway, so why make any concessions on things like more tax cuts. what they want to do is vote against, hope obama "fails" as limbaugh put it, and then claim they were right all along. forget the concessions. nothing will make them stop whining except a bill that they write. ignore them.
Think Progress did an analysis of the plan the GOP is pushing and it looks like it will cost more than 3 times the amount of the Democratic plan.
It would be difficult for a stimulus plan to not have short term benefits when you throw that much money into the economy.
As for long term benefits, that remains to be seen. I agree that it has to be tried but this is not a slam dunk for success.
It's definitely going to have better effects than Bush's tax cuts. Unfortunately, this stimulus package was something that should have been done 8 years ago when we had a surplus. Better late than never, though.
But the Bush tax cuts worked so well that we need even more of the same. Didn't you get the memo?
At 9:30 Monday, Feb 2, I watched as MSNBC's Contessa Brewer segued from Republican Mitch McConnell saying that President Obama "should be embarrassed" by the job he's done so far to an in depth interview with another Republican who, with the help of Brewer's leading questions, backed up McConnell's bizarre charge.
After that - they went directly to a puff piece on Sarah Palin, keeping alive the question of a Palin run in 4 years.
How silly of me to think she would give time to a Democrat.
-- These projections are imprecise, and if experience is any guide, they could err by large margins. ... the more distant the projection, the greater the uncertainty. Over the history of five year budget projections, ... every administration has made substantial errors. ... Such enormous uncertainty about budgets just a few years in the future should influence policymakers’ decisions about expensive, long-term commitments on the basis of mere projections. -- OMB on budget projections.
The OMB statement is a caution from 2002 about using budget projections...not about the current stimulus spending.
Is there a school of economics in favor of jolting an economy? Sounds exciting possibly scary. What do they use as tools to yump start the dead heart of an economy? A tactical nuc on all food stamps? Sacriface a welfare mom to the god of captital gains tax?
Sacrifice a welfare mom?
Isn't Cadillac suffering enough without you suggesting that we sacrifice it's largest group of consumers, the welfare queens?
What was I thinking!?
Pulls forelock, kicks left instep, and shuffles off the world stage.
I think the no-good waitresses buy a few Caddies too