ABC's Tapper ignored CBO report, advanced GOP claim that recovery bill is "not a stimulus plan"
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: ABC's Jake Tapper uncritically aired a video clip of Republican Sen. Jim DeMint saying of the economic recovery bill: "This is a spending plan, it's not a stimulus plan. It's temporary and it's wasteful." Tapper did not point out that the Congressional Budget Office stated in its January 26 cost estimate of the House version of the bill that it anticipates implementation of the bill "would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years."
On the February 2 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper uncritically aired a video clip of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) saying of the economic recovery bill: "This is a spending plan; it's not a stimulus plan. It's temporary and it's wasteful." Tapper 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 that "CBO anticipates that implementation of H.R. 1 would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years." Nor did Tapper note that 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 further 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."
Moreover, in uncritically airing DeMint's remarks -- originally made during the February 1 edition of ABC's This Week -- Tapper did not include Sen. Barney Frank's (D-MA) response to DeMint given during the February 1 show. Frank stated in part: "And as far as spending versus tax cuts, I think we need to fix some highways and bridges. I never saw a tax cut fix a bridge. I never saw a tax cut give us more public transportation. The fact is, we need a mix. ... It's possible to have too much government, no question. But it's possible to have too little. And some parts of this stimulus -- extending unemployment benefits, helping with food stamps -- you know, we have two purposes here. One is to stimulate the overall economy. The other is to go to the aid of some people who, through no fault of their own, have been damaged. You can't just look at the aggregates."
From the February 1 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): And Senator DeMint, let me begin with the stimulus package, because I think you called the president's plan the worst plan since the 16th Amendment paved the way for the income tax. But polls show that a majority of Americans actually support what the president's trying to do. What are they missing?
DeMINT: Well, I think all of us support the fact that we need to do something. And all of us believe that the way to move our economy forward and protect jobs is to infuse more money so that consumers have more to spend; businesses have more to invest, buy capital equipment.
But there are two ways to do that, George. One is for the government to take it out of the private sector through taxes and then decide where it's going to go through political manipulation, as they've done in the House. The other is just to leave more money in the private sector for consumers to spend and businesses to invest.
And that's the American way. And that's -- that's the approach we're pushing. Unemployment is --
STEPHANOPOULOS: All tax cuts? No increases of spending in any kind? Yet, most economists say that investments -- the right kind of investments -- create more jobs than tax cuts.
DeMINT: Well, I'm not sure what economists you're talking to, but we've met with a lot of them over the last week. You can look back in history, and leaving more money in the economy through tax cuts is the way that works. And government spending is -- you can see little bumps.
But this plan is a spending plan; it's not a stimulus plan. It's temporary, and it's wasteful. And a lot of the spending is going to end up being permanent, George. So we have to decide if we want to be a free-market economy and let -- and let the money stay there, or if we want to be a government-directed economy, which is where we're headed with this plan.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You voted for the package?
FRANK: I did. And the -- I regret -- regret Senator DeMint saying that this is the American way. Let's -- let's just agree that we're all Americans here, Jim, and that nobody's got the American way versus presumably the non-American way.
And as far as spending versus tax cuts, I think we need to fix some highways and bridges. I never saw a tax cut fix a bridge. I never saw a tax cut give us more public transportation. The fact is, we need a mix.
We need -- and I think we've suffered from an extremism in this country in the past of relying only on private-sector activity and having too little government. It's possible to have too much government, no question. But it's possible to have too little. And some parts of this stimulus -- extending unemployment benefits, helping with food stamps -- you know, we have two purposes here. One is to stimulate the overall economy. The other is to go to the aid of some people who, through no fault of their own, have been damaged. You can't just look at the aggregates.
I think we've gotten in trouble by looking only at the aggregates. If the GDP goes up, but income inequality greatly increases and a lot of average workers are feeling put upon, it's a problem.
But I want to see some improvement in our transportation structure. I'd like to see some improvement in education. We have state governments laying people off; cities being told they're going to have to lay off firefighters. A tax cut isn't going to keep the city of New Bedford from laying off firefighters.
From the February 2 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
DIANE SAWYER (anchor): In Washington this morning, of course, the Senate is going to begin debate over the president's stimulus package. Now, the Senate -- Senate Republicans already threatening to fight it unless major changes are made. Let's begin with ABC senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper at the White House. Jake?
TAPPER: Good morning, Diane. Well, President Obama later this morning will be hosting a Republican governor who supports the stimulus package: Vermont Governor Jim Douglas. He is in town today to lobby his Republican colleagues on the Hill who are threatening to oppose the stimulus package; debate begins this evening.
[begin video clip]
TAPPER: During the Super Bowl pregame show, President Obama told NBC News that working with Republicans has been important to him in crafting the stimulus package.
OBAMA: I've done extraordinary outreach, I think, to Republicans because they have some good ideas, and I want to make sure that those ideas are incorporated.
TAPPER: The president said programs in the bill that have nothing to do with creating jobs would be removed and predicted Republicans would ultimately support the bill.
OBAMA: I am confident that by the time we actually have the final package on the floor that we are going to see substantial support, and people are going to say this is a serious effort.
TAPPER: But Republicans seem to be on a completely different page, saying Democrats have not been bipartisan in crafting the bill. Republicans vow to oppose it.
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): I can't believe that the president isn't embarrassed about the products that have been produced so far.
SEN. JON KYL (R-AZ): I see support for this legislation eroding.
DeMINT: This plan is a spending plan; it's not a stimulus plan. It's temporary and it's wasteful.
[end video clip]
TAPPER: Also later today, President Obama's embattled Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle, who wants to be secretary of Health and Human Services, comes before a closed-door meeting of the Senate Finance Committee to talk about his tax problems, first reported here on Friday night.

















Jim DeMint was divorced from reality during his Sunday morning news talk show appearance.
He acted like the fact that money was going to be spent meant that it could not be a stimulus plan. Those two things are not mutally exclusive. Most economists believe that this spending plan will do more good for the economy than tax cuts would do.
This is the talking point du jour, straght out of the Republican Bullsh*t Vault.
I heard on NPR this morning that the Senate Republicans are holding out for Corporate tax cuts on money made overseas. Not sure how that would stimulate our economy over here, or create more domestic jobs, but I guess it sounds good to their CEO sugardaddies.
Hey the 400 richest people in our country only doubled their income in the last eight years. If they double it again they might hire a few more americans. At minimun wage natch.
"Liberal" media to the rest of us slackers,"Shaddup and eat your gruel."
I'm anxiously waiting for the news today, it's sure to blow a few gaskets! That's when Gregg gets appointed secretary of commerce and he accepts. righties will need another one for Tuesday when NH replaces him with a Democrat, and they'll need a whole engine block for Wednesday when they realize that Gregg's replacement brings the number of Democratic senators to 60. I'm sure Obama can postpone the vote for the stimulus package to Thursday or Friday so our 60th Dem can have enough time to fly to Washington to attend that historic vote.
Darn, that outside voice again. Righties weren't supposed to figure that out till Wednesday!
reducing the republicans to a hood ornament status, on an Edsel.
Don't count your senators before their hatched. The Gov is talking about replacing him with a Repub. GOP or GOPL?
Why would Obama hire Gregg, he has not broke any tax laws, just doe not fit the trend of Obama hires.
Why would the shrub hire all the killers his administration had? Why do rich people hate poor people?
Did you hear the report about those 400 on NPR? Seems that these unfortunate Billionaires are taxed at a lower rate than most of us working schlubs, because the Capital Gains tax is much lower than the tax rate on labor.
Just think.... I pay 10% more tax on the money I earn by working every day than Dick Cheney pays on the billions he makes from investments. And, to make it even more fair, the Republicans want to eliminate the Capital Gains tax altogether. Yee Ha!
Rawstory had an article on it. Yah 17.aught% on yer capital gains.
Money for nothing, though the chicks are pretty expensive for this population.
You beleive NPR, that is a Democrate spoke mouth. Please, they will say anything to get you lefties worked up. I find it funny that you all want to tax the crap out of someone who had put money for risk and made money. So with your thinking I should be able to right off may bad investments? Nerzog I am sure Cheney pays more in % of tax money then you do.
Why should people who don't do any actual work pay less taxes than people who actually work?
Wow, I need to know how to get free money, I mean I guess someone just gave them all this money to invest. Or maybe they went to work one day and over time they built a career, next thing you know they make money and invest.
That doesn't answer my question.
Here are a couple of things to think about. Business do not pay taxes, individuals do. Business are tax collectors they collect the taxes from the products they sell and pass it on the the government. If they can't make a profit and collect the taxes they can't hire people and stay in business. Government does not produce a product, it gets its money by threat of force and takes it from individuals, prints it or borrows it. None of these are helpful, money is the fuel of our economy the more government takes the less is left to create jobs, etc. Printing it make the dollor worth less and borrowing it puts debt on our grandchildren. It is difficult not to envy people with money but it is better to try to join them than try to steel what they have earned.
Nobody ever starved being a public appologist for the wealthy. So as they make twice as much as they did eight years ago. By your logic they should have been hiring like gangbusters. The reality of the rising unemployment numbers supports this how?
After they put what they can in off shore tax shelters, what American products are worthy of openning their wallets for? How many American watches on their wrists. What cloth is worthy of being against their skins that is made and tailored in America? What expensive car, 200' boat, 100 year old plus painting, or big ticket jewelry?
Ross is safe from me. Your blaming it all on NAFTA ain't. It has a place in the debate, but not the place of honor. If you can point to a few high end manufacturors transiting out counrtry due to NAFTA it would help. Most of NAFTA outsourcing ends up in your local Cosco, Fred Meyer, Big Lots, Dollat Tree,Wall-Mart, or other large mega store. Remarkably few big wallet folks are seen there hunting up da bargins.
Think of all the people who make those watches, boats, cars, paintings, jewelry etc. and of all the ones who bring them to market, all those jobs (that will be lost if no one buys their products)! Oh, I forgot they are evil for being successful.
The point was those high ticket products bought by the wealthy are rarely made in america. Either before or after NAFTA.
On the paintings/art, we do have some made in america, quite alot from elsewhere. The profits after the original sale by the artist can be incredible. Those incredible profits rarely seem to make it into the artist's pocket. The exceptions being the few "Known" artists. The price is usually paid for its potential investment/status attractions rather than for the joy of the works themselves.
Markie, I do know GM just took a large chunk of its bailout money and sent it to Brazil. Its benifit to the American autoworker down there escapes me. I do take your point that some auto manufacturing went to Mexico after NAFTA. I don't see the population of buyer's I'm talking about as being a large segment of buyers of them for personal use.
I await your next egregarious insult.
I entend no "egregarious" insult. I just don't agree. You missed the overall point by concentrating on the detail. As for the bailout, I oppose any bail out of any kind for all the reasons previously stated.
You win, This is one area where this conservative is anti-war.
You win, This is one area where this conservative is anti-war.
I'm not the one trying to change this country into a socialist meca. How about you take your own advice.
Yea think of all those people who make the things you described, now think of this social production being appropiated privately. Workers are seen as a commodity just like any other product produced and subject to the laws of the market. Class warefare is being fought but only one class is winning and it ain't the workers.
isn't it the height of chutzpah!!!! These knuckleheads defending the rich as if they are suffering! The nerve?!?!
S'pose their just looking at job skills. "Wealth Appologist", maybe one of those few growth industries, along with "Union Busting." Then those job skills can are very close in nature.
Your post is somewhat convoluted but it looks like the gist of it is: tax cuts good, spending bad. Tax cuts don't create jobs (unless you're cutting it for people who spend most if not all their income). Consumer demand is what drives the economy. Businesses hire people based on consumer demand. If it's high, jobs are created. Conversely, if it's low, jobs are eliminated.
And for your last point, I don't think anyone here envies greed and selfishness which most moneyed conservatives manifest.
I agree with you that consumer demand has an important roll in driving the economy and that business rises and falls with it. At the same time I believe Bill Gates or Warren Buffet has as much right to the fruits of their labor as does the $8.00 an hour McDonalds employee. And if the former chooses to give to the latter, God bless them, but to take it by threat of force seems immoral to me.
As for me I do not envy them, but neither do I hate them for succeding.
Who is taking something from Gates or Buffet by force! What are you talking about?
We are. If they don't pay their taxes, we can sic the cops on them.
I hope you were being sarcastic!
I'm serious. It's against the law to not pay your taxes [unless you’re a corporation].
We have a civilized society to maintain and Gates and Buffet can spare more than a person making $8.00 an hour. Both Gates and Buffet understand this while moneyed conservatives don’t. If you don’t want to live in a civilized society you can go somewhere else.
Gates and Buffet are not singular. Their were a pair talking back at GOPL talking points this weekend on someshow or other. There might be some monoply strategy's connected to Gates vast wealth, but thats somebody elses argument/fight. There are very wealthy people who do have clear eyes and good hearts. I think they're outnumbered though.
By the way Bill this sucker's locked up about six times today, your old company seems to be playing out a classic "company/new technology" story.
You mean the Congressional Budget Office that is full of Democrats. Of course the are going to say it works. This bill is pork laced, period!!!
Stop saying "pork-laced" because what you define as pork may not be what others define as pork. Just give the specifics of what you object to.
I wouldn't categorize anything in the bill as pork.
Fixing up the mall is a good investment. It will create jobs and the mall is a huge tourist attraction.
Loonz, this guy is not allowed to talk specifics. RNC talking points mandate that he repeat "pork" and "stimulus bill" as often as possible. He is trying his best to be a good foot soldier so cut him some slack.
No but you'll borrow almost a trillion dollars from China to finance a war in Iraq.YOU do some research with your lazy BS conservative talking points. How do you think sod will get planted if not by someone with a job doing it? The tax burden has been shifting more and more to those that work for a wage to live and less to those who make their living by clipping coupons. You have the world upside down buddy, it's the workers that have created the wealth of this country not the rich, everything you see was created by labor even the keyboard you type on, but the profits are shared by a few. This few has skewed the world so that everything from healthcare to worker and food safety to the survival of the planet is looked through the prism of profit. The profit motive has brought us to the brink of extinction. The addition of electronics to labor has brought down labor cost to the point that the workers cannot live on the wages they make, and the search for cheap labor has brought this motive to every corner of the globe ,to the point that millions of workers live on less than a dollar a day, making them expandable. While you argue over what is pork, in California public schools are closing, teachers are being laid off, school days reduced, libraries closed. Cuts in medicare payments to hospitals are forcing emergency rooms to close and hospitals to lay off staff. Food safety is threatened as inspectors are laid and laws compromised as corporations thanks to Bush had their way with government agencies whose role was to protect the public but now serve the master of the almighty dollar. We have the technology to end poverty and hunger but guess what it's not profitable. We can train and employ people to educate others about better health, increase service so that we can diagnose diseases like Cancer, heart disease and diabetes at earlier stages increasing quality and lenght of life and thus reducing cost in the long run, but that's pork huh. Production since the first factory was built has been down socially but the profits shared by only a few. This drive to maximize profits has reduced the value of life and made millions of workers here and worldwide superfluos to the owners of capital. Why pay to educate workers children when there won't be a job for them, why provide healthcare or any other services for them. We could use them though as cannon fodder to fight wars for control of markets and resources though right! Maybe a few workers might even get lucky and find a winning lotto ticket, or pull themselves up by the bootstraps if they try and work hard enough right! Give me a break!
Damn! Get down, congero.
You're becoming my hero.
No bill passed is without spending on something. I would say defense spending for the most part is PORK.
Details please. One nominie a week ago was late. We've got one this week getting roasted for it. Who else?
After reading all the comments, there are many comments i would like to make. First and foremost the bill is loaded with pork, an example is 6 billion to study climate change, I truly understand that the dems won, the point is if you want 6 billion for climate don't call it stimulus, call it what it is and vote on it seperately. See if the people of america would back that bill or not.
Also as far as taxes go, for the person who said businesses don't pay taxes what planet are you from, I own a small business about 11 employees, about 5 mill in revenue, I pay personal taxes, corp federal business taxes, and state business taxes. I'm taxed up the ass and if I paid less YES either I can hire more people or invest in more things for my company.
The final point, is how libs think ANY spending is good spending. Any infrastructure spending will create jogs, ant alternative fuel initiatives will create jobs. Studying the climate andbuying condoms won't help despite what Nancy Pelosi tells you
let me address your points:
1. climate change study: it isn't going to get studied by itself, scientists, paid a salary, will do that. in turn, those scientists will spend that money on consumer goods, driving up demand, and creating/maintaining jobs in the retail/wholesale industries. what else to call that but "stimulus"?
2. taxes: i am from planet earth, i'm not sure what planet you're from, but it isn't here, obviously. as a cpa, i am well qualified to comment on the subject of taxes, it's what i've been doing for the past 30 years. businesses pay taxes, that they've collected from their customers, in the form of part of the price they charge for their goods or services. they do this computation either knowingly (cost acct.), or intuitively (they know what they must price at, to recover their cost of production, and provide a profit). if they don't do this, they quickly go out of business. i feel certain you probably have an accounting professional, who will (for a fee) gladly explain basic economics to you.
relative to the benefits you and your business receive from the fed., state and local govt's, your taxes are a damn fair bargain. you have a ready transportation infrastructure; a ready communications infrastructure; a ready legal infrastructure; a ready law enforcement infrastructure; etc, etc, etc. all paid for with MY tax dollars.
you're welcome.
3. your final point, and do you actually have one?: spending, either by creating new jobs, or maintaining existing jobs, will do more, in both the short and long-runs, to stimulate the economy, than tax cuts will, or ever historically have. that is a basic mathematic fact. you can look it up.
condoms don't distribute themselves, contrary to james dobson's belief. health care professionals do, along with valuable health care information. for this, they are paid. in turn, these health care professionals spend that money on, you guessed it! consumer goods!
are you begining to sense a pattern here bunky?
We were against the Iraq War from the beginning and the defense budget is bloated.
", the point is if you want 6 billion for climate don't call it stimulus, call it what it is and vote on it seperately."
You have a bit of a point. Democrats, on the one hand, may have been too anxious to get too much in the bill. On the other hand, this stuff enjoys broad public support and it's a good bludgeon to use on the cons as they, as always, work to publicly regress into childish tantrums.
You do realize that we as a nation used to pride ourselves on our experimental curiosity and flexibility? Now the prevailing conservative opinion is to keep repeating the same old tax cut errors and deregulation blunders that got us here.
i wish obama had asked krugman to be part of his economic advisory team. not only does krugman know his stuff (nobel prize and all), but he's able to communicate it intelligently to the average layperson, in a way they can understand.
also, i'd love to see him rip hannity and limbaugh new ones, on tv! i'd pay to watch that! lol
to cpivina, lets cover your points:
My tax comment was a response to someone that said businesses DO NOT pay taxes they only charge a sales tax on the products they sell, but they DO NOT pay any other taxes. As for the taxes I pay yes I pay a professional and at the end of the year I always pay my taxes ON TIME what a novel idea?
On spending as I stated I believe in democracy and I believe that for the next 4 years Americans are at the mercy of the left, so to that point spend what you will, my comment was to not blanket in in a stimulus bill. However if you believe that handing out condoms is a good paying,long term job,that stimulates our economy I guess you have bigger issues to deal with.
And finally the point of climate change is this, the money spent is as you say going to hire scientists to study this malarchy, and therefore the scientists will have jobs and spend money, why not go down to unemployment and tell me how many scientists are there waiting for work, you libs crack me up.Think of all the blue collared union workers that you should and can be trying to help yet your argument that 6 Billion in paying scientists is justified.
"...you libs crack me up..."After 8yrs of Alfred E. Newman as President youmust have busted a gut,huh?! You'd have to agree that one about weapons of mass destruction and mushroom clouds really had us going. Man I'am still cracking-up. How about "Brownie, your doing a heck of job!" HAHAHA! WOOOOO! I thought I'd die couldn't stop laughing! But then you came with "drill baby drill," Sarah Palin "you betcha",Joe the Plumber whose name was not Joe and wasn't a plumber at all. HAhaha!!!!TOOO funny! Then you came with ----drum roll---"The fundamentals of the economy is strong!???!" This all would be hilarious if people didn't die and resources weren't wasted, but we no people did die(hundreds of thousands and millions displaced)and our tab for our children to pay to China for this war is at least 800billion and growing by the day. Now our President is proposing roughly a 820 billion dollar stimulus plan to clean-up the mess created by conservatives who held the country at THEIR mercy for the last 8yrs. The programs you mentioned setting aside the debate if their pork or noot amount to what % of the total package? At any rate it is a small percentage of the total package, what you don't talk about is the tax-relief for low and middle income workers, contrary to conservative talking points most of the stimulus package is for job creation and relief for those blue collar union workers. You conservatives crack me up.
Congero I love the libs who always bring up the war, let us all agree that in retrospect the war was a bad idea. However every democrat that ran in 2006 SCREAMED about stopping the war, so what happened after the dems took control of both houses? Nothing!!!! What happened after they controlled both houses and the White House? Nothing!!! If you have anger over the war and the cost of the war (and you should) why not attack those you put in office to stop it and have done nothing. And finally the war will stop during Obama's watch (god willing), however it won't be 1 day before was already pre-determined prior to his reign. I believe you should be angry you are just angry at the wrong party.
Man you are piece...anyway control of the house but not the senate remember! Plus it wasn't only Democrats it was over 60% of the voters. Yea, and I think people are angry that the conservatives blocked every attempt by the Democrats to bring our troops home and thats one of the reasons OBAMA and the Democrats trounced the Party that lied us into the war. How'd that last election work out for ya'? People were sooooo angry you got your butt handed to ya'. Your being peurile if you think 15 days in office is time enough to get our soldiers home, and actually it was Bush who agreed with Obama's time table for withdrawal; but why would you want liberals to be angry at the Party thats trying to end the war instead of the one that has and still is obstructing progress the Republican Party. You conservatives crack me up! You can hold two contradictory thoughts in your head and never dawn on you that you don't make sense.