About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Bolling stuffs "Obama's Checkbook" with Bush bailout checks

January 15, 2010 10:35 pm ET — 19 Comments

Eric Bolling presented a chart titled "Obama's Checkbook" which purported to show the Obama administration's "new spending," but in fact included a variety of spending that was actually initiated during the Bush administration. Bolling also claimed that Obama has generated "$0" in revenue, despite citing the "new spending" that would occur if health care reform and cap and trade legislation were to pass, even though those programs actually increase revenues and are deficit reductive, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

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

From the January 15 broadcast of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BOLLING: The federal government certainly likes to spend your and my taxpayer dollars. Recently -- check it out -- they spent $700 billion on TARP, $787 billion on stimulus. Hey, by the way, that stimulus package, those are $400,000 per job -- jobs they're creating. $180 billion is either spent or lent to AIG. Don't forget the $115 billion -- these are all B's -- billion to Fannie and Freddie. $83 billion to cars. We're not going to see a dime of this. Don't forget the $1 trillion on health care, cap and trade, et cetera, et cetera. And this one, this one. Can you get a close-up -- take a look at this one. $60 billion as of last night going to the unions to buy health care votes.

All right. Here's the other side of that. The new revenue. Look at that. Zero. $4 trillion -- we're spending zero new revenue.

Bolling includes $700 billion in "Obama's Checkbook" for TARP -- but Bush signed that check

TARP passed under Bush in October 2008. President Bush signed into law the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program on October 3, 2008.

Bolling includes $180 billion in "Obama's Checkbook" for AIG bailout -- but $150 billion authorized during Bush administration

Fed agrees to lend up to $85 billion to AIG in Sept. 2008. On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Board, with the support of the Treasury Department, authorized the Federal Reserve of New York to lend up to $85 billion to the American International Group (AIG), stating that "in current circumstances, a disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth, and materially weaker economic performance."

Fed increases AIG bailout by $37.8 billion in Oct. 2008. The Federal Reserve Board authorized the increase of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's loan to AIG by $37.8 billion on October 8, 2008.

AIG bailout reaches $150 billion in Nov. 2008. On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department announced a restructuring of AIG's bailout, increasing its total loan package to $150 billion.

Obama administration adds $30 billion to AIG bailout in March 2009. On March 2, 2009, the Treasury Department stated that it would loan up to an additional $30 billion to AIG.

Bolling includes $115 billion in "Obama's Checkbook" for Fannie, Freddie bailout that Bush initiated

Gov't seized Fannie, Freddie in Sept. 2008, pledged up to $200 billion to them. On September 8, 2008, the federal government seized the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Treasury agreed to provide up to $200 billion in capital to the two entities.

Bolling includes $83 billion in "Obama's Checkbook" for GM/Chrysler bailout -- of which Bush allocated $17.4 billion

Bush allocated $17.4 billion to GM and Chrysler in Dec. 2008. On December 19, 2008, President Bush made available $13.4 billion of TARP funds to General Motors and Chrysler and agreed to release an additional $4 billion to G.M. under this plan in February 2009.

Bolling claims "$0" in revenue in "Obama's Checkbook" while including "spending" from deficit-reductive bills

Bolling says Obama spends $1 trillion on health care while providing no new revenues -- but health bills are deficit-reductive. Bolling cites "$1 trillion on health care" among the costs he attributes to "Obama's checkbook," while claiming that his administration has provided no new revenues. But CBO has scored both the House and Senate health care reform bills as deficit-reductive over 10 years.

  • CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. From the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) December 19 cost estimate of the Senate health care reform bill incorporating the manager's amendment:

CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

  • CBO estimated House bill would reduce the federal deficit by $109 billion through 2019. CBO found that the health care reform bill that passed the House "would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period." CBO also found that in the decade after 2019, "the legislation would slightly reduce federal budget deficits ... relative to those projected under current law-with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP [gross domestic product]."

Bolling claims "$0" in revenue in "Obama's Checkbook" while citing "spending" of deficit-reductive cap-and-trade bill. Bolling mentioned "cap and trade" among the Obama administration's purported spending while stating that the Obama administration has provided no new revenues. But in a June 26 letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, the CBO wrote that the cap and trade legislation passed by the House, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, would reduce future deficits by roughly $9 billion over ten years:

CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting the legislation would increase revenues by $873 billion over the 2010-2019 period and would increase direct spending by $864 billion over that 10-year period. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits by about $4 billion over the 2010-2014 period and by about $9 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see enclosed table).

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bludog1 (January 16, 2010 7:49 am ET)
        8
      In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that Caddell and Schoen are known as Democratic strategists and pollsters.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bludog1 (January 16, 2010 7:52 am ET)
        11
      sorry; wrong thread. This one belongs somewhere else. The intended comment was that the President, as a candidate, participated in the discussions during the period TARP and other funding decisions were being formulated; as a senator, he supported and voted for those actions.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 16, 2010 10:29 am ET)
        9  
        Ridiculous. The TARP funds (and even the funds approved early in Obama's presidency) were approved to offset events that occurred during the Bush presidency. Using your logivc: if, in three years, a Republican who voted for TARP is elected to the White House, do the figures then slide over to his ledger?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (January 16, 2010 11:45 am ET)
          4  
          I think you forget how the right thinks this works.

          Obama was a senator/presidential canidate when Bush signed the Tarp bill. See, not Bush's fault.

          If a repub should ever get elected president again, then it doesn't count because: "it wasn't on his watch".

          See how that works.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (January 17, 2010 11:30 am ET)
             
          Even Politifact (a group that provides a good service but too often leans right of center in their analysis) fell for this ridiculous piling on.

          Obama is not responsible for much of the deficit spending for which he is being tagged. It's wholly unfair to assign any of the funds granted during Bush's term to Obama. It's unfair to assign any of the budgets under one President to the next President.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by rtdavis11200 (January 16, 2010 11:13 am ET)
      10 1
      The G.O.P. should be called out for destroying tihs nation and not having the courage to work with the new President to help fix it.

      They have voted down every measure to help get this nation back on track.

      The passing of Healthcare Insurance for most Americans will be the begining of the end for the G.O.P.

      Your stonewalling for change and redisribution of wealth has finaly come to an end.

      I wonder if the teabaggers will take pass on healthcare insurance like they passed on the stimilus?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (January 16, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
        7 1
        The G.O.P. should be called out for destroying tihs nation and not having the courage to work with the new President to help fix it.

        You see, if the president really wanted to work with the GOP then he would do what they say. You know, cut taxes, cut government, etc.

        Since he hasn't been a lap dog for the GOP that means they can blame him for everything.

        Well, except for when something goes right. Then the GOP get to take credit for being "the consience of the nation".
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 18, 2010 12:07 pm ET)
           
        Amen.

        Although, it hasn't really ended, and it can't end soon enough,

        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        If it weren't for the RW media, there wouldn't be a RW left!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by punkin (January 16, 2010 11:49 am ET)
      10 1
      for the past few days I've tried to watch "news" programs on Fox. I can only stomach a few minutes at a time. Every dang one of them seems centered around smearing Obama or a Democrat. Lies, distortions and out of context quotes. This is very twisted tabloid material claiming to be news. Disgusting beyond belief. How do these people live with themselves?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (January 16, 2010 1:02 pm ET)
        6 1
        How brave of you punkin. However check back in with them the day before any election and you can see them turn it up to 11. It is something to see. All their Greatest Hits of crapola!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by deeeman (January 16, 2010 1:29 pm ET)
          1  
          Both administrations could have done better, but let's focus on the one that is at the plate now. You can't go back and replace a batter after he strikes out; you have to look at the one who's up and what his skill set is.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (January 16, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
          1  
          Peak wingnut will never be reached.
          ~
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (January 16, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
            8  
            Peak wingnut will never be reached.

            I think, if we ever hit peak wingnut, then we will find out how to achieve cold fusion.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 16, 2010 4:11 pm ET)
              4  
              Yes, but at what cost to humanity?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by John Paradox (January 16, 2010 5:57 pm ET)
                1  
                Worse than the Large Hadron Collider's supposed 'black hole that will eat the Earth'!!!1!!
                Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (January 16, 2010 1:34 pm ET)
      6 1
      I see three possible responses to this:

      Outrage: How can they possibly get away with lying like that?!

      Ridicule: Another fool who refuses to learn from history, ostensibly because it makes it easier to re-write.

      Zen: Even if all the world save me agrees, they cannot change fact. This man has demonstrably lied, but the truth of the matter marches merrily on without him.

      I submit that outrage does not work. The TeaBaggers have proven that by being outraged over absolutely nothing. They have ridden the outrage horse to death, and are now reduced to beating it with a stick.

      Ridicule has a growing following, citing Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as leading examples. Sadly, proper ridicule takes a bit of effort, talent, and dedication. While there is a goldmine of material, you'd actually have to pay people to write. I hope to see more of this, but I'm not holding my breath.

      Zen, a term used here somewhat generically for a calm and rational approach to situations, has it's place, but despite the ongoing debunkings of things like death panels, people continued to be fooled by it.

      I'm looking for a fourth way. A way that avoids the knee-jerk tendencies of outrage, makes use of the ample low-hanging fruit that ridicule has left, and sidesteps the tendency to boredom that too much 'zen' can induce.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by deeeman (January 16, 2010 3:34 pm ET)
         
      I want a better government, the sooner, the better.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (January 16, 2010 5:34 pm ET)
      3  
      This is like having misattributed items on your credit score.

      Obama should join Free Credit Report . com, but only if he first exiles the guy from the commercials.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (January 17, 2010 11:32 am ET)
        1
      This is a common calculus from FoxNews.

      I can't tell you the number of times I've heard them talk about the 'cost' of healthcare reform without mentioning that the cost of doing nothing is even higher. Instead of talking about how these bills are deficit-reducing (Obama demanded deficit-neutral), they talk about how much they cost, which is an incredibly deceptive way to discuss the topic.
      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.