Matthews did not challenge Sen. Collins' claim that recovery bill will not stimulate economy
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: On Hardball, Chris Matthews did not challenge Sen. Susan Collins' claim that the economic recovery bill included "spending that had nothing to do with creating jobs, turning our economy around, or providing relief to the American taxpayers." In fact, in its analysis of the House and Senate versions of the bill, the Congressional Budget Office stated that it expects both measures to "have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years."
On the February 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews did not challenge Sen. Susan Collins' (R-ME) claim that the economic recovery bill included "spending that had nothing to do with creating jobs, turning our economy around, or providing relief to the American taxpayers." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, in analyzing the House version of the bill, H.R. 1, and the proposed Senate version, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that it expects both measures to "have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years." Additionally, in his January 27 written testimony before the House Budget Committee, 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."
As Media Matters documented, several media figures and outlets -- including Fox News' Sean Hannity, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, the Associated Press, and the Politico -- have advanced the Republican claim that the economic recovery legislation will not stimulate the economy.
From the February 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Senator Collins, does the speaker of the House know who she's dealing with? Does she know you senators, you three Republicans, especially, are going to be as tough on this as you are?
COLLINS: I hope --
MATTHEWS: Does she know what she has to deal with here, not just [Rep.] Steny Hoyer [D-MD] and the education lobby, but deal with you folks?
COLLINS: I certainly hope that the House will see our efforts as constructive. As Senator Specter mentioned, without our efforts, there would be no bill. The bill would be caught up in a filibuster.
One of the -- you asked what happened. One of the things that happened is this bill became a Christmas tree upon which members hung their pet programs. They put on spending that had nothing to do with creating jobs, turning our economy around, or providing relief to the American taxpayers. And we worked very hard to come up with a bill that was more targeted, more effective, as well as bipartisan.
So I understand the friction that always exists between the House and the Senate -- that's nothing new. But I would hope that our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle in the House would talk to some of the centrist Democrats on the Senate who believe exactly as we do and who have joined with us in crafting this compromise that has allowed this stimulus bill to move forward.
MATTHEWS: Well, here's the president today. I want you both senators to respond. Here's President Obama down in Ft. Myers, Florida, today. I'd like you to respond to what he said.
so mmfa wants every single pet project that was floated up for consideration included in this bill? And anyone that dares question the validity of any single one of them needs to be challenged and reminded that every single spending proposal is good for the economy and needs to be in this bill? good lord, has there ever been a spending program that mmfa doesn't think is necessary or a good thing? where do you think all this money would come from? isn't nearly a trillion dollars enough for you people. just keep piling on every program you can think of. left wing madness.
Yeah, what about that Frisbee park? Does MMFA think that's a valid project? Why not pile on more stuff, in addition to the stuff that Collins listed.
Madness, indeed.
Come on, guys, don't be stupid.
Does MMFA want every piece of spending in the bill?
No.
They want journalists to work from the premise that all domestic spending is stimulative, and to challenge politicians who claim otherwise. Which point I believe they tried to make with their headline, "Matthews did not challenge" etc.
Do you guys just pretend you don't understand ideas, or is it real ignorance?
Speaking just for myself, I pretend, and I have learned my craft from some of the best here. But I have to confess that on occasion I throw in a clue (like the "stuff that Collins listed" line....shhhhh) to tip off the liberals of my nefarious intentions.
Keep it under your hat though, 'kay? If the trolls catch on, it means the end of all my fun.
Sorry, neon. We tread a fine line when goofing on conservatives, who, after all, often come across as parodies of themselves.
Journalists must work from the premise that all domestic spending is stimulative, does that make sense from a free speech/thought perspective?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds more like a dictate from those who want to control the discussion rather than hear all sides. What's up with that?
BTW, the CBO went on to say the plan would hurt the economy more in the long run than if we were to do nothing. Who's accountable if this prediction comes true?
Who are we to demand that journalists report on every story as though the Earth were round and the sky blue?
I don't mind hearing all sides, but I'd like journalists to point out when the side they allow to speak is contradicting a fundamental principle almost universally agreed-upon by experts.
Speaking of experts, did a wingnut radio host turn you on to that CBO claim?
Just a simple follow-up question from Mathews asking what spending in the bill has nothing to do with creating jobs, turning our economy around, or providing relief to the American taxpayers... is that really too much to ask?
The problem here isn't so much Matthews' not challenging, as not asking a follow-up question.Collins has her opinion that parts of the bill won't stimulate the economy, the obvious question would be which parts and why do you believe they're not helpful .
The Repubs would prefer to keep it vague, framing anything that doesn't explicitly address all of their criteria (creating jobs, turning the economy around, providing relief to the American taxpayers)as 'pork".
As long as they're allowed to keep it vague, to speak in broad GOP talking points, they'll do just that.
it isn't up to those who question the validity of such programs and how they will stimulate the economy or create jobs, it's up to those who propose them to spell out exactly how and why.
They should be able to explain what spending they're so upset about.
and those that hung it on that "Christmas tree" have an obligation and a duty to tell us why it's needed.
I don't even know what "it" is. Do you?
check out all the funding that was eliminated from the Senate bill, it's all over the web. perhaps you don't care what it is.
So your problem is with everything that was eliminated from the Senate version?
Obviously I care to know what spending in the bill these Senators say has “nothing to do with creating jobs, turning our economy around, or providing relief to the American taxpayers.” Have you any idea of what specifically they're referring to?
i want to know what these were for, as an example. $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters. $50 million for aquaculture. $50 million for detention trustee. $50 million for exploration. let those that put these in the bill explain them, i know you and mmfa don't care, but some people do.
I've already made it clear that I care. I can't find any reporting on those. have you a link?
cnn.com
Never mind, found it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/stimulus.cuts/index.html
Looks like some good spending got cut.
i would agree, some of it may be worthwhile, but it looks like much of it is not, it appears to be exactly what Collins said. so for mmfa to complain that Matthews didn't challenge Collins on her statement about what the bill included is ridiculous.
You've got a point. As an aside, it's nice to see all those Republicans getting on board with the recovery bill now that those items are gone. Good to see that "any government spending is bad" ideology get put aside by the GOP as they stand up and do something to help the American people.
i give the Republican party zip on fiscal credibility at this point, if they hadn't been so reckless in the last eight years we may not be in this mess now.
i want to know what these were for, as an example. $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters (seems pretty straitforward to me. The coast guard needs a few more icebreaker ships. Are you of the impression they have more than necessary or something?). $50 million for aquaculture (underwater agriculture - are you worried that liberals are trying to grow pot underwater? Trust me, sea weed is the green stuff in miso soup, not the green stuff you roll in rolling papers). $50 million for detention trustee (Established and activated in September 2001 {you should like this one, it was created by your fuehrer!} by directive of Congress, the Federal Detention Trustee ensures that Federal agencies involved in detention provide for the safe, secure and humane confinement of persons in the custody of the United States while awaiting trial or immigration proceedings.). $50 million for exploration (The senate proposed $450 million for NASA exploration, a CUT of $50 million from the house bill).
Really, try doing a little research with the google. It's quite tiring having to look up the facts for you, especially knowing you will choose not to believe them anyways because they come from a liberal who took the time to look up a few items.
fine, you told me what they were, now tell me why they are needed in an emergency stimulus bill when every penny spent should be vetted for it's worthiness, especially in a time when we are all flat broke.
oh, and while you're bent on research, not only why they are needed, but who came up with the dollar amounts attached and why? Specifics are appreciated since you and I and everyone else are paying for it.
I'm not gonna waste the day on dollar amounts, but if this is about job creation, tell me how building more ships, or increased exploration doesn't create a job? Are you assuming that each recipient of said funds already has more than enough headcount on board to take on those tasks?
if you permitted the oil industry to drill offshore you would create 160,000 over a ten year period without the govt doing anything except for cashing the royalty checks. as for building ships, i guess that refers to the coast guard. that will create a few jobs for a while, but when the ships are built, then what?
I'd like to see your source for those figures.
The spending is needed to stimulate the economy.
why stop at 800 billion, the more spending the more stimulated the economy will be, is that what you're saying?
Yeah, I believe that government spending is stimulus.
do you believe the more spending the more stimulated the economy is? that is what I asked you.
Everything and anything can be overdone.
and I am talking about the overdone.
Right, like funding the Coast Gaurd and US Dept. of Justice.
unless you can tell me why it's necessary in this bill, why the dollar amount is what it is, instead of just blindly accepting it as stimulus, yes, it's overdone. i am waiting if you care too.
I'm not really concerned w/ your concerns. I'm much more interested in knowing what spending Collins thinks does “nothing to do with creating jobs, turning our economy around, or providing relief to the American taxpayers.”
in other words you can't tell me, or you don't care. ok.
I'm glad that it's ok that I'm not concerned w/ your concerns.
What do you want me to do?
The $800 Billion figure was sort of a conservative estimate based on the spectrum of economists' recommendations at the time the bill was first concocted. While it is quite probable that these expenditures deserve the sort of scrutiny you suggest, it's also quite impossible (for legislators) to nitpick about them on the feverish schedule set for the bill. Fortunately, in a broad sense, the whole point is to spend money in ways that stimulate the economy. Even the tax cuts do that to some degree. So yes, the option available in the current circumstances is to accept the bill or reject it. Er, I guess just accept it, now.
I'm sure you ranted as much about the rush to pass the USA Patriot Act.
Oops, sorry VC. Refreshed the page but didn't see your post. Pardon my redundancy.
No problem, totally agree. I would like to know specific examples of bad spending in the bill and don't understand why the news can't obtain and report that information. There's really no excuse.
Makes sense to me. Only the GOP and their media and civilian fans seem to see it this way;
Attack unspecified parts of the bill as no good. When asked to be more specific, refuse.
Demand that those supporting the bill, or any of these "mystery parts" that were "hung on the Xmas tree" (the ones that those opposed to them won't specify) explain how these parts will be beneficial.
It's apparently up to supporters of the bill to guess which parts the complainers don't like, and explain those parts to the complainers.
so if you give your home handyman say a $100, and he comes back with $2 it isn't up to him to explain where the $98 went? you're just a complainer if you ask him to explain? got it.
"Give"? What are you a commie?
If my handyman writes an estimate for $100, and I tell him that I think $2.oo of it is unnecessary, do you think he should feel compelled to guess which 2 bucks I'm talking about? Or would it be more reasonable for me to point out the two dollar line item that I don't like?
I love fixing your analogies.
you fixed nothing. are you in favor of the bankers who got all that money last fall in TARP telling you where it went, or is it up to you to point out what you're talking about? It would be nice if you held politicians, who spend your money, to the same standard as greedy CEO's who spend your money. do you?
Yes, I like to see accountability in all of these areas,as most people would. I think you wandered off the path at the beginning of this thread, and are having trouble getting back to the subject.
I was very unhappy, for example, with some of the banks providing huge bonuses to top execs with bailout money. See that? Something specific, I'm not just saying "this bailout money went to some places I don't like! Guess what I don't like, and explain it to me?"
That is what Mathews should have done but Mathews seemed rather ticked himself that there were things in this bill that never should have been there.
Collins' position was - this is a Stimulus bill, appropriations spending doesn't belong in a stimulus bill. The fact that public approval took a nose dive, after the contents of the bill was disclosed, seems to support her position.
Had Mathews asked her about what spending had nothing to do with creating jobs, I think she would have responded with a number of things. Chris has been all over this bill with various guests, so I don't have a problem with his not asking this time.
all Collins would have had to say if Matthews had challenged her is list one or two of things that were cut, check out Victor's link in his post. If anyone here can explain a few of them, and how they stimulate anything, like the ones I listed above, I'd like to hear it.
Collins has not said what spending she thinks has “nothing to do with creating jobs, turning our economy around, or providing relief to the American taxpayers,” so it's had to defend (even if I wanted to) the things that she did not specify.
Public opinion's "nose dive" seems to have been off Bob Hope's ski jump of a schnoz.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/republicans-take-huge-pol_b_165904.html
You provided a link to an article that is obfuscating the facts to support the story. Creamer refers to a Gallup poll where 80% of voters felt that passing an economic stimulus proposal was important or very important. That the public wants an economic stimulus package is a separate issue, the issue here is whether this stimulus bill does what voters expect it to do. On the latter issue, the president lacks the support.
A new Rasmussen poll found that 62% of voters want the stimulus bill to include more tax cuts and less spending. More shocking for you might be that 42% of democrats agreed with republicans on the bill.
I watched Matthews the night before talking about the stimulus package with some right wing hack and he took the guy to the woodshed. I think with these brief interviews he doesn't ask as many probing questions. But since I've seen him ask more at other times I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
I don't know about that. When you consider the hookers, the drug dealers, the cops paid off to keep mum... those CEO parties can be a real economic stimulus. True, those folks won't make enough to keep from losing their homes to foreclosure which will drive down area real estate values, but still...
Tweety bought himself a lot of goodwill from me when he asked Rep John Feehery if he wanted to blow a kiss to Rush Limbaugh the other night.
Excuse me sir, are you lost?
Oh yes it will. That's why gold is down over 5 bucks in 1 hour.
I prefer to look at the 10 minute intervals of fluctuations in precious metals to gauge the effect on the economy. I just don't have the attention span to analyze your one hour or two day marathons.
gold was up 30, and ended up 23. the drop was caused by the announcement that the imf is going to sell 403 tonnes of gold. this plan will do caca. CACA, except drive my gold stocks higher.
I think it takes the stuffing off the jet-setting financial mover & shaker costume when you use the word "caca".