About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Times falsely claimed CBO "estimated that the full cost of" recovery bill "will reach $3.2 trillion by 2019"

February 17, 2009 11:11 am ET
image

SUMMARY: A Washington Times editorial falsely claimed that the Congressional Budget Office "estimated that the full cost of [the economic recovery] bill ... will reach $3.2 trillion by 2019." In fact, more than half of that $3.2 trillion figure comes from the cost of permanently extending more than 20 provisions in the recovery bill, which the bill does not do, as CBO director Douglas Elmendorf has noted.

38 Comments

A February 17 Washington Times editorial falsely claimed that "[t]he nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the full cost of [the economic recovery] bill, including its $348 billion debt service and the out-year financing, will reach $3.2 trillion by 2019." In fact, more than half of that $3.2 trillion figure comes from the cost of permanently extending more than 20 provisions in the recovery bill, which the bill does not do. CBO did not include those costs in its cost estimate of the bill; rather, in his response to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who requested that CBO estimate the cost of permanently extending those provisions, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf noted: "As specified in H.R. 1 as passed, those provisions would either explicitly expire or would specify appropriations only for a limited number of years (usually 2009 and 2010)."

The CBO has estimated that the recovery bill as passed by Congress will cost $787,242,000. In addition to including approximately $1.7 trillion to permanently extend programs that the recovery bill does not authorize to be extended, the $3.2 trillion figure cited by the Times also includes $745 billion in interest costs, which as Elmendorf noted, are not included in CBO scorekeeping.

From Elmendorf's letter responding to Ryan:

As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated the impact of permanently extending more than 20 of the provisions contained in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as passed by the House of Representatives. As specified in H.R. 1 as passed, those provisions would either explicitly expire or would specify appropriations only for a limited number of years (usually 2009 and 2010).

CBO estimates that H.R. 1, as passed by the House of Representatives, would increase budget deficits by about $820 billion over the 2009-2019 period; we estimate that permanently extending the programs you identified would increase the cumulative deficit over that period by another $1.7 trillion (see attached table).

As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office has also estimated the costs of debt service that would result from enacting the bill with these extensions. Such costs are not included in CBO's cost estimates for individual pieces of legislation and are not counted for Congressional scorekeeping purposes for such legislation. If the specified provisions of H.R. 1 are continued, under CBO's current economic assumptions and assuming that none of the direct budgetary effects of the legislation are offset by future legislation, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase the government's interest costs by a total of about $745 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

The Washington Times editorial also repeated the debunked claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi included a provision in the economic recovery bill to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse. The Times wrote: "The most insulting piece of it was a modest $30 million House Speaker Nancy Pelosi inserted to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse, a tiny rodent indigenous to the San Francisco coast -- an obvious earmark in a bill that Mr. Obama said with a straight face would be 'earmark free.' " As Media Matters has repeatedly noted, even the House Republican leadership aide from whom the claim reportedly originated acknowledged that the bill does not contain any language directing funds to San Francisco wetlands or the salt marsh harvest mouse living in them.

From the February 17 Washington Times editorial:

The $787 billion economic stimulus package that Congress passed Friday, with the support of no House Republicans and only three GOP senators, is a hideous caricature of what its sponsors promised. It was originally advertised by President Barack Obama as something that would create or save 3.5 million jobs and would be timely, targeted, and temporary. The final package clearly flunked the latter two descriptions - it was 1,073 pages of scattergun spending, with much of it extending for a decade - and it offers a "cure" to the jobs hemorrhaging that may be far worse than the disease.

Before Mr. Obama has even submitted his first budget later this month, he and congressional Democrats have increased spending for multiple programs that will be in place for the next 10 years before expiring - a multiyear practice virtually unheard of in American politics that may cost $2 trillion more to fund. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the full cost of this bill, including its $348 billion debt service and the out-year financing, will reach $3.2 trillion by 2019.

[...]

The most insulting piece of it was a modest $30 million House Speaker Nancy Pelosi inserted to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse, a tiny rodent indigenous to the San Francisco coast - an obvious earmark in a bill that Mr. Obama said with a straight face would be "earmark free."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 17, 2009 11:25 am ET)
         

      It's one thing for MMfA to argue a matter of opinion or a very two-sided issue, but the Wash. Times, WSJ and other right-leaning pubs aren't making any headway with their ideological stance on the stimulus bill, so they've resorted to flat-out lies, misleading statements, etc. Classy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (February 17, 2009 11:36 am ET)
           

        what do you expect from Rupert Murdoch and his wall street journal, new york post and everything else? the guy is inextricibly intertwined with the neo cons. i mean he doesnt own the washington times......yet

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 17, 2009 11:41 am ET)
             

          Not sure if I agree with your assertion about neo-cons...my impression of neo-cons is that they're more closely aligned with a hawkish, statist US (I'm avoiding "fascist" here) and probably love to see the government giving money to big corporations.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by thejbomb65 (February 17, 2009 12:25 pm ET)
               

            you are correct. and since the neo cons are in charge of the party and since such publications as the Times are spewing their ideas. that is why i said what i said

            Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 17, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
             

          If possible, I think the dingbat who owns the Washington Times may be even more dangerous than Murdoch.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 17, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
           

        MMFA doersn't " arque ' the matters. It reports and we get to to do that.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by thejbomb65 (February 18, 2009 8:42 am ET)
             

          hey wolf um little mispelling there lol. though is you were trying to say Arqa (a middle eastern city that was part of the First Crusade) thats cool too.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 18, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
               

            when they get a spellchecker at the source ( the keyboard ) this will end. Until then, enjoy my bloopers.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (February 17, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
         

      Day 1 - -268, guess Wall Street has great confidence in this package. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 17, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
           

        Like we should trust Wall Street's judgement on ANY F***ING THING.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (February 17, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
             

          They're just spoiled brats who are stomping their feet and holding their breath because since their decadent life of luxury has turned out to be based on lies and fraud, common folk want to do something about it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 17, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
               

            Do you think employment will rise if publicly-traded companies continue to lose value?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (February 17, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
                 

              Probably not.  Sucks, doesn't it?  I'm just glad we didn't let Numbnuts Bush put our Social Security in there.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (February 17, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
                 

              I guess they should start building what we want instead of building what they want. Capitalism kinda sucks that way.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by fmbanker87 (February 17, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
         

      why would you defend this stupid bill.  investors voted with their money today, and sent the market down 300 points.  hooray for obama.  he's done more damage in three weeks that most could do in a lifetime.  what a loser.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (February 17, 2009 5:13 pm ET)
           

        As someone said ealier: F*** Wall Street.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (February 17, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
           

        The market ended lower in 2008 than what it started at in 2001. But thats of no concern to you or any other right thinking(sic) Hamerican, coming as it did from republican guidance.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 17, 2009 6:22 pm ET)
           

        Did he get 4,200 American soldiers killed for no good reason?  I must have missed it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fmbanker87 (February 17, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
             

          i disagree with your premise, but he will get them killed in afghanistan.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (February 17, 2009 7:18 pm ET)
               

            Wow, 22% of the entire afghan forces will be killed because of Obama! Quite a feat considering the current death count is way lower...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by oscar the grouch (February 17, 2009 7:50 pm ET)
                 

              I hear there may be up to 30,000 more American troops headed to Afghanistan.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (February 17, 2009 7:58 pm ET)
                   

                I saw 10,000 today which is why I'm saying 22% - basically double what's there now.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by oscar the grouch (February 17, 2009 8:43 pm ET)
                     

                  The article I read mentioned both figures, so I guess only time will tell.

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (February 17, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
           

        Let's do a comparison, shall we?

        Obama -300 points

        Bush - 3700+ points

        Hmmm, looks like your claim may be a tad off...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (February 17, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
         

      And again with the mouse thing...the cons are mouse obsessed.  They find phantom mice everywhere, haunting their stimulus dreams.  They leave their mouse-phobic droppings in as many media outlets as possible, & hope that their fear mongering and nastiness will turn their right-wing swamp into a fertile field. 

      inside photo

      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (February 17, 2009 7:03 pm ET)
         

      So much for that public backlash against congress that the GOP warned us about...

      congress_approval.gif

      Imagine how much higher it would be if we could weed out the reaction to republicans from that chart?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 17, 2009 7:58 pm ET)
           

        Not much if it's consistent with the historical approval record.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (February 17, 2009 7:14 pm ET)
         

      Posted by congero6189599

      REPLY »

      This slightly off topic but I found this on Washington Monthly, and couldn't help but notice how what MB was saying has been picked up and parroted by the certain conservatives here. Anyway, check it out:"

      IDIOCY WATCH.... A friend passed along an item from the weekend, with an audio clip of Michele Bachmann chatting with a conservative talk-show host in Minnesota. In the ongoing debate as to which member of Congress is the single most ridiculous, this interview is very compelling evidence that Bachmann is, at a minimum, near the front of the pack.

      The whole interview is about 13 minutes long, but it's worth listening to, if only to appreciate just how truly disturbed some far-right members of Congress have become.

      Bachmann "explained" to the host and Minnesota audience:

      * ACORN is "under federal indictment for voter fraud," but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN "$5 billion." (In reality, ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn't mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)

      * many members of Congress have "a real aversion to capitalism."

      * the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."

      * the recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds. Bachmann doesn't think this will work because, as she put it, "We're running out of rich people in this country."

      * the "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years." When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama's non-existent plan is an "anti-constitutional move."

      There's no point in trying to fact-check such unhinged stupidity, but I should note that none of this is in anyway grounded in reality. I should also note that we're not talking about some strange nut screaming on a street corner; this is all coming from an elected member of Congress.

      At one point, Bachmann told the host, "We are literally losing our country."

      Congresswoman, you've literally lost something, but I don't think it's your country.

      Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

      Posted Tuesday February 17, 2009 7:04:17 PM EST / Flag this comment

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (February 18, 2009 8:46 am ET)
           

        she isnt the most ridiculous......she is the front runner for the Least Stable Member of the House. its between her and Steve King. i mean Bachmann is the one who went on Hardball tried on the hat of Joe McCarthy, and got lambasted for it. then tried to lie about what she said, then she said the whole thing was an urban legend. real winner there

        Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (February 17, 2009 7:54 pm ET)
         

      And we are supposed to believe all the programs in the stimulus package will disappear in 2012?  Don't know whether the cost will be $3.2 trillion, but it will be a whole lot more than $1 trillion, and I wouldn't be surprised (if I'm still around) that it didn't approach $5 trillion.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (February 17, 2009 8:01 pm ET)
           

        Well, if GDP increases PDQ and exports outnumber imports and more jobs means more money available to spend and this bill makes all that happen and the sky is blue tomorrow and puxtapawny bill sees his shadow and, and, and....

        Awww, Jesus Christo, I'm tired of speculating what if. How about we just wait and see what really happens? ;)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (February 17, 2009 8:50 pm ET)
             

          Aw, it's a lot more fun to speculate, because I could hit the right number and be known as an expert (and I could win PowerBall this week).  If the GDP grows at a great rate in the next 10 years, $3.2 trillion will be but a trifle (and that would be a good thing). I honestly hope this thing works, what with all we have invested in it, but only time will tell ;>).

          Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (February 18, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
           

        And we are supposed to believe all the programs in the stimulus package will disappear in 2012?

        You can believe whatever you want.  Why stop at five trillion dollars?  Go to infinity.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.