About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Scarborough still citing $23 trillion number, even after he "checked" into it

July 23, 2009 9:27 am ET

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.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Despite claiming that he "went and checked" the source of the figure, Joe Scarborough again advanced the falsehood that the total cost of TARP is $23 trillion.

12 Comments

On July 23, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough continued to advance the falsehood that the "bailouts" have a price tag of $23 trillion, claiming that he "went and checked" the source of the figure, and the source was "[t]he United States Congress. That's their number." In fact, the source of the figure Scarborough cited, a report by Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (SIGTARP) Neil Barofsky, itself said, "[T]he actual potential for losses is likely to be lower." The SIGTARP report added, "In certain cases, programs included have been canceled or repaid; however, they are still included in this table (SIGTARP's intent is to represent all support programs created)." Moreover, Scarborough had been informed the previous day that the $23 trillion figure is a "meaningless nonsense number."

The SIGTARP report also stated: "[S]ome of the programs have been discontinued or even, in some cases, not utilized. As such, these total potential support figures do not represent a current total, but the sum total of all support programs announced since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007."

Additionally, New York Times reporter Floyd Norris reported that in an interview, Barofsky said:

"We're not suggesting that we're are looking at a potential loss to the government of $23 trillion," he said. "Our goal is to bring transparency, to put things in context."

Asked what he thought the maximum total cost could be, he replied that it was not his job to estimate that, and declined to give a figure.

In its quarterly report, SIGTARP -- an independent agency within the Treasury Department -- used Congressional Budget Office numbers and cited other congressional sources to calculate some but not all of the components that went into the $23 trillion figure.

On July 22, Scarborough stated that he "read yesterday somewhere that the bailouts are now coming in at a price tag of around $23 trillion." Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein later told Scarborough that $23 trillion is a "meaningless nonsense number." Scarborough responded, "So, Steven, there's nothing to worry about then. ... [Y]ou know what I'm going to do? I'm going to go to the beach for the next week and not worry about anything. Don't worry, be happy, right?"

During the July 23 segment, Scarborough said, "And also, one other follow-up. I went and checked that $23 trillion number because I felt badly because Steven said that I was being cynical by putting that out there. So I was wondering what hyper-charged, right-wing birther site came up with that number. You know who did it? The United States Congress. That's their number." Later, after co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Steven Pearlstein was really debunking some of your concerns," Scarborough said, "[A]gain, I found out last night, looking back at the number, the $23 trillion, that was Congress' estimate."

From the July 23 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: Forty percent of the GDP this year is going to be spent on the government, the most since World War II. And also, one other follow-up. I went and checked that $23 trillion number --

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, with Steven Pearlstein yesterday.

SCARBOROUGH: -- because I felt badly because Steven said that I was being cynical by putting that out there. So I was wondering what hyper-charged, right-wing birther site came up with that number.

BRZEZINSKI: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: You know who did it? The United States Congress. That's their number.

WILLIE GEIST (co-host): They're whack jobs.

BRZEZINSKI: All righty.

SCARBOROUGH: They are. They're cynical. They're cynical.

[...]

BRZEZINSKI: This is The Wall Street Journal, "Obama needs a to move to the middle," Michael Boskin: "The administration and Congress are exploiting a crisis atmosphere to promote a breathtakingly expensive big-government spending agenda, mostly to be paid for later. The trillions of dollars of deficits will eventually force much higher income or payroll taxes or national value-added tax similar to those in Europe, or severe inflation."

Which is something, I mean, we've been talking about here in terms of deficits; and it was interesting, our guest yesterday Steven Pearlstein was really debunking some of your concerns, saying the numbers --

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I -- my concerns, you know, it was -- again, I found out last night, looking back at the number, the $23 trillion, that was Congress' estimate.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: David Walker, there is, and there has been, this effort over the past six months to pass stimulus packages and huge budget-busting budgets and now health care by -- what do they say? -- exploiting a crisis atmosphere.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mk3872 (July 23, 2009 9:37 am ET)
      2  
      I think what Scarborough means is that he "checked" with his management to see if it was OK to keep flogging this "story" even though the numbers have nothing do with the real world ...

      Rule #1 on cable "news": no need to let inconvenient facts cloud an otherwise useful news theme ...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (July 23, 2009 9:51 am ET)
      1  
      The only way $23 trillion gets on the table is if everything single thing fails within the TARP bailout plan. And the chances of that happening are absolutely minimal.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by seeryer (July 23, 2009 11:18 am ET)
        1  
        Actually the $23 trillion figure is nothing but a sum total of all support programs announced since 2007 that are related to the financial crisis. The number is not meant to be used as a hammer to pound over the president's head. Pearlstein is absolutely correct, the number is a meaningless number. It is sort of like saying 500,000 people have announced they are coming to DC to protest Obama but only 50,000 show up and the press repots that "500,000 people are protesting the president's policies in DC today". Meaning, they simply pulled the highest number they could find and ran with it. It is exactly what the media is doing over the $23 trillion figure.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 10:35 am ET)
      1  
      The Wall Street Journal, "Obama needs a to move to the middle," Michael Boskin: "The administration and Congress are exploiting a crisis atmosphere to promote a breathtakingly expensive big-government spending agenda, mostly to be paid for later. The trillions of dollars of deficits will eventually force much higher income or payroll taxes or national value-added tax similar to those in Europe, or severe inflation."

      I found this eerily similar to September 12, 2001. Of course, nobody was naysaying the creation of Homeland Security. Judging just by body count alone, the lack of insurance kills thousands more every single year than the terrorists did on 9-11. So, who -really- cares about the American people?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 23, 2009 10:44 am ET)
      1  
      The next thing Scarborough should check into is an institution.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TotalRecall (July 23, 2009 11:51 am ET)
         
      Neil Barofsky said that under a worse-case scenario that it could cost $23.7 trillion for bailouts. That is allocated money, not spent money. According to Barofsky, he got the numbers directly from the Treasury Department. Here's the breakdown...

      • $6.8 trillion from the Federal Reserve

      • $2.3 trillion from the FDIC

      • $7.4 trillion from Treasury

      • $7.2 trillion in other government programs

      Considering that the Treasury or Congress is not keeping an accurate account of the expenses, I wouldn't call these numbers a "meaningless, nonsense number" like Pearlstein said or "ridiculous" and "inflated" like a Treasury Department spokesman said.

      How much have they really spent? At least $4 trillion, but no one really knows for sure. That's the point Barofsky was making...we need greater accountability of the money spent.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 23, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
      1  
      Just because he checked the source doesn't mean he isn't still a moron.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 23, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
      1  
      So by Joe Scar's logic...

      If the bank lends me $150K (at market interest) to buy a house, that COSTS the back $150K. Yeah... I'd love to see this guy do a balance sheet.

      So if I buy something for $200 and later sell it for $150... did I MAKE $150? Did I LOSE $200?

      Niether, you say? IDK... It seems like one of those would be true under the Joe Scar rulz of acounting.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (July 23, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
        1  
        Actually Joe's problem is on both the income statement and balance sheet. Loans of assets are reflected on a bank's balance sheet as receivables (amounts owed to the bank) and have no income impact whatsoever unless they become uncollectible, which is actually not true either since most entities estimate uncollectible accounts (at year end) as part of the normal process of matching revenues and expenses. So in reality, the income impact of future uncollectible loans in already incorporated into this year's income statement.

        Bottom line: Joe has not a clue what he is talking about.

        Randy
        Report Abuse
    • Author by John Paradox (July 23, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
         
      from the article: The SIGTARP report also stated: "[S]ome of the programs have been discontinued or even, in some cases, not utilized.

      So Neocons keep 'unused' programs in the Estimate
      however,

      The Cheney Assassination Squad was (allegedly) not utilized (as the programs in the SIGTARP) but is not considered something appropriate to include in the Bush/Cheney cabal's plans.
      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.