The Hill, UPI uncritically reported false GOP claim that Dems steered recovery money to ACORN
SUMMARY: The Hill and United Press International forwarded the frequently repeated Republican falsehood that Democrats steered money to ACORN in the recovery bill, with The Hill writing that Rep. Dave Camp "took a particular shot at ACORN, the controversial grassroots group that has lobbied for Democratic candidates, saying that the stimulus bill unfairly benefited the group." In fact, the act does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding.
In a February 21 article, The Hill forwarded the frequently repeated Republican falsehood that Democrats steered money to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Discussing Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)'s response to President Obama's weekly address, staff writer J. Taylor Rushing uncritically reported: "Camp took a particular shot at ACORN, the controversial grassroots group that has lobbied for Democratic candidates, saying that the stimulus bill unfairly benefited the group." Similarly, a February 21 report by United Press International quoted Camp saying, "Despite promises of openness and transparency, it was written in a backroom and rushed through Congress so quickly that few -- if any -- members of Congress read it," before uncritically reporting that Camp "cited 'billions that could go to scandal-plagued groups like ACORN' -- a grassroots voter registration group often accused by Republicans of perpetrating fraud -- as an example of lack of oversight."
In making the claim that the recovery bill steers money to ACORN, Republicans have pointed to a provision in the bill that would, in the law's final version, appropriate $2 billion "for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008." In fact, neither that provision nor any other provision in the act mentions ACORN or otherwise singles it out for funding.
Moreover, ACORN has denied that it is eligible for "neighborhood stabilization funds" and has stated that it does not intend to apply for them. After House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) office issued press releases claiming that the recovery bill "makes groups like ACORN eligible for a $4.19 billion pot of money for 'neighborhood stabilization activities,' " ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis called the claim an "obfuscation" that "was picked up across the right-wing echo chamber and has been used as a fig leaf by conservatives in their attempts to justify their opposition to progressive economic policies." Lewis further stated: "We have not received neighborhood stabilization funds, have no plans to apply for such funds, and didn't weigh in on the pending rule changes." Lewis also wrote on the Huffington Post, "[L]et's be clear. ACORN isn't getting any of this money. Since it is set aside for non-profit housing developers to help purchase, rehab, and resell foreclosed properties, we aren't eligible for it in the first place."
As Media Matters documented, The Hill previously reported that ACORN is a "beneficiar[y] of the stimulus package" and uncritically reported the false suggestion by National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Ken Spain that the stimulus bill includes "a $4.2 billion bailout" for ACORN. Other outlets and media figures who have forwarded the false claim that the recovery legislation steers money to ACORN include the San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Times, Fox News' Dick Morris, Fox News' Karl Rove, Fox News' Steve Doocy, Fox News' Carl Cameron, CNN's Lou Dobbs (on two occasions), and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.
From the February 21 Hill article:
The GOP response came from Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, who accused Democrats of "railroading" the stimulus plan through Congress and adding to an "already lousy" spending record.
"Despite promises of openness and transparency, it was written in a back room and rushed through Congress so quickly that few -- if any -- members of Congress read it," Camp said.
Camp took a particular shot at ACORN, the controversial grassroots group that has lobbied for Democratic candidates, saying that the stimulus bill unfairly benefited the group.
Camp said Obama and congressional Democrats have a chance to correct their oversight as early as Monday's Fiscal Responsibility Summit at the White House, which will focus on the fiscal health of the Medicare and Social Security programs.
Camp called the summit "an important step" in determining whether the president will work with Republicans, saying the same of the budget Obama is likely to release at the end of the week.
"Republicans genuinely want to work with the president to solve those problems -- in a responsible way that does not burden our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt," Camp said. "If he is serious about dealing with the tough issues and getting spending under control, the budget will show it."
From the February 21 UPI article:
U.S. Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, delivered the GOP response to U.S. President Barack Obama's weekly radio and Internet address by blasting the process by which the Democratic-led Congress "railroaded" the measure.
"Despite promises of openness and transparency, it was written in a backroom and rushed through Congress so quickly that few -- if any -- members of Congress read it," Camp said. He cited "billions that could go to scandal-plagued groups like ACORN" -- a grassroots voter registration group often accused by Republicans of perpetrating fraud -- as an example of lack of oversight.
Camp said Republicans were looking forward to Monday's Fiscal Responsibility Summit at the White House as a chance to urge Obama and congressional Democrats to "solve those problems ... in a responsible way that does not burden our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt."
Well, at least this clown says that the bill could steer money to corrupt groups like ACORN, giving him at least the veneer of truthfulness.
I'd like to applaud his honesty and help him out a bit. The bill could also steer money to corrupt groups like Congressional Republicans. Or it could steer money to corrupt groups supported by fat drooling moron radio hosts who want America to fail. Or to groups like the SS, in that their members wear clothes. The possibilities for abuse are endless!
A couple of Mark Twain quotes are applicable here:
The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain't so.
And
One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat only has nine lives
Great quotes, j.j. Twain really nails it.
Hey GF, actually I think I could write those two quotes in just about every thread here, and they'd be applicable. The first one is especailly saient to not only the media entities that proffer the untruths, but the wilfully ignorant that seem to delight in them, as evidenced by some of our very own posters (who shall not be mentioned by name since everyone knows who they are) :-)
And the second quote is part and parcel of the right wing echo chamber that continues to catapult the propaganda until it becomes conventional wisdom, at least in some people's minds.
Excellent quotes. Twain was brilliant.
I'm with you in spirit, of course, jjamele2280, but methinks you give Camp too much credit for his functionally subjunctive "could." here is a link to Camp's latest pedaling of this canard in his response to Obama's Saturday, February 21 video/radio address.
And here is what Camp says at 1:13ff.
"billions that could go to scandal plagued groups like Acorn."
The surface (veneer, if you will) grammatical interpretation of that phrase is that billions could go to Acorn itself. Which is, of course, preposterous.
If challenged, Camp would no doubt say: "Oh no, I meant that billions have been earmarked in the stimulus bill for service providers such as Acorn. I did not mean to suggest that Acorn itself could get billions.
To which the appropriate response is: "Well, Dave, why didn't you say so, then, rather than smarmily resorting to a smearing -- and false -- innuendo? Or should we just cut you a pass because you're grammatically challenged?"
The stimulus bill was made smaller to win GOP support. It didn't. Spending was removed and tax cuts added to win GOP support. It didn't. Now billions of dollars will be poured into states lead by Republican Senators who will use "I didnt vote for it" as their re-election cry next year.
The Democrats needed to create a downside to voting "No." They should have gone back and yanked out everything that was put in to win GOP votes which did not materialize. And they should have put back all the things the GOP objected to, including the millions to re-sod the National Mall. We should have had the courage to own this thing.
But wait -- the GOP had plenty of input to the bill -- witness the percentage of tax cuts Obama and Democrats accepted to appease them. So, Democrats bargained in good faith, unlike what happened when the Republicans were in charge. Then the Republicans, who negotiated in bad faith, still got what they wanted as part of the bill, then they voted no on it, and then they went home to claim credit for what they voted against. If anyone's partisan here, we know who it is -- not Democrats.
And the self same concern troll media that praises bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship also praises Republicans for displaying unity and sticking together in opposition -- they get to have it both ways, these Republicans.
One idea I heard on Nancy Skinner was to votes on each item in the bill by Congressional district. If the member from that district votes no, the Democrats vote no, kill the funding to that member's district, and then reallocate it to other districts in the same state that voted yes. It'll never happen, but it would be awesome if it did -- to put those Republicans on the record in their opposition.
So let me get this straight, if a member voted no , presumably a repub, you would deny the democrats in that district the benefit of the funding. Does that really seem like a good idea or fair. It seems spiteful and childish to me, Nancy Skinner should rethink her position.
Well, here's what I propose.
Allow all Senators that voted for the bill to receive funding for that entire state, except for the districts of the House Republicans and 7 House Democrats who voted against it.
Now, in a case where a state may have 1 Democratic and 1 Republican Senator, and the Republican Senator voted against it, then just like before, no Republican district shall receive it (as well as the Democratic districts whose representative voted against it).
Then, assuming this bill works, no Republican district (and 7 Democratic Districts) will receive the benefits, and then the voters will boot out the fools that voted against the stimulus bill (Democrats included).
You know, I actually wouldn't mind letting all districts benefit from this if it weren't for these people who are sofa king dumb that they will take credit for something that will benefit their area that they didn't vote for!
The GOP didn't negotiate the tax cuts. They were already there.
I agree the GOP was partisan.
Your last paragraph would be a completely terrible idea. Get real.
Wow, bruce, you really did a great job dissecting 1st Republic's idea and demonstrating why it would be "bad."
Oh wait, no you didn't. You just spewed.
And you're wrong, of course: there are more tax cuts in the stimulus bill than the Democrats wanted because the GOP insisted on them. Just like there's less spending because the Republicans insisted a lot be taken out. YOU "get real."
The idea was so bad that it didn't need dissecting. Seriously, withholding stimulus money for those who voted against it? What country is this? Talk about holding people hostage for their votes.
And I can't find any corroberation to your claims about the stimulus, I would be happy to admit my error if you can show me what you are talking about. This article doesn't say what you are claiming happened.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus
You'll have to show me the money.
YES, I'm completely in favor of exposing hypocrisy.
You shouldn't get to ask for specific items to be in the bill, get them included, then vote against the bill, then tell the public at large how awful the bill is, but tell the local public that votes for you about the money you brought home.
If you're really against the bill, then you offer alternatives and/or you vote no. You don't get to be both for it and against it, depending on which audience you're trying to impress.
I have no problem exposing and pointing out which politicians did this. That is a completely different matter than withholding funding after the fact based on how peole voted.
Cousin Brucie is still pushin' his bogus "sensible" gop act. The tax cuts weren't "already there", Brucie.
As with the Great Depression and the first reagan/bush recessions and deficits, brain-dead Gop incompetence got us into this fix in the first place. Now you loons are moaning about the cost of cleaning up your mess and you want to be able to take the Stimulus Funds while complaining about it at the same time.
We're in this fix because for the first time in US History, shrub started an unnecessary war in Iraq while cutting taxes for the rich at the same time with predictably disastrous results.
There's still no wmd and Iraq is still an unnecesary disaster.
There were tax cuts in the original bill. Reports have the original bill at 34% tax cuts and 66% spending, and the final bill at 37% tax cuts and 63% spending.
The reason there were as many tax cuts in the original bill as there were was to make Republicans happy. They weren't in there because Obama and the Democrats thought that was the best way to stimulate the economy.
Because the Republicans wanted tax cuts, and lots of them, when the bill was crafted, it had lots of them in there.
The original bill had more tax cuts in it just to placate the Republicans. They still didn't bite.
Perhaps they were. It was still Democrats who put them in their originally. That was their call to do it that way on the front end.
I haven't heard Obama say he is dissatified with the package in total. He campaigned on a middle class tax cut anyways.
Dems don't care about whether republicans vote for it or not. They care about WHEN it fails without republican support, they have no one to blame. Everyone knows that a democrat will never take responsibility for screwing everything up.
The house did cut down the size of tax cuts and increased spending. The GOP finally got some guts to say this bill is not stimulus, it's porkulus.
Where is Nancy Pelosi and her "bi-partisan" attitude. GONE. Just like every other promise a dem makes. They need to pay off groups like ACORN and pay off unions in order to try to keep control. Things will get much worse and we have the DEMS to thank for that.
They tried to be bi-partisan but the GOP wouldn't. I don't remember "bi-partisanship" when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.
Oh, and where is the evidence that the Democratic party is "paying off" unions and ACORN? That has been widely debunked.
Obviously The Hill and Republicans are joined at the hip in reporting thses lies (was going to say false information but now they know they are lies) and no amount of forwarding fact checks to them seems to phase their continued us of the lies. Sad to say, this behavior is why so many of us moderates have reregistered as Democrats. The Republoicans under the Bush leadership just got too, too rotten for any morally honest person to be assiciated with their party. Sad, sad, the Eisenhower days are forever gone from that party and all they have left are the rigid wingnuts. Before it is all over, I expect the stupid Republicans to chase off the two wonderful lady Republican Senators and the one R male Senator who voted for the Stimulus package. How wonderful to see that at least 3 Republcans put the needs of the nation before their own partisan tricks. So I say, give a bunch to the other Republican's opponants next election cycle.
The Republican Party is now the Party of NO. If the GOP continues to be led by the sideshow hucksters such as Limbaugh and the loony blogs, they will become the
"PARTY OF NO LONGER"
They seem to now delight in saying NO just like any two year old. That's where my mind went when you mentioned NO. ;-)
I hear you. My parents were staunch Republicans during the Eisenhower era. They thought Nixon was hounded unfairly by the press. (I voted for Nixon, by the way.)
Later when I deprogrammed myself, found out just how corrupt Nixon was...but there were still some honest Republicans around, so kept an open mind....until Reagan and the horrible fakery surrounding him. I'd like to see honest debate. It would be healthy for our country. But that ain't happening right now.
"...took a particular shot at ACORN, the controversial grassroots group that has lobbied for Democratic candidates, saying that the stimulus bill unfairly benefited the group."
See, this is how the media claims to be accurate and objective, but in my view is not truthful. The reporters in this case will tell you that since they accurately reported what Congressman Camp said, their work is done. They will NOT go the additional step of giving you the context by telling you that Camp is either mistaken or lying.
Now to go one step further and demonstrate "balance", a follow up story would look like this: "Congressman Camp says the stimulus bill unfairly benefits ACORN. Media Matters for America says it doesn't. The controversy continues." See, they accurately report what each side SAID, so their work is done. It doesn't matter if one side is right and the other isn't. They're not reporters so much as transcriptionists.
Well said. And WHY is ACORN a "controversaial grassroots group"??? Because they've been targeted and smeared by the GOP.
They're "controversial" because what affects most of our thinking, mass mind, is the compostie pattern of what society wants to accept--also wants us to accept, true or untrue--hook, line and sinker. Too many people are frankly uncomfortable with the idea of an organization that actually helps poor people register to vote, and pushes for affordable housing.
why is everybody complaining about the tax cuts that the repubs got in the bill? From everything I've read or seen it is going to equate to $13/week for the middle class(which I am), on top of that my state is talking about adding .25/gall in additional gas tax so much for my $13? The only tax credits of any value are for car or home buyers which without a job not many people will exercise, and also for the very poor (unemployment being extended,pell grants for education etc).
I understand the democrats anger with the republicans for not accepting the bill, but don't blame its success or failure on tax cuts that aren't really going to the top earners in the country, these tax cuts were promised by Obama on the campaign trail remember Joe the plumber, every one under 250k/yr would see relief. All I'm getting is $13/wk and all it is going to cost me is 7000 in future tax payments
The stimulous bill was not the place for tax cuts that belongs in the budget later this year. The best and only proven way to stimulate an economy is by spending money. Tax cuts do not tend to have anywhere the multiplier effect that spending does. Tax cuts tend to only help those with greed who save not those who need to get money.
Scary as it sounds I think I see the Conlogic...Here goes....
Let's give the wealthy a tax cut so that they can reinvest that money by purchasing stocks at their lowest rate in many years. and if that doesn't work(again), we can give the wealthy another tax cut so that they can reinvest that money by purchasing stocks at their lowest rate in many years. And if that doesn't work(again) we can give the wealthy another tax cut, etc. etc. etc.
No wonder the Cons need to manufacture lies and falsehoods, they can't think. But if we gave the wealthy a tax cut then they can reinvest that money...it is scary living in that world..unless we give a tax cut...HELP ME I'm stuck in ConWorld and I can't get out....it is sooo dark and cold down here.
Hang on we'll getcha a headlamp..and a flamethrower.
How about a tax break first?