At work for new boss, Fox News, Rove understated debt run up by old boss, Bush
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 Fox & Friends Saturday, Karl Rove understated the debt run up by George W. Bush, asserting that there were only "$2.9 trillion in deficits under eight years of Bush." However, the national debt increased by nearly $4.9 trillion during the eight years Bush was in office. Rove's $2.9 trillion figure apparently refers only to "on-budget" deficits, thereby excluding emergency supplemental spending bills used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina relief, and any other "off-budget" spending.
In a March 21 appearance on Fox News' Fox & Friends Saturday, Fox News contributor and former Bush White House senior adviser Karl Rove understated the debt run up by his former boss, asserting that there were only "$2.9 trillion in deficits under eight years of [George W.] Bush." However, according to the Treasury Department, the national debt increased by nearly $4.9 trillion during the eight years Bush was in office, from $5,728,195,796,181.57 on January 22, 2001, to $10,626,877,048,913.08 on January 20, 2009. Rove's $2.9 trillion figure apparently refers only to "on-budget" deficits, thereby excluding emergency supplemental spending bills used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina relief, and any other "off-budget" spending.
Rove has touted the $2.9 trillion figure in his last three weekly Wall Street Journal columns, as well as in a March 1 appearance on ABC's This Week. Two of those instances were particularly egregious, as Rove suggested the $2.9 trillion figure was low given the need to fund the wars and hurricane relief -- when, in fact, emergency supplemental spending on those issues is not included in the $2.9 trillion figure. In his March 5 column, Rove asserted: "Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush's decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina." On This Week, Rove similarly purported to rebut the "suggest[ion] that adding $2.9 trillion to the deficit in eight years with two wars, Katrina, 9-11, and a tech bubble bursting makes us somehow -- the Republicans unable to talk about fiscal responsibility."
During the Fox News discussion, Rove also falsely claimed that President Obama has "call[ed] for government-run health care." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the White House health-care Web page states: "On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes -- government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. President Obama and Vice President Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong."
From the March 21 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Saturday:
ALISYN CAMEROTA (co-host): Karl, is some of this the naïveté of the campaign trail? Do all presidents fall into this trap where they promise the world on the campaign trail, and then they get to Washington -- and it seems as though President Obama is realizing that Washington is harder to change than he anticipated.
ROVE: Well, it is easier to run a campaign than it is to govern, but I think this is more than that. Because most of the time, what we find is, is that people, they get in office and they're going in the same direction and they find they can't go as far as they want to go. In this instance, we've got: "I'm gonna stop earmarks, and I'm gonna wave 'em through. I'm gonna decry $2.9 trillion in deficits under eight years of Bush, and I'm gonna turn around and propose $9 trillion dollars of deficits over the next 10 years. I'm gonna say that government-run health care in the campaign is extreme, and when I get into office, I'm gonna call for government-run health care."
I mean, these aren't issues where President Obama has gotten into office and found that things are harder to do than he wanted to get done, so he's going to have to go in the same direction he wants to go but a slower pace and it's gonna take longer. These are instances where he said one thing on the campaign trail and is going in the opposite direction once he gets in.
DAVE BRIGGS (co-host): Speaking of going the opposite direction, we wanted to ask you about some interesting numbers that you found, where now 15 percent of our country says that they don't identify themselves with any particular religion.
What is your plan to lower the deficit?
I don't have a plan. That's what we elect people for, and I'm not running. I'm sure you're happy to hear that.
What you're seeking is unrealistic. No one is going to produce such a plan.
Then we are done as a society.
No, thanks to the '08 elections, we've still got a chance, brucie. You gops couldn't quite kill us off, brucie.
Bruce,
What are your thoughts concerning Dick Cheney's assertion that, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
the facts demonstrate that was the operating principle of the Bush/Cheney administration.
I would say that deficits don't matter to the extent that you have the ability to grow out of them as we did in the 90's. But those deficits were quite a bit smaller than what we are getting into now. The more debt you pile on, the more difficult it will be to grow out of the problem.
I don't agree with the blanket statement that deficits don't matter under any circumstance.
"I don't agree with the blanket statement that deficits don't matter under any circumstance."
You are a good man (or woman).
I have a plan. Raise taxes on the rich to 60% while auditing defense spending. You'll eliminate the entire national debt in 8 years.
Yea, but if we bring top marginal taxes back to 70% or even 90% like in the 50's and 60's, we might actually be able to have surpluses and then people will see that taxes and government actually work. That's the last thing Republicans want people to see. And reducing the military defense budget? Out of the question for Republicans!
Yea, something has to give and it will definitely not be the 95% of Americans who have been squeezed enough as it is. Cut military defense spending, increase tax on alcohol and cigarettes to help pay for health care, create a national sales tax of 5% and raise the top tax bracket to 50% at the least.....then we will finally be living by our means and paying down the debt and paying for the obligations here at home.
This won't happen though because the U.S givernment is a puppet of the wealthy elite.
Remember that Clinton gave Bush a surplus and in Bush's first budget he submited there was a deficit and he submitted that budget prior to 9-11. So i can not expect anyone in the GOP to ever balance the budget it is just talk from them.
Legalize Pot. End all California's problem in one month; nation in two.
Yeah, thank goodness for small favors.
Brucie left his plan in his other pants pocket with his case, his clue, the 12 billion shrub can't account for in Iraq and the 32 billion he can't account for in Kabul.
He does, however, have an endless supply of excuses for shrub and the gops and reasons why the cluelessness of the past eight years are Obama and the Dems' fault.
The difference between the amounts that Bush added to our deficit and what Obama will likely add to the deficit is that Bush's additions were 100% discrentionary and avoidable. Obama has to spend us out of the recession, and clean up the two wars that Bush started.
Obama doesn't deserve any blame at this point in time for increasing the deficit. It's too bad that the solutions our nation has to have at this point in time will add so much to the National Debt, but there is no alternative.
Bruce's demand to have a different solution is unreasonable and unfair.
And once again, brucie whines about the cost of cleaning up the toxic spill bush and the gops left us.
That's what happens when incompetent gops run the show.
As with the Depression they gave us, gop messes are expensive and they take a long time to clean up. Certainly, a helluva lot longer than the two months Obama's been in office.
Then again, you clowns were blaming him for the latest bush recession and economic meltdown before he was even elected.
Shrub had a surplus when he started. He also had an incompetent, cluelessly-corrupt, gop rubber-stamp Congress for the first six years when he doubled the national debt, lied us into a war, almost lost New Orleans as he botched Katrina and ran the economy into the ground with his brain-dead policies.
Jeezus, can anyone still defend Bush Co.???? Can't you people think for yourselves, bruce? Can't you do anything but parrot what Faux Noise and Rush tell you?
The fact that we started from a statement, "ONLY"$2.9 trillion" tells you the mess we have to clean up. ONLY 2.9!
I think our President, who has included military spending etc. now in telling us our deficit, and who has talked to us LIKE ADULTS, at least understands the sad joke of Rove saying "ONLY."
This link pertains to a LOCAL fox news station, not FNC. MSNBC could not be any more left without looking like a dog chasing his tail! That is OK though, the lefties over at MSNBC are consitantly beat in the ratings by the hard hitters like Sponge Bob! While FNC is consitantly at the TOP of the ratings, obviously SOMEBODY is watching! Seriously, Sponge Bob!!!!!!!
I'd seen this story a few months ago and wondered how we had missed it back in 2004. Note that this is for "broadcasters" which are covered by the FCC. Cable television has fewer restrictions since they don't utilize the public airwaves.
Hey, Rove! You *guys* could've avoided 9/11, Katrina's destruction, AND two wars! Just trying to help you with your *facts*,
Sincerely,
your loyal viewer.
Clinton could have avoided 9/11 if he was'nt too busy with Monica, Katrina could have been avoided if New Orleans was above sea level, and ousting Sadam was a bad thing? Your "facts" are obviously one sided. Obama could look like less of a liar if he would just keep ONE of the promises he made while campaigning! He can't do that though because he is too busy making fun of special needs people and picking basketball brackets!
KKK Karl being asked about anything as if he has good information or advice proves that his listeners live in Bizarro World.
Obama is going to show George how it is done. He is going to leave Bushs numbers in the dust. I remember when folks were up in arms over 500 Million. Now we are hitting Trillions which is insane.
So tell us what YOUR plan is then. And do not regurgitate the lies from Limbaugh et al, sorry, won't work. Give us your original thoughts here.
Karl Rove is living in a fantasy world.
Yeah, at taxpayer expense.
At last! Rove has set himself up on the basis of facts. Numbers can't be denied or fudged. Bush increased federal debt $4.9 trillion, anyway you slice it. It's my understanding that doesn't include the $700 billion TARP passed in September.
This is the first time I've seen ANY Republican acknowledge Bush had any deficits.
Ah,KKKarl, in the immortal words of the body of which you were the brain, you misunderestimated the legacy he left.
Karl Rove lying.....gee, what a surprise.
I didn't think the little creep knew how to do anything else.
Meet the new rove, same as the old rove.
"$2.9 trillion in deficits under eight years of Bush." However, the national debt increased by nearly $4.9 trillion during the eight years Bush was in office."
What's a couple trillion when you're using Republican math?
In my humble opinion, ROVE and the rest of the gang at the FALSE NEWS CHANNEL have all the credibility of a dead rat.
and that is an insult to dead rats.
I love Media Matters work, but I must suggest corrections to this story.
Rove does indeed understate the debt run up by GWB, but your analysis of the numbers is incorrect.
If we consider figures for the debt held by the public as opposed to the national debt (for reasons to be addressed below), Rove’s figure of “2.9 trillion in deficits” can be seen as an oversimplified number with a misleading label. The publically held debt rose by approximately 2.9 trillion dollars from the inauguration of GWB on January 21, 2001 to January 21, 2009. The number is oversimplified because it does not reflect the total increase in national debt; it does not include the money loaned to to the online budget by Social Security and other trust funds, but, unfortunately, this is how modern deficit numbers are reported. More importantly, Rove’s number is deliberately misleading. If “deficits under eight years of Bush” were taken to mean deficits for fiscal years 2002-2009, Bush’s budgets raise the debt held by the public from 3.339 trillion to an estimated 7.193 trillion (CBO January 09), an increase of 3.854 trillion. Rove loves to claim the fiscal 2001 surplus from the final Clinton budget in his Bush numbers and pass responsibility for the estimated 1.186 trillion dollar (pre-stimulus) deficit for fiscal 2009 to Obama.
Now to your analysis of the national debt and the assumption that “on-budget” deficits exclude emergency supplemental spending bills. Emergency bills are not “off-budget” spending in terms of reporting actual budget deficits, they are instead a way to hide such spending from official budget estimates,thus excluding such spending from consideration under pay-go and sequester rules that govern the budget process. Spending for the wars and Katrina are “on-budget” and contribute to the debt held by the public, whereas trust funds create surpluses that are “off-budget,” yet contribute to the to overall national debt as debt held in intragovernmental accounts.
Emergency Spending: As provided in the Budget Enforcement Act, a provision of
legislation designated as an emergency by both the President and the Congress. As
a result, this additional spending is not subject to the discretionary caps or the pay
go requirements and thus will not cause a sequester. In addition, emergency legislation
is effectively exempt from Budget Act points of order.
There is no specific criteria in the law for emergency spending. However, the following
criteria were contained in a June 1991 report prepared by the Office of Management
and Budget—as required by Pub. L. No. 102–55 for the determination of
whether to designate spending as an emergency spending:
Necessary expenditure.—an essential or vital expenditure, not one that is
merely useful or beneficial;
Sudden.—quickly coming into being, not building up over time;
Urgent.—pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action;
Unforseen.—not predictable or seen beforehand as a coming need (an emergency
that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly
when normally estimated in advance, would not be ‘‘unforseen’’); and
Not permanent.—the need is temporary in nature.
Federal Debt: Consists of all Treasury and agency debt issues outstanding. Current
law places a limit or ceiling on the amount of debt. Debt subject to limit has
two components: debt held by the government and debt held by the public.
Debt held by the government.—Represents the holdings of debt by federal
trust funds and other special government funds. For example, when a trust
fund is in surplus as is presently the case with Social Security, the law requires
that this surplus be invested in government securities.
Debt held by the public.—Represents the holdings of debt by individuals,
institutions, other buyers outside the federal government, and the Federal Reserve
System. The change in debt held by the public in any given year closely
tracks the unified budget deficit for that year.
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/the_budget_process.pdf