ABC's Gibson falsely claimed "CBO says only 25 percent" of recovery bill "would get to people within a year"
SUMMARY: During an unaired portion of his interview with President Obama, ABC's Charles Gibson falsely claimed that the Congressional Budget Office "says only 25 percent" of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "would get to people within a year." In fact, a CBO analysis of the Senate version of the recovery bill estimated that 26 percent of the bill would be spent before the end of September 2009 -- less than eight months from now -- and 78 percent would be spent by the end of fiscal year 2010.
During an unaired portion of his February 3 interview with President Obama, ABC World News host Charles Gibson falsely claimed of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, "CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] says only 25 percent of this bill would get to people within a year." In fact, in its analysis of the version of the bill introduced in the Senate, the CBO -- which releases its calculations based on the federal government's accounting period, in which a "fiscal year" begins on October 1 -- estimated that, including both increased spending and decreased revenue from tax relief, 26 percent of the bill would be spent before the end of September 2009, less than eight months from now, and 78 percent would be spent by the end of fiscal year 2010.
From Gibson's February 3 interview with Obama as transcribed on ABCNews.com:
GIBSON: CBO says only 25 percent of this bill would get to people within a year. Republicans now say it needs to be more stimulative, there needs to be more money on infrastructure, there needs to be more tax cuts, there needs to be more help for homeowners, maybe even guaranteeing 4, 4.5 percent mortgages.
Would you accept those things?
OBAMA: Well, keep in mind, for example, some want to put more infrastructure in the bill, and they're also complaining that it doesn't spin out fast enough. In some cases, there are contradictions there. I mean, we may want to spend on a whole bunch of great infrastructure, but it may take seven or eight years to do it, in which case we're vulnerable for the criticism that it's not spinning out fast enough. I think that in a package of this sort, that has to go to Congress with 535 opinions, at least, then there's going to be some give and take.
What I've said is that any good idea thrown out there to improve this legislation I'm for. But I want to be absolutely clear here that the overwhelming bulk of the package is sound, is designed to put people back to work, help states that are in desperate straits, help families who are losing jobs and health care, and it's designed to make sure that we've got green energy jobs for the future. In fact, most of the programs that have been criticized as part of this package amount to less than one percent of the overall package. And it makes for good copy, but here's the thing -- we can't afford to play the usual politics at a time when the economy continues to worsen.
Charlie also thought that a median income family made $200.000.00 a year. Meanwhile, in the real world.....;-)
Is an unaired portion of an interview like a tree that falls in the forest with nobody around?
I think the tree falls on any person who is around to tell anyone.
mmfa is quick to jump on those that fail to correct what they perceive as mis-information. Recent articles slammed Limbaugh on not correcting Eric Cantor on the stimulus bill...David Gregory failing to correct Boehner on Gitmo...and Chris Wallace not correcting Steele on hispanics and border security.
And then...not a peep about Pres.Obama failing to correct Gibson...sweet fancy moses...even Pres.Obama can't live up to the standards of mmfa.
This exhibition of simple-minded jornalism by mmfa is entirely too funny.
Obama is not a member of the media. Limbaugh, Gregory and Wallace are.
Hahaha... Of course MMFA has never tried to correct any conservative politician have they Pete?
Both of you are loopy. The next time the president goes on TV and allows anyone to spout mis-information which promotes the conservative agenda, you let us know OK?
Wesley, everyone is not obliged to correct misinformation where ever it occurs. But when you are on TV, and you are a politician or anybody and you allow others to spout crap, then you might be called on it by MMFA......if it promotes the conservative agenda. Understand now?
Not by directly targeting the politician. MMFA always goes after the media head present for not correcting or challenging the conservative politician that's spewing the B.S.
I think MMFA has remained to to their standard that it's the job of those who have the access to the politicians and who have the platform (i.e. the media) to correct conservative political B.S.
Straight from the pie hole of a perfectly fair, balanced, and impartial multi-millionaire media head.
Gibson is probably referring to the Jan. 21 WaPo article that said:
A report by the Congressional Budget Office found that only about $136 billion of the $355 billion that House leaders want to allocate to infrastructure and other so-called discretionary programs would be spent by Oct. 1, 2010. The rest would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended.
However a Feb 1, WaPo article says the following:
The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the $819 billion House version of the bill passed last week found that about two-thirds of the money would be spent in the first 18 months. Obama aides say they expect the Senate version of the bill to include provisions that would allow for faster payouts and that innovations in their plan would lead to more rapid spending than the CBO anticipates.
Gibson's researcher just hasn't caught up. My question is, what changed between Jan. 21 and Feb. 1 in the House Stimulus Bill that speeds up the money being spent?
Only one thing changed AA...
The quality of the journalism.
The Feb. 1 WaPo version was fairly accurate, while the Jan. 21 version was either badly inaccurate or written by a partisan right-wing hack.
This brings us to Gibson: Is he just incompetent? Or simply too lazy to try to get some accurate numbers.
Another example of AA's "liberal media" he cited on another thread.
Nice catch.
I like Barney's excuse that Gibson's researcher "just hasn't caught up". The person responsible for fact-checking for a network newsman can't be expected to have seen updates on his topic for more than a week, updates that some retired wingnut, slow-witted troll is able to post in his defense of the reporter. Hi-larious
Things move at a slower pace down in Mayberry.
It's Gibson's freakin' job to be up to date. If I had the privilege of interviewing the President of the United States I think I might stay up late a few nights getting up to speed. It's absolutely amazing that the media get by with sloppiness like this. My personal view is that when news people become big names with an accompanying big salary they start mailing it in.