While LAPD officials have called the groups' concerns a "legitimate point" and stated that its suspicious activity reporting program will be "as robust as it is now," Fox & Friends claimed that the LAPD is "bowing to the demands of Muslims and relaxing their terrorism programs" and asked if they're "putting political correctness before safety."

Here are the changes the LAPD is implementing, according to the Los Angeles Times:

The department, after coming under fire from civil liberties and community groups, will no longer hold on to so-called suspicious activity reports that the LAPD's counter-terrorism unit determines are about harmless incidents.

Until now, the department stored the innocuous reports in a database for a year. That gave rise to worries among critics of the reporting program that personal information about people who had done nothing wrong could be entered inappropriately into the federal government's vast network of counter-terrorism databases and watch lists.

[...]

Once completed by an officer, a [Suspicious Activity Report] is forwarded to the department's Counter-Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau, where officers conduct a follow-up investigation to assess if there is a threat. Under the new procedures, hard copies of SARs will be destroyed and electronic versions deleted once officers conclude that the reports had no significance.

As before, information about suspicious activity will be forwarded to a regional analysis center for further vetting and, if necessary, onward for investigation by federal authorities.

And, really, that's it. Reports of suspicious activity deemed harmless will immediately be deleted from the LAPD's terror database in response to privacy concerns. The LAPD's deputy chief called it a "legitimate point" and the Times noted that the change "will have a relatively small impact." Despite this, Fox & Friends devoted two segments over two days to fearmonger about the change.

According to the Fox News chairman, that's how the payroll math adds up inside Fox News: The channel has just "one" conservative opinion host on the air, but employs 24 liberal contributors.

Ailes made the head-scratching pronouncement during two recent campus lectures. The first came at the University of North Carolina [emphasis added]:

Well, first, I separate out news from programming. If you're talking about programming, we noticed that all the talk shows on the other networks basically had progressive or liberal talk show hosts. We have one conservative on FOX News, Sean Hannity. Quite open about it, that's what he is, that's what he does, that's his framework, that's where he comes from. Others tend to be libertarians or populists or you can't really tell.

Last week, according to reports from Ailes' lecture at Ohio University, the Fox chairman boasted about the array of progressives he employs:  

Ailes defended his network, saying he was not politically biased compared with competitors MSNBC and CNN. Ailes said he employs 24 "liberals," which distinguishes him from those networks who feature fewer dissenting opinions.

You see the point Ailes is pushing? It's that contrary to Fox's carping critics, the cable channel actually is a bastion of liberal opinion makers and viewers have to look hard to find the one conservative host. 

For the record then, according to Ailes none of these Fox News opinioin hosts are "conservative":

Eric Bolling (compares Obama to drug dealer)

Steve Doocy  (calls Rick Santorum "Mr. Spectacular")

Brian Kilmeade (asks why Obama is "so determined to bring us down")

Gretchen Carlson (announces voters "love love love" Herman Cain's tax plan)

Andrea Tantaros (former Republican aide; says "thank God" Tea Party members in Congress are "driving a lot of the policy in Washington")

Neil Cavuto (says Robert Reich is a "sanctimonious twit" for suggesting the rich should pay more in taxes)

Dana Perino (former Bush White House press secretary; claims Obama administration doesn't "really want any success" on the economy)

Bill O'Reilly (calls Senator Al Franken "a despicable gutter snipe")

• What Is The Impact Of Wind Farms On Wildlife?
• Do Wind Turbines Affect Human Health?
• Can Wind Power Compete With Fossil Fuels?
• What Portion Of Our Energy Needs Can Wind Realistically Satisfy?
• How Would Switching To Wind Power Impact The Climate?
• Have Federal Incentives For Wind Been Effective? 

FACT: Fossil Fuels Pose Far Greater Threat To Wildlife

MYTH: Wind Turbines Are Bird-Killing Machines

• Fox News' Greg Gutfeld: "Wind power is the Ted Bundy of bird-killers." [Fox News, The Five, 9/30/11, via Nexis]
• Marc Morano said on Fox News: "We've already known that windmills, as you mentioned, are killing birds. Estimates from 400,000 birds a year to almost a million... They're called bird blenders." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• The Hoover Institution's Deroy Murdock wrote: "The dirty secret about 'clean' wind power is that its turbines are giant whirling machetes." He went on to claim that the Obama administration "wants to give wind-power companies long-term permits to butcher bald eagles on the altar of green energy." [Washington Times, 5/18/12]
• In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Manhattan Institute's Robert Bryce wrote that "as the bird carcasses pile up," "the wind industry's unofficial license to kill wildlife is finally getting some serious scrutiny." [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12]

NRC: Wind Energy Accounts For "Minute Fraction" Of Human-Caused Bird Deaths. A 2007 report by the National Research Council concluded that wind turbine losses account for "a minute fraction" of bird deaths caused by human activities:

Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than one billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on "conservative estimates," but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated at 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year in 2003, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year, while domestic cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year. Erickson et al. (2005) estimate that total cumulative bird mortality in the United States "may easily approach 1 billion birds per year."

Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths--less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005). [National Research Council, May 2007]

Fossil Fuels Drive Climate Change, Which Threatens Hundreds Of Bird Species. A 2008 Department of Energy report noted that wind-related bird deaths cannot compare to the threat of climate change:

Publicity related to wind power developments often focuses on wind power's impact on birds, especially their collisions with turbines. Although this is a valid environmental concern that needs to be addressed, the larger effects of global climate change also pose significant and growing threats to birds and other wildlife species.

[...]

The future for birds in a world of global climate change is particularly bleak. A recent article found that 950 to 1,800 terrestrial bird species are imperiled by climate changes and habitat loss. [Department of Energy, July 2008]

Wind Turbines Pose "No Population Risks To Birds" In New England. A comparison of the impact of six electricity generation types on wildlife in New England found that wind power poses "no population-level risks to birds." Factoring in the effects of pollution and climate change, it concludes that "non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind." [New York State Energy Research And Development Authority, March 2009]

Coal Development Destroys Bird Habitats. According to the American Bird Conservancy:

Generally, impacts on wildlife have not had a significant effect on the ability to produce coal. For example, the Appalachian region is one of the most biodiverse parts of the country, and important habitat for many migratory birds, including warblers, waterthrushes, and vireos. It is also important to the coal industry. Over 1,200 mines are found in the region. Some 380,574 acres of forest habitat were destroyed for the purpose of mountaintop removal from 1992 to 2002.

[...]

Mining practices ... are blamed in part for the decline in the population of the Cerulean Warbler, a small, blue songbird that breeds in the mature forests of the Appalachian Mountains. This migratory species has experienced a 70% decline since 1966. The Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Black-and-white Warbler, and Yellow-throated Vireo are also being threatened by removal of forest habitat. [American Bird Conservancy, accessed 5/17/12]

Up To One Million Birds Are Killed Every Year In Oilfield Production Pits. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Every year an estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds are killed in oilfield production skim pits, reserve pits, and in oilfield wastewater disposal facilities according to a study published by Pepper Trail, forensic ornithologist with the Service's Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 8/19/11]

By Contrast, Estimates Of Wind-Related Bird Deaths Range From 150,000 To 440,000 Per Year. PolitiFact reported:

David Cottingham, senior adviser to Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe, confirmed that the 440,000 bird deaths often attributed to the division are actually the estimates of one biologist - Manville - and are not considered official agency statistics.

[...]

The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, which includes Fish and Wildlife officials and representatives from the wind industry, utilities and others, looked at the issue and concluded there are roughly three to four birds killed per megawatt every year. With current capacity at roughly 50,000 megawatts, that comes to 150,000 to 200,000 birds per year.

Cottingham said those estimates are the ones Fish and Wildlife would be most likely to cite when asked about bird deaths caused by turbines. [PolitiFact, 3/9/12]

Government, Industry And Environmentalists Are Collaborating To Reduce Bird Deaths. In March, the Obama administration published new guidelines for land-based wind farms aimed at reducing the number of wind-related bird deaths. The guidelines call on wind developers to "eliminate from consideration areas that would pose high risks to birds and other wildlife, and to take steps to alleviate problems by restoring nearby habitat and other actions," according to the Associated Press. The guidelines were endorsed by both the American Wind Energy Association, an industry group, and the National Audubon Society, a conservation group. [Associated Press, 3/23/12]

FACT: There Is No Evidence That Wind Turbines Pose Health Risks

MYTH: Wind Turbines Adversely Impact Human Heath.

• Fox News' John Stossel on wind turbines: "They're going to kill birds, make noise, cause shadow flicker." [Fox News, Stossel, 5/12/11, via Nexis]
• Town Hall's Paul Driessen wrote: "The strobe-light effect, annoying audible noise, and inaudible low-frequency sound from whirling blades result in nervous fatigue, headaches, dizziness, irritability, sleep problems, and vibro-acoustic effects on people's hearts and lungs." [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• Fox Business' Eric Bolling: "Turbines are popping up all across America, as the demand for the usage of wind energy is increasing. But at what cost? Residents close to them have reported everything from headaches to vertigo to UFO crashes." [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 11/12/10, via Nexis]

Independent Report: There Is "No Evidence" For "Wind Turbine Syndrome." A report prepared by an independent panel of experts for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection concluded that there is "no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a 'Wind Turbine Syndrome.'" The study debunked several of the supposed health impacts of wind turbines:

There is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly (i.e., independent from an effect on annoyance or sleep) causing health problems or disease. 

Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically.  Available evidence shows that the infrasound levels near wind turbines cannot impact the vestibular system. 

[...]

The strongest epidemiological study suggests that there is not an association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems. 

[...]

None of the limited epidemiological evidence reviewed suggests an association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, and headache/migraine. [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, January 2012]

Literature Review: There Is No Proven Causal Link Between Proximity To Turbines And Health Effects. A review of the literature on the health impact of wind turbines concluded:

To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects. [Environmental Health Journal, 5/2/11]

Study: Shadow Flicker "Unlikely To Cause Adverse Health Impacts." An assessment of the health impact of wind turbines by the Oregon Public Health Authority concluded:

Shadow flicker from wind turbines in Oregon is unlikely to cause adverse health impacts in the general population.  The low flicker rate from wind turbines is  unlikely to trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.  Further, the available scientific evidence suggests that very few individuals will be annoyed by the low flicker frequencies expected from most modern wind turbines. [Oregon Public Health Authority, 1/3/12]

By Contrast, Fossil Fuel Pollution Has Serious Health Consequences. A 2009 report by the National Research Council estimated that burning fossil fuels costs the U.S. about $120 billion a year in "hidden" health costs:

A new report from the National Research Council examines and, when possible, estimates "hidden" costs of energy production and use -- such as the damage air pollution imposes on human health -- that are not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them.  The report estimates dollar values for several major components of these costs.  The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation.  The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize. [National Academy of Sciences, 10/19/09]

FACT: New Wind Generation Will Be Cheaper Than New Coal Generation

MYTH: Wind Will Never Be Cost Competitive

• Marc Morano said on Fox News: "Wind power was around since the 13^th century. People say let's let it compete with carbon-based energy, oil and gas. It did compete. Wind and solar have competed, and they had their rear-ends kicked!" [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• Town Hall's Paul Driessen wrote: "Wind has never been able to compete economically with traditional energy, and there is no credible evidence that it will be able to in the foreseeable future, especially with abundant natural gas costing one-fourth what it did just a few years ago." [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• A Washington Times editorial stated: "Wind power made sense in the 18th century, but it doesn't make sense now. The private sector isn't interested in blowing money on hopelessly uneconomic windmill and solar projects." [Washington Times, 3/14/12]

New Wind Generation Will Soon Be Cheaper Than New Coal Generation. In the Energy Information Administration's most recent annual report, levelized costs for onshore wind that is brought on line in 2017 are cheaper than conventional or advanced coal brought on line in 2017. EIA explained that levelized cost is "often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies" and "represents the per kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant" for a certain period, but that "actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project." 

[Energy Information Administration, 1/23/12]

Bloomberg New Energy: Some Wind Farms "Already Produce Power As Economically As Coal, Gas And Nuclear." From a press release on the findings of a2011 Bloomberg New Energy Finance report:

The cost of electricity from onshore wind turbines will drop 12% in the next five years thanks to a mix of lower-cost equipment and gains in output efficiency, according to new research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 

The best wind farms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators; the average wind farm will be fully competitive by 2016. [Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 11/10/11]

Study: Wind Could Save Consumers Billions In Electricity Costs. A recent analysis by Synapse Energy Economics found that adding more wind power to the electric grid would bring down electricity costs in the Midwest region:

Synapse's analysis indicates that the effect of introducing greater levels of wind resources into MISO [Midwest Independent System Operator] is to generally depress the average annual market price, relative to a baseline case of no additional wind generation beyond the existing 10 GW in place in MISO today. Since wind energy "fuel" is free, once built, wind power plants displace fossil-fueled generation and lower the price of marginal supply--thus lowering the energy market clearing price.

[...]

These market price declines will lead to reduced overall energy costs.  For this coal retirement sensitivity, power supply costs for MISO-region customers could range from $3.9 billion to $7.9 billion per year lower than baseline costs for the 20 GW wind addition, and from $6.1 to $12.2 billion per year lower than baseline costs for the 40 GW addition. These cost savings will exceed the annual costs of transmission improvements needed to integrate this level of wind addition. When including the effects of transmission, the net savings ranges from $3.0 billion to $6.9 billion per year for the 20 GW wind addition scenario, and $3.3 to $9.4 billion per year for the 40 GW wind addition scenario. 

For an average MISO region residential customer using 1,000 kWh per month, this translates to a net savings that would range from $63 to $147 per year in 2020 (for the 20 GW wind addition scenario), and from $71 to $200 per year for the 40 GW wind addition scenario. [Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, 5/22/12]

FACT: Wind Capacity Is Already At 10% In Some States And Is Expanding Rapidly

MYTH: Wind Power Won't Make A Dent In Our Energy Needs

• Marc Morano said on Fox News: "Worldwide, if you go for a whole number, 0% of energy is coming from wind. It's still less than half a percent if you round... Oil and gas produce massive amounts of energy. Wind and solar don't." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• Fox Business' Charles Payne: "Imagine a utopian world where every car is electrically driven. We couldn't build enough solar panels and enough windmills, it would still be fossil fuel." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/14/12, via Nexis]
• The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore said on Fox News: "I hope, I sincerely hope the president doesn't really believe that we can engine and power a $15 trillion industrial economy with windmills. It ain't going to happen." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/15/11, via Nexis]

EIA: U.S. Wind Generation Is "Continuing A Trend Of Rapid Growth." A recent Energy Information Administration report stated that "Generation from wind turbines in the United States increased 27% in 2011 compared to 2010, continuing a trend of rapid growth." The following chart demonstrates the continual increase in U.S. wind capacity:

[Energy Information Administration, 3/12/12]

Industry Saw Record Growth In The Beginning Of 2012. In the first quarter of 2012, the wind industry added 1,695 MW of electricity generating capacity - 52% more than it added in the first quarter of last year. This was the industry's strongest first quarter on record. [Department of Energy, 5/9/12]

Wind Accounts For 35% Of New U.S. Power Capacity Since 2007. A letter to Congressional leaders signed by over 350 coalition members including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Edison Electric Institute said, "In the last four years, wind energy has provided 35% of all new U.S. power capacity." [National Association of Manufacturers, 11/17/11]

DOE Estimates Wind Could Provide 20% Of U.S. Electricity By 2030. A 2008 report by the Department of Energy stated that a "20% Wind Scenario in 2030, while ambitious, could be feasible" if the wind industry can expand manufacturing, increase turbine installations, and improve reliability. [Department of Energy, December 2008]

Wind Is Already Supplying More Than 10% Of Electricity In Five States. According to the Department of Energy:

Five states received more than 10% of their electricity from wind in 2011, with South Dakota leading the way with 22.3%. Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wyoming completed the list. [Department of Energy, 4/18/12]

Harvard Study: U.S. Wind Potential Is "16 Times More Than Total Electricity Demand." The New York Times reported on the results of a 2009 study by Harvard University:

Using data from thousands of meteorological stations, the Harvard team estimated the world wind power potential to be 40 times greater than total current power consumption. A previous study cited in the paper put that multiple at about 7 times.

In the lower 48 states, the potential from wind power is 16 times more than total electricity demand in the United States, the researchers suggested - significantly greater than a 2008 Department of Energy study that projected wind could supply a fifth of all electricity in the country by 2030. [New York Times, 7/16/09]

FACT: Wind Energy Could Substantially Reduce America's Carbon Footprint 

MYTH: Wind Won't Affect Carbon Emissions, And May Even "Cause Global Warming"

• The Manhattan Institute's Robert Bryce wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: "A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won't result in any reduction in carbon emissions--or that they'll be so small as to be almost meaningless." [Wall Street Journal, 8/23/10]
• Forbes columnist Larry Bell wrote: "CO2 emission reductions [from wind power] are largely mythological." [Forbes, 5/22/12]
• Linking to a Reuters article, Fox Nation ran the headline: "New Research Shows Wind Farms Cause Global Warming." [Fox Nation, 4/30/12]

Right-Wing Media Distorted Study To Claim Wind Farms Cause Global Warming. Some ofthese media reports are based on a study of satellite data which found that nighttime land temperatures near Texas wind farms have increased relative to nearby areas without turbines. The lead author of that study told Media Matters that the coverage has been "misleading," clarifying in a press release:

Very likely, the wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only redistribute the air's heat near the surface (the turbine itself does not generate any heat), which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels. [University of Albany, accessed 5/14/12]

NREL: Every 1,000MW Of Wind Energy Offsets 2.6 Million Tons Of CO2. A 2009 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated that every 1,000 MW of wind energy reduces carbon emissions by 2.6 million tons. [NREL, March 2009]

DOE: Wind Could Reduce Annual Emissions By 825 Million Tons By 2030. According to a Department Of Energy report analyzing a 20% wind scenario:

Supplying 20% of U.S. electricity from wind could reduce annual electric sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 825 million metric tons by 2030.

[Department of Energy, December 2008]

FACT: Wind Has Achieved Huge Advances With Federal Support

MYTH: Funding For Wind Has Gone To Waste

• American Commitment's Phil Kerpen said on Fox News: "If you look at all the failure around Solyndra, the wind subsidies, ethanol and Obama is out there on the stomp day after day saying, we need to double down. The guys sounds like a degenerate gambler who can't recognize when he's losing." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/13/12, via Nexis]
• Town Hall's Paul Driessen wrote: "Despite tens of billions in subsidies, wind turbines still generate less than 3% of US electricity." Calling for an end to wind incentives, he said: "Politicians take billions from taxpayers, ratepayers and profitable businesses, to provide subsidies to Big Wind companies, who buy Made Somewhere Else turbines." [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• The Heritage Foundation's Romina Boccia wrote in a blog post: "Subsidies like the wind energy production tax credit also perpetuate the mediocrity of the wind industry by distorting the market processes that guide entrepreneurs and investors toward the most promising energy solutions." [The Foundry, 2/24/12]

Production Tax Credit Helps Makes Wind Power Competitive With Natural Gas. From Beyond Boom & Bust: Putting Clean Tech On A Path To Subsidy Independence, a report by scholars at the Breakthrough Institute, the Brookings Institution and the World Resources Institute:

At present, the federal PTC [Production Tax Credit] for wind power production brings the levelized cost of electricity from new wind power projects down to an estimated range of $33-65 per megawatt-hour (MWh), depending on the quality of wind resource.

At these prices wind power is broadly competitive with new gasfired generation (with levelized costs as low as $52 at likely gas prices, see Box 1), supporting robust market expansion.

However, the PTC is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, creating significant market uncertainty and prompting manufacturers of wind turbine components to prepare for layoffs and substantial market contraction. [Brookings Institution, April 2012]

Business Groups: U.S. Wind Manufacturing Has Grown 12-Fold. From a letter by over 350 coalition members including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Edison Electric Institute:

Equipped with the PTC, the wind energy industry has contributed impressively to U.S. economic development. Since 2005, the wind industry has spurred more than $60 billion of investment. Today, over 400 facilities across 43 states manufacture for the wind energy industry. US wind turbine manufacturing has grown 12-fold - 60% of a wind turbine's value is now produced here in America, as compared to 25% prior to 2005. Further, costs have been reduced over 90% since 1980, recently driven by a surge in game changing technological advances. In the last four years, wind energy has provided 35% of all new U.S. power capacity.

Yet despite its clear success, the PTC has been allowed to expire frequently and is again set to expire at the end of 2012. Now is not the time to increase taxes on wind energy. The PTC should be extended for at least another four years so that American know-how can keep producing domestic clean energy. [National Association of Manufacturers, 11/17/11]

Wind Boom In Texas Attributed To Production Tax Credit. From an October 19 ClimateWire article:

The production tax credit is widely seen as a key driver of the Texas wind boom. It lowers the cost of producing wind power by 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, providing a financial edge that has helped developers compete with low-priced electricity derived from coal and natural gas.

The credit, called the PTC, was so instrumental in the state's rise to wind dominance that a report issued by [Republican Governor Rick] Perry's office last year described it as a "crucial" piece in a broad plan to lower the price of wind energy. It complemented a state mandate requiring utilities to use more renewable energy and a fee-based program designed to carry far-flung wind power to urban centers along new transmission lines. [ClimateWire, 10/19/11, via Nexis]

CBO: U.S. Has Long Subsidized Oil And Gas With Permanent Tax Breaks. A Congressional Budget Office issue brief on federal financial support for energy development noted that "Under current law, most of the tax preferences for energy efficiency and renewable energy will expire, but preferences for fossil fuels are permanent." CBO further explained:

Tax preferences for energy were first established in 1916, and until 2005 they were primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. Beginning in 2006, the cost of energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share was aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun, which generally cause less environmental damage than would result from producing and consuming fossil fuels. Provisions aimed at energy efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent of the budgetary cost of federal energy-related tax preferences in 2011. However, four of those provisions, including the one with the greatest budgetary impact, expired at the end of calendar year 2011. Only four major tax preferences are permanent, three of which are directed toward fossil fuels and one of which is directed toward nuclear energy.

[Congressional Budget Office, March 2012]

CRS: Wind Power Incentives "Have Been Much Larger In Several Foreign Countries." Noting that federal policies in the U.S. "have been instrumental in the development of a domestically-based wind power sector," the Congressional Research Service added:

Worldwide the wind power industry is driven by various types of government support, which range from tax credits to incentive policies like feed-in tariffs. These incentives have been much larger in several foreign countries than in the United States, which has helped to spur the manufacturing of wind turbines in Europe and Asia.

[...]

The expansion of U.S. wind power generation will depend, at least in part, on government policy decisions. If state and federal governments continue to support wind generation, manufacturing of wind generating equipment in the United States is likely to increase. The production costs of U.S. plants that make turbine components appear to be competitive with those in other countries, and the difficulty and expense of transporting very bulky products over long distances serves as an obstacle to import competition. [Congressional Research Service, 9/23/11]

Rather than discuss the merits of the legislation, Bolling and Obenshain spent most of their time attacking the motives of the senators and members of the Obama administration championing the legislation.

The closest they came to a substantive discussion of the need for pay equity legislation was mentioning a Rasmussen Reports poll that found that 73 percent of employed adults found that their own workplace is "free of gender discrimination."

Even leaving aside the issue of whether asking people whether there is gender discrimination in their own workplace has anything to do with whether people believe that employment discrimination exists in the country as a whole, why does it matter what polling says? What really matters is whether there is a wage gap. And on that subject, the data is clear.

Data from the U.S. Census shows that women's earnings represent only 77 percent of what men earn. This pay gap extends across all backgrounds, ages and levels of achievement, as demonstrated by the American Association of University Women. Even accounting for industry, occupation, and a plethora of other factors, research has indicated a persistent discrepancy between wages.

Furthermore, even Bolling's and Obenshain's attempt to attack the people championing workplace equity is flawed. Obenshain's claim that Senate Democrats do not practice the pay equity they preach has already been debunked. And her claim that Obama's economic policies have disproportionately impacted women negatively is equally flawed. 

There have been some reports of people fraudulently claiming the tax credit based on children who do not live in the United States. But rather than pushing for a solution to the fraud, Bolling hyped legislation that would stop all undocumented immigrant parents from claiming any portion of the tax credit for their children, even if those children are American citizens.

Undocumented immigrants are required to pay federal income taxes, just as citizens and other immigrants must do. Federal tax law currently allows families that earn below a certain income level to take a Child Tax Credit for each citizen or resident alien child in the family, and at some income levels, the tax credit is refundable, meaning that some taxpayers claiming the Child Tax Credit will receive a refund check from the government that is greater than the amount of tax that was withheld from their paychecks.

Undocumented immigrants also can -- and often do -- have U.S. citizen children. This is due to the fact that the Constitution states that all people born in the United States are automatically entitled to citizenship regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

The legislation at issue, introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), would require anyone claiming the Child Tax Credit to have a valid Social Security number, which is unavailable to undocumented immigrants. It contains no exception for immigrants with American citizen children. And it blocks undocumented immigrants from claiming any part of the Child Tax Credit, not merely the part that is refundable.

During the segment, Bolling falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who recently objected to Vitter's attempt to have the Senate pass the bill by unanimous consent, "wants to block efforts" to make it illegal for people to commit Child Tax Credit fraud.

In fact, Reid actually noted that the tax code is already very clear that "the child tax credit is not available for children living outside the United States" and that the legislation in question "takes a sledgehammer to a problem that deserves some very fine tuning and a scalpel." Reid added that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is working with the IRS "to determine if its procedures are strong enough to stop" Child Tax Credit fraud, and said that if the procedures are not strong enough, "then it is up to Congress to plug any loopholes that may exist." 

Fox Pushes GOP Conspiracy Theory Despite Contrary Evidence

Fox Suggests Contractor Was Fired For Saying Coal Regulation Would Cost Jobs. The Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) hired Polu Kai Services LLC (PKS) to conduct an environmental impact analysis of a forthcoming rule targeting stream pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining. The contractor prepared a draft analysis projecting 7,000 job losses, which was leaked to the [NPR, 1/7/10]

Study: Birth Defects "Significantly Higher" In Mountaintop Mining Areas. From a study published in Environmental Research by West Virginia University and Washington State University professors, which found that from 1996-2003, the prevalence of all birth defects studied was "significantly higher in mountaintop mining areas compared to non-mining areas":

The prevalence rate ratio (PRR) for any birth defect was significantly higher in mountaintop mining areas compared to non-mining areas (PRR=1.26, 95% CI=1.21, 1.32), after controlling for covariates. Rates were significantly higher in mountaintop mining areas for six of seven types of defects: circulatory/respiratory, central nervous system, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, urogenital, and 'other'. There was evidence that mountaintop mining effects became more pronounced in the latter years (2000-2003) versus earlier years (1996-1999.) Spatial correlation between mountaintop mining and birth defects was also present, suggesting effects of mountaintop mining in a focal county on birth defects in neighboring counties. Elevated birth defect rates are partly a function of socioeconomic disadvantage, but remain elevated after controlling for those risks. Both socioeconomic and environmental influences in mountaintop mining areas may be contributing factors. [Environmental Research, August 2011]

Study: Self-Reported Cancer Rates Significantly Higher In Mountaintop Mining Areas. From a study published in the Journal of Community Health by West Virginia University professors:

Mountaintop coal mining in the Appalachian region in the United States causes significant environmental damage to air and water. Serious health disparities exist for people who live in coal mining portions of Appalachia, but little previous research has examined disparities specifically in mountaintop mining communities. A community-based participatory research study was designed and implemented to collect information on cancer rates in a rural mountaintop mining area compared to a rural non-mining area of West Virginia. A door-door health interview collected data from 773 adults. Self-reported cancer rates were significantly higher in the mining versus the non-mining area after control for respondent age, sex, smoking, occupational history, and family cancer history (odds ratio = 2.03, 95% confidence interval = 1.32-3.13). Mountaintop mining is linked to increased community cancer risk. [Journal of Community Health, 7/24/11]

Study: Mountaintop Mining "Has Impaired The Aquatic Life In Numerous Streams In The Central Appalachian Mountains. A study conducted by the EPA of "37 small West Virginia streams (10 unmined and 27 mined sites with valley fills)" concluded that "Surface coal mining with valley fills has impaired the aquatic life in numerous streams in the Central Appalachian Mountains." [EPA, 7/8/08]

Study: There Is A "Clear Risk Of Increased Flooding" After Mountaintop Mining. From a study published in Environmental Geology by University of Kentucky professor Jonathan D. Phillips:

The potential impacts of valley fills associated with mountaintop removal/valley fill (MTR/VF) coal mining on downstream flooding in the coalfields of eastern Kentucky and adjacent states are a subject of public debate and scientific uncertainty. This study explored two aspects of this issue. First, hydrologic indices of relative runoff production and surface and subsurface flow detention were applied to conditions typical of headwater and low-order drainage basins in eastern Kentucky. Results show that there is a clear risk of increased flooding (greater runoff production and less surface flow detention) following MTR/VF operations, and suggest that, on balance, valley fills are more likely to increase rather than decrease flood potential. However, there is a wide range of outcomes, qualitatively and quantitatively. Flood risks can be increased or decreased, and the degree of either may vary markedly. The effects of MTR/VF mining on downstream peak flows are highly contingent on local pre- and post-mining conditions, and it would be unwise to apply generalizations to specific sites. Second, the occurrence of flash floods downstream of MTR/VF operations when nearby unmined areas did not flood or had less severe floods has frequently been explained (without supporting data) in terms of locally greater precipitation. The likelihood of such short-range variability of storm precipitation is evaluated by applying the state probability function to NEXRAD radar estimates of precipitation for two 2001 storms which produced flash floods in eastern Kentucky. The spatial structure of the storm precipitation indicates that at the scale of the analysis (pixel size of approximately 2 km) large local variations in storm precipitation are unlikely--that is, the probability of nearby hollows or low-order drainage basins receiving substantially different storm precipitation totals is low. [Environmental Geology, 2004]

Selenium, Which Has Been Found Downstream Of Valley Fills, Can Cause Health And Reproductive Problems. From a report published by the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Services:

The "intermittent and ephemeral" valley streams appear and disappear with the seasons and rains. But they are the headwaters for steady-running "perennial" streams below, and the foundation for the broader forest ecosystem: most notably a breeding ground for insects that provide the biomass to sustain birds and other animal life. When those streams are destroyed, the effects are felt far beyond the immediate vicinity of the valley fill, and scientists say they are irreplaceable.

[...]

The most ubiquitous form of downstream contamination may be the heavy metal selenium, a common element associated with coal seams. Selenium is an essential nutrient in small amounts, but it bioaccumulates in tissue, and in high enough concentrations can cause health and reproductive problems in wildlife and humans. In 2003, the EPA's environmental impact assessment found significant elevations of selenium downstream from valley fills. [Yale Environment 360, 7/20/09]

Fox Hypes Phony "War On Coal"

Fox Refers To "What Many Perceive As The Obama Administration's War On Coal." After Shannon Bream referred to "what many perceive as President Obama's war on coal," Fox played video of Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Doug Lamborn (R-CO) expressing similar views. Fox did not quote a single Democrat or environmental group. [Fox News, Special Report, 5/18/12]

National Journal: Coal Industry Privately Acknowledges That Obama Administration "Inherited A Stack Of Obligations." A National Journal article noted that "a stack of court-ordered environmental regulations, some dating back 20 years" met EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson when she took office. The article also said: "Privately, coal chiefs and Republicans say they understand that Jackson inherited a stack of obligations and had to act." [National Journal, 9/22/11]

Bush Sr.'s EPA Chief: Previous Administrations Handed Regulatory "Grenades" To Obama. Greenwire reported in December 2010 that George H.W. Bush's EPA Administrator acknowledged that the Obama administration has legal obligations to enact regulations that were "left behind by the George W. Bush administration":

At a time of unprecedented rancor over the costs and benefits of U.S. EPA rules, the Obama administration has far less leeway than the agency's critics in Congress suggest, according to the man who led the agency under George H.W. Bush.

Many of the most costly new regulations were left behind by the George W. Bush administration, William Reilly told an audience at the National Press Club yesterday. Some of the rules were ordered by Congress but were never put in place, forcing EPA to settle with environmental groups. Others have court deadlines from when the last administration's policies were rejected in court.

"They're like little hand grenades that have been rolled out there by previous administrators, and now they're ticking," Reilly said. "They're very difficult, and some of them quite expensive, rules." [Greenwire, 12/17/10]

CRS: Coal Retirements "Caused By Cheap, Abundant Natural Gas As Much As By" Regulations. From an August 8 Congressional Research Service report:

The primary impacts of many of the rules will largely be on coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls. Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged in the price of competing fuel--natural gas--continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.

[...]

In short, the "train wreck" facing the coal-fired electric generating industry, to the extent that it exists, is being caused by cheap, abundant natural gas as much as by EPA regulations. As John Rowe, Chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, recently stated: "These regulations will not kill coal... In fact, modeling done on the impacts of these rules shows that up to 50% of retirements are due to the current economics of the plant due to natural gas and coal prices." [Congressional Research Service, 8/8/11]

Fox News' public relations department reacted characteristically to the findings. Instead of critiquing the survey on its merits, Fox lashed out at the "weak academic program" at FDU's undergraduate school, reportedly telling the Hollywood Reporter:

This month, FDU released another of its PublicMind polls touting that "this nationwide survey confirms initial findings" of ill-informed FNC viewers, and an FNC spokesperson blasted the findings and turned the tables on the university, pointing out that its own students don't exactly measure up academically. (FDU was No. 585 on a Forbes ranking of 650 U.S. colleges.)

"Considering FDU's undergraduate school is ranked as one of the worst in the country," said the FNC spokesperson, "we suggest the school invest in improving its weak academic program instead of spending money on frivolous polling - their student body does not deserve to be so ill-informed."

Fairleigh Dickinson issued a statement to Media Matters calling Fox News' attack "unfortunate" and "unfounded":

ORIGINAL POST: 

Longtime Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce tweeted yesterday that she's been told she'll never guest host The O'Reilly Factor because she's gay. Bruce did not specify whether she had received that message from the network's personnel, but replied favorably to a fan who responded to her tweet by criticizing the network.

Bruce is a conservative radio show host who regularly appears on The O'Reilly Factor with host Bill O'Reilly. According to Nexis, Bruce most recently appeared on the program's April 6 broadcast with guest host Juan Williams.

Bruce is openly gay, a fact she's noted on The O'Reilly Factor. A biography posted on WMAL, which carried her radio show (the program now streams "exclusively at TalkStreamLive"), states that when her radio show "debuted in Los Angeles in 1993, she was the first openly gay woman in the country to host a show on a mainstream talk radio station."

Bruce's comments came in response to a follower who told her she needs "to fill in for O'Reilly sometime." Bruce replied: "I'd love to fill in for O'Reilly, but I've been told it will never happen because I'm gay. Go figure..."

Several followers responded to Bruce's tweet with criticism of Fox. One follower tweeted: "Tammy, so sorry to hear that! You've always been an intelligent and thoughtful commentator. Bad on Fox :-)" Bruce replied: "Thanks @gutsy9 I appreciate the support :)"

Messages to Bruce seeking clarification and comment were not returned. Fox News also did not return a request for comment by posting time. 

WH Press Secretary Carney Warns Reporters Not To Buy Into "BS" Of GOP-Driven Spending Claims

Carney: "Do Not Buy Into The B.S. That You Hear About Spending And Fiscal Constraint With Regard To This Administration." From Carney's May 23 press gaggle:

I just wanted to read something that I read this morning that caught my attention. This is from Market Watch's Rex Nutting. He says, "Of all the falsehoods told about President Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, but it didn't happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under President Obama, federal spending is rising at its slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.  Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has."

That means that the rate of spending -- federal spending increase is lower under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors. That is a fact not often noted in the press and certainly never mentioned by the Republicans. 

[...]

I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness. [Carney press gaggle, 6/28/10, emphasis in original]

 For more on the impact that Bush's policies have had on the federal debt, click here.

]]> M.F. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205240001 Thu, 24 May 2012 01:11:19 EDT http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205230021 Today on Fox News' The Five, host Bob Beckel asserted that co-host Eric Bolling has frequently attacked President Obama, to which Bolling responded: "Barack Obama's never been attacked by Eric Bolling. Eric Bolling attacks Barack Obama's ideology, his politics, and his turning America into a socialist state." 

That's an amazing failure of memory on Bolling's part given his repeated personal attacks on Obama.

To refresh Bolling's memory on his record of personal attacks, here's a trip down memory lane.

Bolling Hyped Conspiracy Theories That Questioned Obama's Birth Certificate: 

For more examples of Eric Bolling promoting birther conspiracies, click here

Bolling Falsely Claimed That Obama Had Been A Drug Dealer:

(Bolling later wrote on his Twitter feed: "Said yesterday that I thought the President had admitted to buying or selling drugs. I was wrong. And I apologize to him for my mistake")

Bolling Cast Doubt On Obama's Religion:

Bolling Suggested That Obama Drinks Too Much:

From Bolling's Twitter feed

For more examples of Eric Bolling attacking Obama for drinking too much, click here

]]> A.N. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205230021 Wed, 23 May 2012 23:25:00 EDT http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205230018 Two days after lending credence to birther conspiracy theories, Bret Baier, host of Fox News' flagship "straight news" program, Special Report, acknowledged today that the White House released President Obama's long-form birth certificate in April 2011. 

On Monday's edition of Special Report, Baier reported that Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett had threatened to remove Obama from the Arizona presidential ballot without mentioning that Obama made his birth certificate public four years ago, and that, as FactCheck.org has noted, it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." During that segment on Monday's show, Baier also did not mention that, amid a relentless birther attack by Fox, the White House also released Obama's long-form birth certificate. 

Baier drew fire from journalism veterans and ethics experts for having failed to note that birther conspiracy theories were meritless, with one experienced news person calling the report "a complete abandonment of integrity and responsibility." 

Tonight, Baier updated the story, reporting that Bennett is now satisfied that Obama was born in the United States and has withdrawn his threat to kick Obama off the ballot and noting that "last April, the White House released his long-form birth certificate." 

From Special Report: 

BAIER: Arizona's Secretary of State says the case is closed in the birth certificate kerfuffle stemming from his request that Hawaii provide additional verification President Obama was in fact born there. 

As we have reported, Aloha state officials have repeatedly confirmed President Obama's birth in the state, and last April, the White House released his long-form birth certificate. 

Today, Secretary of State Ken Bennett in Arizona explained he only pursued the issue on behalf of constituent requests, adding, quote, Hawaiian officials 'complied with the request and I consider the matter closed.' Bennett said Tuesday, if his actions embarrassed the state of Arizona he was sorry.

]]> M.F.B. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205230018 Wed, 23 May 2012 21:34:09 EDT http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205230017 In a statement regarding an Obama administration policy that ensures women have access to insurance coverage for birth control while accommodating employers who object to providing birth control, Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest and Fox News contributor, stated:

Any national media outlet that fails to report the obvious raping of our First Amendment rights by this Health and Human Service mandate, is trumpeting either woeful incompetence or shameless bias.

Morris' comment was reported by the Media Research Center, which complained about media coverage of a lawsuit filed by various organizations against the contraception coverage policy.

As a reminder, President Obama's contraception coverage policy has the support of a wide variety of Catholic institutions as well as a majority of American Catholics.

Previously:

Father Morris Pushes "Federal Funding For Abortion" Falsehood To Suggest Obama Is Untrustworthy

Fox Now Attacking Obama's Reasons For Becoming A Christian

]]> <em>Media Matters</em> staff http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205230017 Wed, 23 May 2012 19:41:36 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230016 Following the Obama campaign's ad highlighting Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital, right-wing media are hysterically calling the ad an attack on private equity and even "an attack on capitalism" itself. But the ad clearly and specifically targets Romney's own work at Bain Capital -- which Romney and his campaign have repeatedly touted as crucial experience for dealing with the economy -- not private equity or capitalism as a whole.

Obama Campaign Releases Bain Capital Ad

Associated Press: "Obama 'Vampire' Ads Target Romney On Economy." The Obama campaign released an ad featuring former steel workers from a plant taken over and eventually shuttered by Bain Capital:

At the center of the Obama campaign effort are a new website, TV ad and online video including interviews with onetime workers at a Kansas City, Mo., steel mill that Romney's former private equity firm failed to successfully restructure. Workers lost jobs and health care benefits. Pensions were reduced.

"It was like a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us," says steelworker Jack Cobb. Add John Wiseman: "Bain Capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off this plant. We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer. [Associated Press, 5/14/12]

Ad Only Targets Bain Capital, Not Private Equity Or Capitalism. Obama's ad contains no mentions of private equity or capitalism as a whole, but is in fact focused only on Romney's record with Bain Capital. From the ad:

JOE SOPTIC: I was a steel worker for 30 years. We had a reputation for quality products. It was something that was American-made. And we weren't rich, but I was able to put my daughter through college.

JOHN WISEMAN: Having a good-paying job that you can support and raise a family on is hugely important.

SOPTIC: That stopped with the sale of the plant to Bain Capital.

MITT ROMNEY, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know how business works. I know why jobs come and why they go.

DAVID FOSTER: Bain Capital was the majority owner. They were responsible. Mitt Romney was deeply involved in the influence that he exercised over these companies.

SOPTIC: They made as much money off of it as they could and they closed it down. They filed for bankruptcy without any concern for the families or the communities.

JACK COBB: It was like a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us.

SOPTIC: It was like watching an old friend bleed to death.

ROMNEY: As I look around at the millions of Americans without work, it breaks my heart.

WISEMAN: Bain Capital sought elimination of the pension plan and termination of employee and retiree life insurance and health insurance.

SOPTIC: I was devastated. It makes me angry. Those guys were all rich. They all have more money than they'll ever spend, yet they didn't have the money to take care of the very people that made the money for them.

WISEMAN: Bain Capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off of this plant. We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer.

COBB: To get up on national TV and brag about making jobs when he has destroyed thousands of people's careers, lifetimes -- just destroying people.

SOPTIC: He's running for president, and if he's going to run the country the way he ran our businesses I wouldn't want him there. He's so out of touch with the average person in this country. How could you care? How could you care for the average working person if you feel that way? [YouTube, 5/14/12]

Bain Capital Ad Is About Romney And His Record, Not Private Equity As A Whole

President Obama: Romney's Bain Capital Experience Is Relevant Because "His Main Calling Card For Why He Thinks He Should Be President Is His Business Experience." During a press conference at the NATO summit, President Obama focused the attack on Romney's record in private equity, not all private equity:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience. ... [H]e's not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He's saying "I'm a business guy, and I know how to fix it," and this is his business. ... When you're president -- as opposed to the head of a private equity firm -- your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. [Politico, 5/21/12]

Obama Campaign Official: "No One Is Questioning The Private Equity Industry." On a conference call following the release of the ad, Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter made clear that the ad was not an indictment of all private equity. From Politico:

"No one is questioning the private equity industry as a whole," Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter said on a Monday conference call.

[...]

"This is about the values that Romney lived by," Cutter told reporters. "This is about whether Romney's business experience qualifies him to make the right decisions as president."

"What exactly happened at Bain Capital that gives Romney the experience to run a national economy?" Cutter asked. 

Cutter noted that when these attacks surfaced during the GOP primary, Romney consistently lost voters whose incomes were under $50,000.

"It really was damaging to Mitt Romney," Cutter said. [Politico, 5/14/12]

Fox's Bob Beckel: Obama Hasn't Made Private Equity Central To Campaign, "He's Made Romney's Claim To Be A Job Creator" Central. Fox News contributor Bob Beckel pointed out that the ads are aimed specifically at Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital, and not a private equity as a whole, prompting Fox's Dana Perino to accuse Beckel of splitting hairs:

BECKEL: To listen to you all equate private equity with free enterprise with big business, with the things that actually create jobs, and a little, small part of our economy to make it into the big attack on private enterprise and free enterprise --

KIMBERLEY GUILFOYLE (co-host): That's not what we're saying.

BECKEL: Yes it is. It's exactly what you said -- which is absolutely ridiculous.

DANA PERINO (co-host): But President Obama has made this the center piece of his attack against Romney, so don't you think we should be talking about it?

BECKEL: He hasn't made private equity. He has made Romney's claim to be a job creator because of his Bain Capital -- and that has proved to be a flat-out lie.

PERINO: OK. And that is where the splitting of the hairs comes, and I don't know if people are going to buy it. [Fox News, The Five, 5/21/12]

Slate Chief Political Correspondent John Dickerson: "It's Well Within Bounds To Put [Romney's Bain Capital] Career Under A Microscope." Addressing the ad focusing on Romney's time at Bain, John Dickerson argued that because Mitt Romney has "argued repeatedly that his career at Bain ... gives him special insight" into the economy, it is relevant to "assess the truth of his claims." [Slate, 5/21/12]

New York's Jonathan Chait: Obama's Defense Of Bain Capital Ad "Is Perfectly Sound." New York magazine's Jonathan Chait wrote that Romney's "is running on his record at Bain Capital." He also called Obama's defense of the Bain ad "perfectly sound." He added: "Romney has made his business career the center of his claim to expertise. Obama's ads suggest reasons why voters should eye this experience warily." [New York, 5/21/12]

PolitiFact: Romney "Made A Profit From Taking Over GST, And The Employees Lost Many Benefits Their Union Had Negotiated." PolitiFact found the Bain Capital ad's claims to be "mostly true":

We are checking this claim: "After purchasing the company, Mitt Romney and his partners loaded it with debt, closed the Kansas City plant and walked away with a healthy profit, leaving hundreds of employees out of work with their pensions in jeopardy."

We found, through corporate filings, interviews and investigations by other news organizations, that the statement is accurate but needs some clarification. First, it's true that Bain added significantly to GST's debt load while paying dividends to itself. The plant's closure, however, happened after Romney had left daily operations at Bain, though he led Bain during six years of its majority investment in the plant. And other, outside factors were at work, making the steel industry a tough business. Steel prices were low and electricity costs were high, and those forces drove other steel mills out of business around the same time.

The statement's last two claims are solid: Bain (and Romney) made a profit from taking over GST, and the employees lost many benefits their union had negotiated, including supplemental pension payments. The federal government had to step in to shore up the fund.

We rate the claim Mostly True. [PolitiFact, 5/16/12]

Romney Campaign Has Repeatedly Touted His Experience At Bain Capital

Gov. Mitt Romney: 25 Years In Business Has "Given Me An Understanding Of How America Works And How The Economy Works." In an interview with TIME's Mark Halperin, Romney explained that his experience in business has given him an understanding of how the economy works:

HALPERIN: The President says that your experience at Bain Capital will be central in this election. He says it does not qualify you to be a job creator as President. I know you think that working in the private sector in and of itself gives you insight into how the economy works, but what specific skills or policies did you learn at Bain that would help you create an environment where jobs would be created?

ROMNEY: Well that's a bit of a question like saying, what have you learned in life that would help you lead? My whole life has been learning to lead, from my parents, to my education, to the experience I had in the private sector, to helping run the Olympics, and then of course helping guide a state. Those experiences in totality have given me an understanding of how America works and how the economy works. Twenty five years in business, including business with other nations, competing with companies across the world, has given me an understanding of what it is that makes America a good place to grow and add jobs, and why jobs leave America - why businesses decide to locate here, and why they decide to locate somewhere else. What outsourcing causes - what it's caused by, rather. I understand, for instance, how to read a balance sheet. I happen to believe that having been in the private sector for twenty five years gives me a perspective on how jobs are created - that someone who's never spent a day in the private sector, like President Obama, simply doesn't understand.

HALPERIN: I want to ask you to be just a little bit more specific about that, because again, he said this is like the central way he's going to run this campaign, to focus on your business career. You said you know how to read a balance sheet. There are a lot of people in America who know how to do that. What would make you qualify to be President - again, specific things you've learned, things you know, policies that grow out of your experience at Bain Capital that would lead toward job creation.

ROMNEY: Well Mark, let's be a little more specific as to the area you'd like to suggest. Trade policies? Labor policies? Energy policies? Let's take energy, for instance. I understand that in some industries, the input cost of energy is a major factor in whether an industry is going to locate in the United States or go elsewhere. So, when at Bain Capital, we started a new steel company called Steel Dynamics in Indiana, the cost of energy was a very important factor to the success of that enterprise. [TIME, 5/23/12]

Romney: "I've Had A Number Of Leadership Experiences And I Know How To Run Things." Romney touted his business experience at Bain Capital during the Republican primary in February:

[W]ith the rise of Rick Santorum, Romney's past as a successful manager -- of the Olympics, Bain Capital and the state of Massachusetts -- has become an even more central point of contrast between Romney and his competition.

"[Santorum has] never run a business, never run a city, never run a state, has no experience in leading or running something," Romney told a Detroit radio station on Wednesday, in response to a question about why he's a better choice than Santorum. "My experience was I started off in business, worked my way up and became head of a business and, then started a business of my own successfully, and then was asked to go out and run the Olympics and ran that successfully, and then became a governor and was successful in running that."

As a result, Romney said, he can more effectively lead the country than Santorum.

"I've had a number of leadership experiences and I know how to run things and know how to lead," he said. [Politico, 2/18/12]

Romney On Record Of Job Creation At Bain Capital: "I'm Going To Stand And Defend Capitalism ... Throughout This Campaign." During the CNN Republican primary presidential debate on January 19, Mitt Romney responded to a question about his claims of job creation during his time at Bain Capital:

ROMNEY: We started a number of businesses. Four in particular created 120,000 jobs. As of today. We started them years ago. They've grown well beyond the time I was there to 120,000 people that have been employed by those enterprises. There are other we've been with. Some we have been with, some of which have lost jobs. People have evaluated that - since - well, since I ran four years ago when I ran for governor. And those that have been documented to lost jobs lost about 10,000 jobs. So 120,000 less 10 means we created something over 100,000 jobs. There's some, by the way, that were businesses we acquired that grew and became more successful like Domino's Pizza and a company called Duane Reade and others. I'm very proud of the fact that throughout my career we tried to build enterprises hopefully to try to return money to investors. There's nothing wrong with profit, by the way. That profit -- that profit went to pension funds, to charities. It went to a wide array of institutions. A lot of people benefited from that and by the way as enterprises has become more profitable, they can hire more people. I'm someone who believes in free enterprise. I think Adam Smith was right. And I'm going to stand and defend capitalism across this country throughout this campaign. I know we're going to get it hard from President Obama but we'll stuff it down his throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong. [MittRomney.com, 1/19/12]

Romney Communications Director Highlighted Bain Capital Job Creation Claims. In a blog post on Mitt Romney's campaign website, Romney communications director Gail Gitcho touted Romney's record at Bain, citing 2011 employment levels at several companies that Bain had invested in. [MittRomney.com, 1/19/12]

Romney Spokeswoman Andrea Saul: Romney's Experience At Bain Capital Give Him "Unique Skills And Capabilities" To Deal With The Economy. During the primary, the Romney campaign defended his record at Bain and argued that it made him uniquely qualified to be president:

In a broadly worded statement, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul defended the candidate's record in the private sector and said that at Bain & Co., Romney "helped lead a successful turnaround. At Bain Capital, he helped launch and guide a private equity and financial services firm."

"Bain Capital invested in many businesses; while not every business was successful, the firm had an excellent overall track record," Saul said. "These experiences give Mr. Romney the unique skills and capabilities to do what President Obama has failed to do: focus on job creation and turn around our nation's faltering economy." [Politico, 7/14/11]

Romney Campaign Released Ad Highlighting Bain Capital Investment In Successful Steel Company. On May 14, the Romney campaign released an ad hyping the Bain investment in Steel Dynamics. The narration in the ad says, "SDI almost never got started. When others shied away, Mitt Romney's private sector leadership team stepped in." [MittRomney.com, 5/14/12]

But Right-Wing Media Label Obama's Bain Capital Ad As "An Attack On Capitalism"

Fox's Gretchen Carlson: Ad Is "An Attack On Capitalism" Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson called the Bain Capital ad "an attack on capitalism":

CARLSON: So, how does the President get away with having it both ways? He had this huge fundraiser with a huge private equity guy here in New York City from Blackstone. And at the same time he's vilifying Mitt Romney for doing the exact same thing.

[...]

CARLSON: It is a double standard. It's an attack on capitalism. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/16/12]

Wall Street Journal'sKim Strassel: "This Is About A President Who Thinks Private Business Is Bad." On Meet The Press, Kim Strassel stated that the reason for going after Romney's time at Bain Capital was that the President "thinks private business is bad":

STRASSEL: Bain fundamentally is about two conflicting visions.

[...]

STRASSEL: This is about a president who thinks that private business is bad, that you need bigger government, more regulation, higher taxes, all of those things, and that people like Mitt Romney who were job creators fundamentally suck the life out of the economy. [NBC, Meet The Press, 5/20/12]

Fox's Gretchen Carlson: "This Class Warfare Dialogue, Which Some People Believe Is Happening, Is Going To Continue." Discussing President Obama's comments about the Bain Capital ad, Carlson said:

CARLSON: You have to go back to that press conference yesterday with President Obama when he was asked point blank, do you blame Governor Romney for those job losses, he didn't answer the question. So, I'm not so sure that he's going to point blank blame Romney like those ads do, but it's obvious that they're not walking away from this discussion, guys. They are not walking away from this. The president made it very clear yesterday. This is not a distraction. This comes down to a difference in philosophy and ideology about how two different men would run this country. The president says that Mitt Romney is missing what the president's job is all about. The job is not simply to maximize profits, it's to give everyone a fair shot. Have we heard that before? This lingo, this class warfare dialogue, which some people believe is happening is going to continue. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/22/12]

Fox's Andrea Tantaros: Obama Is Trying To Win Re-Election By "Going After Capitalism." On America's Newsroom, The Five co-host Andrea Tantaros stated that President Obama was going to try to win re-election by "going after capitalism":

TANTAROS: This is such a baseless charge about Bain Capital, and it's laughable to think that somehow the president is going to win an election going after capitalism. And he's doing it, might I add, by himself. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/22/12]

Right-Wing Media Have Repeatedly Claimed Obama Is Anti-Business

Bill O'Reilly: "Some Perceive" That Obama Is Fostering An "Anti-Business Climate." Speaking about the Obama campaign's fundraising, O'Reilly said:

O'REILLY: [Casino owner Steve Wynn] Does not like -- and I don't believe he's alone -- the anti-business climate that some perceive President Obama is fostering. So, why would the fat cats want to give the president four more years when he's done such a poor job on the economy? [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 7/19/11 via Media Matters]

Fox's Eric Bolling: Obama Is "Demonizing" Business Owners. In response to the founder of BET commenting that the White House lacked leadership on the economy, Eric Bolling stated:

BOLLING: [Obama]'s demonizing the business community, the business environment. I mean, the whole, you know, taxing people making over $250,000 a year -- that's small businesses. The business community is saying enough already with the class warfare trying to say if you're successful and you've made money, you're going to help pay for some of the social programs that he's always trying to make bigger and bigger. [Fox News, The Five, 9/28/11 via Media Matters]

Fox's Charlie Gasparino: Obama "Has Some Very Anti-Business Instincts." On America Live, Fox Business reporter Charlie Gasparino claimed President Obama has "anti-business instincts" while discussing his theory that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt secretly wants Romney to win:

GASPARINO: I think [Immelt] took the job for two reasons -- and this is like an outside adviser's job. Number one: Yes, to help GE.

[...]

GASPARINO: I think the second part is that he did feel like he wanted to give something back, that he did want to be part of an effort to show Obama, who clearly has -- listen, I don't think this is a political statement - he has some very anti-business instincts. [Fox News, America Live, 3/20/12 via Media Matters]

Charlie Gasparino: "This Administration Is Anti-Business, And That's Scary." When the National Labor Relations Board sued Boeing for allegedly moving work from Washington state to North Carolina, Gasparino stated:

GASPARINO: I know the Obama administration is going out of its way to say it's not anti-business.

[...]

GASPARINO: I tell you, this is really scary for investors in this country, because it's just proving that this administration is anti-business, and that's scary when you have nine percent unemployment. [Fox News, Cavuto on Business, 5/28/11]

Fox's Charles Payne: "The War Against Business Has Been Ratcheted Up Tremendously." During a segment about the NLRB suing Boeing, Fox contributor Charles Payne said: "The war against business has been ratcheted up tremendously." [Fox News, Cavuto on Business, 5/28/11]

]]> K.Z. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230016 Wed, 23 May 2012 17:30:00 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230009 Right-wing media have attacked a contract between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and a public relations firm to raise awareness of health and preventive care opportunities as a "propaganda piece" for the health care law that "violates many of the procurement laws." But PR campaigns like this are nothing new; in fact, the Bush administration spent $1.6 billion dollars over a 30-month span promoting its policies.

HHS Launches PR Campaign To "Educate The Public" On Health And Preventive Care Opportunities

The Hill: PR Firm Won "Competitive Bidding Process" To "Educate The Public About How To Stay Healthy And Prevent Ilnesses." The Hill reported on May 21 that HHS signed a $20 million contract with a public relations firm to "educate the public about how to stay healthy and prevent illnesses" and explain "preventive benefits provided by the healthcare law." From The Hill:

The Health and Human Services Department has signed a $20 million contract with a public-relations firm to highlight part of the Affordable Care Act.

The new, multimedia ad campaign is designed to educate the public about how to stay healthy and prevent illnesses, an HHS official said. 

The campaign was mandated by the Affordable Care Act and must describe the importance of prevention while also explaining preventive benefits provided by the healthcare law. The law makes many preventive services available without a co-pay or deductible, and provides new preventive benefits to Medicare patients.

The PR firm Porter Novelli won the contract after a competitive bidding process. The $20 million contract was first reported by PR Week. Porter Novelli did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [The Hill, 5/12/12]

Right-Wing Media Attack Preventive Health Campaign As "Propaganda" That "Violates ... Laws"

Sarah Palin: Health Care Law PR Campaign Is "A Propaganda Piece" That "Violates Many Of The Laws" Of "Government Contracts." On the May 22 edition of Fox News' On The Record, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin called the HHS campaign "one of the stupidest things I've heard coming out of Obama administration" and claimed it was a "propaganda piece" which "violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts." From On The Record:

PALIN: This is one of the stupidest things I've heard coming out of the Obama administration. Not only is this, of course, pending in court, and I think it will be deemed unconstitutional, but this is a propaganda piece, which I think violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts. This is propaganda. It's just promoting Obamacare.

And $20 million -- take it one step further and find out how did this PR firm even be awarded the $20 million contract? It's crony capitalism on steroids, Greta. The $20 million is going to a firm that employs and has as head honchos Obama surrogates. It's payback for their support of Obama.

And this comes on the heels of another $6 million HHS contract that went to another Obama crony, who happens to be the crony who Jeremiah Wright alleges was bribed with $150,000 to hush up until the election was over. Connect the dots. The $20 million contract is just part of the crony capitalism that corrupts Washington, D.C. [Fox News, On The Record, 5/22/12]

Stuart Varney: "You Could Say That's Using Taxpayer Money To Buy Some Votes." On the May 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney claimed "you could say" that the campaign is "using taxpayer money to buy some votes." Later in the segment, co-host Brian Kilmeade noted that "as a country, we put $100 million into selling the prescription drug plan and President Bush was president at the time" but claimed the situation was different because Bush "was not running for re-election. He was explaining a plan that got passed." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/23/12]

Fox's Ainsley Earhardt: It's "Hard To Imagine This Is Even Legal." On the May 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First, co-host Ainsley Earhardt introduced a segment on the PR campaign by saying, "It's time for 'What the Hill,' and once we tell you the story, you'll understand why." After the report, Earhardt reacted to the story by claiming that it's "hard to imagine this is even legal, but it is." [Fox News, Fox & Friends First, 5/23/12]

Hot Air: "Obamacare Looks More And More Like A Slush Fund To Repay Obama Cronies." In a May 22 post on Hot Air, Ed Morrissey wrote that the campaign was to convince Americans "that they actually love government control of their health care" and that "ObamaCare looks more and more like a slush fund to repay Obama cronies." From Hot Air:

You know what ObamaCare really needs?  No, not a Constitutional loophole, or a subservient Supreme Court.  It needs a public-relations campaign to convince the majorty [sic] of Americans who want it repealed that they actually love government control of their health care.  And guess what?  We all get to pay for it

[...]

ObamaCare looks more and more like a slush fund to repay Obama cronies.  No wonder Obama is so desperate to save it. [Hot Air, 5/22/12]

But This Is Nothing New: The Bush Admin. Spent More Than $1 Billion On PR Campaigns To Promote Its Policies

SF Chronicle: "Bush PR Costs Taxpayers $1.6 Billion" Over 30 Months. A February 14, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle  article noted that a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that "[t]he Bush administration spent at least $1.6 billion on public relations and advertising campaigns over 30 months." From The San Francisco Chronicle:

The Bush administration spent at least $1.6 billion on public relations and advertising campaigns over 30 months, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The report, requested by congressional Democrats, shows that government agencies are relying on outside consultants to help pitch their messages to the public, whether it's to bolster public support for the war in Iraq, deter buying prescription drugs from Canada or recruit for the armed forces.

"To communicate these messages to the general public or particular target audiences, departments contract with media-related vendors ... for a wide range of services, including communication plans, marketing design strategies, public relations campaigns, public service announcements and educational materials," according to the report.

The GAO report referenced by the San Francisco Chronicle included the following chart showing that the majority of the Bush administration's PR spending went to "advertising agencies" and "public relations firms." From the report:

[San Francisco Chronicle, 2/14/06; Government Accountability Office, 1/05]

Bush Administration Gave Media Outlets "Prepackaged News Stories" Without Acknowledging Its Role. According to a March 15, 2005, Washington Post article, the Bush administration regularly gave "TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them." From The Washington Post:

The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.

That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda. [The Washington Post, 3/15/05]

Bush Administration "Spent At Least $88 Million" On PR Campaigns In 2004 Alone. A January 26, 2005, USA Today article reported that an analysis of Bush administration spending found that, in the first term, Bush's administration doubled PR spending from President Clinton's second term. The article further pointed out that in 2004, the Bush administration spent $88 million "on contracts with public relations firms." From USA Today:

The Bush administration has more than doubled its spending on outside contracts with public relations firms during the past four years, according to an analysis of federal procurement data by congressional Democrats.

The administration spent at least $88 million in fiscal 2004 on contracts with major public relations firms, the analysis found, compared with $37 million in 2001, Bush's first year in office. In all, the administration spent $250 million on public relations contracts during its first term, compared with $128 million spent for President Clinton between 1997 and 2000. The analysis did not examine what the Clinton administration spent during its first term. [USA Today, 1/27/05]

Bush's HHS Spent $12.6M To Promote New Medicare Drug Benefits. HHS reportedly spent $12.6 million on a 2004 ad campaign explaining new Medicare prescription drug benefits. CBS News reported that critics questioned the objectivity of the ads, expressing concern about links between Bush's re-election campaign and one of the firms working on the ad campaign. [Media Matters, 8/2/10]

]]> J.V.B. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230009 Wed, 23 May 2012 14:15:21 EDT http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230007 Fox News host Brian Kilmeade attempted to whitewash Gov. Mitch Daniels' (R-IN) record as director of the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), attacking the accusation that Daniels "drove up the deficit" and claiming the surplus Bush inherited from the Clinton administration was only "on paper." But policies enacted by the Bush administration while Daniels was OMB director added "trillions" to the deficit and are still responsible for the majority of the increase in federal debt under President Obama, and the Bush administration inherited an actual budget surplus from the Clinton administration.

Fox's Kilmeade Spins Daniels' Deficit Record As Head Of Bush's OMB 

Kilmeade Pushes The "Different Reality" To The Claim That Daniels "Drove Up The Deficit." On the May 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade interviewed Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. During the interview, Kilmeade attacked Austan Goolsbee, former chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, who recently cited policies enacted under Daniels' tenure as Bush's OMB chief as evidence that Daniels and the Bush administration "drove up the deficit." From Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: A former White House chief economist getting defensive about President Obama's failure to get the deficit under control.

GOOLSBEE [video]: Look, I don't dispute that the deficit has increased. I think for the Republicans who set in place the policies that led to the economic crisis that exploded the deficit to now be saying, well, look, why is the deficit so big is a bit -- you know, they lit the back half of the house on fire, now they're complaining the air conditioning doesn't work. 

KILMEADE: Well, you heard what Paul Ryan said to that. Let's find out what somebody else says to that. The budget chief under President Bush begs to differ. We're joined right now by now governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. Governor, welcome back to the show. Can you answer Austan Goolsbee - you, in terms of driving up deficit? It was your policy that drove up the deficit? 

DANIELS: I understand why he's defensive. You know, doubling the deficit on this watch in the terrible economy, which is the biggest problem of all, even bigger than overspending, is the really anemic recovery we've got and that's all on the policies of this administration. No, I mean, they've tried this a long time, but it's very lame. You know, the deficit in 2007 was 1.2 percent of GDP, one of the lowest post-war. So, you know, a lot went into getting us in the fix we are in now, but it really won't wash for them to keep looking back, back, back, trying to blame it on someone else. 

KILMEADE: They're trying to blame it on someone else, but it keeps coming back to you -- your Office of Management and Budget, and people know what you've done as governor and Democrats are praising you as well. But they keep saying, "Well, you drove up the deficit." But in reality -- there's a different reality to what you actually inherited, correct? 

DANIELS: Yeah, sure. There was a bubble breaking back then, too, and all the revenue that people imagined was coming, everyone thought was coming. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/22/12]

But Policies Enacted While Daniels Led Bush's OMB Added "Trillions" To The Federal Deficit

NYT's Leonhardt: Policies Passed While Daniels Was OMB Chief "Erased ... $673 Billion" Of An $850 Billion Surplus. In a January 8, 2011, post on his Economix blog, New York Times economics writer David Leonhardt reacted to Daniels' claim that the budget deficit of the Bush administration was due to the stock-market bubble of the early 2000s by noting that while the bubble "erased a little less than $300 billion" of the $850 billion surplus forecasted by the Congressional Budget Office, but Bush policies "erased another $673 billion." From The New York Times:

When President Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting an average annual budget surplus of $850 billion for 2009 through 2012, according to an analysis I did in 2009.

The bursting stock-market bubble and recession that Mr. Daniels mentions erased a little less than $300 billion of the surplus. The Bush administration's policies -- including the tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Medicare prescription-drug program -- erased another $673 billion.

Mr. Daniels is certainly correct that the bursting bubble of 2000 and beyond helped cause a recession -- and that the recession, in turn, shrank the federal surplus. But it is not true that "it wouldn't have mattered what policies you tried to implement." The Bush administration's policies did more than twice as much damage to the budget as the recession did. [The New York Times, 1/8/11]

Ezra Klein: Daniels "Held A Command Post" While Bush Passed Policies That Added "Trillions ... To The Deficit." In an August 25, 2011, post on The Washington Post'sWonkblog, Ezra Klein pointed out that while Bush's policies "cannot all be laid at Daniels' feet," he "held a command post" in the Bush administration "during many of [the] mistakes" that led to high deficits. From The Washington Post: 

"When President Obama claims that the state of our union is anything but grave," Daniels said, "he must know in his heart that this is not true." And the reason for Daniels' gloom was debt. We have too much of it. Much too much of it. And over and again, Daniels signaled that Republicans were not blameless in the rise of red ink. "The President did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight," he said. "To make such action happen, we also must work, in ways we Republicans have not always practiced, to bring Americans together," he admitted.

What Daniels didn't say is that he, Mitch Daniels, held a command post during many of these mistakes.

Daniels was George W. Bush's first budget director. He served from 2001 to mid-2003. That is to say, he oversaw the first round of tax cuts, and the initial cost estimates of the war in Iraq, and the development of the deficit-financed Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. During his time as Bush's budget director, the deficit increased by almost $200 billion. After he left, the policies he helped pass would add trillions more to the deficit. They are still adding to the deficit today.

These policies cannot all be laid at Daniels' feet. It is unlikely that Bush's budget director was heavily involved in the decision to enter Iraq -- though Daniels did produce short-term cost estimates that helped reassure Congress, quite wrongly, that the war would be swift and affordable. But the same cannot be said for the Medicare expansion, or the tax cuts. And as the New York Times has pointed out, these policies, together, have done more damage to the deficit than any legislation signed into law under President Obama. [The Washington Post, 8/25/11] 

TPM: Daniels "Was One Of The Men In Charge Of The Bush Budget That ... Helped Create The Gigantic Federal Deficit." In a January 5, 2011, post on Talking Points Memo, Evan McMorris-Santoro pointed out that Daniels "was one of the men in charge of the Bush budget" that "helped create the gigantic federal deficit." From TPM:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) -- on the short list of contenders for the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012 -- has an explanation for why the deficit exploded under George W. Bush. And it's not the massive Bush tax cuts, which Daniels helped shepherd as Bush's director of the OMB.

"The nation went into a deficit then because the bubble burst and we had a recession," Daniels told CNN this afternoon. "It wouldn't have mattered what policies you tried to implement, we were going to have a great big reversal."

Daniels' presidential ambitions could be hampered by the fact that he was one of the men in charge of the Bush budget that dramatically increased the size of federal government spending and slashed revenues thanks to the tax cuts. That helped create the gigantic federal deficit that Republicans used as a rhetorical cudgel to bludgeon the Democratic House majority to death in November. Tea partiers also like to use the deficit cudgel on Republicans, especially those that voted for Bush's budgets. (Daniels has other problems with the GOP base, too, such as his suggestion that it's time for a "truce" on social issues, which ticked off the values voters something fierce.) [Talking Points Memo, 1/5/11] 

Economic Policy Institute: "Bush Administration's Policies" Under Daniels "Ensured A Mediocre Economic Recovery." In a January 24 post on the Economic Policy Institute's (EPI) Working Economics blog, Andrew Fieldhouse noted that tax cuts passed under Daniels' tenure as OMB chief "are responsible for roughly half of today's structural budget deficit and half the public debt accumulated last decade." Fieldhouse further pointed out:

Daniels ran OMB from Jan. 2001 to June 2003; during his tenure, he helped craft the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. (Later tax acts accelerated implementation of some of these tax cuts, but this is when the real fiscal malfeasance occurred.) When Daniels took charge of OMB, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was projecting a $5.0 trillion (4.0 percent of GDP) budget surplus over the next decade. When he left office, CBO was projecting a $1.4 trillion (-1.0 percent of GDP) budget deficit over the next decade. Roughly $4.8 trillion of the fiscal deterioration resulted from legislation enacted over 2001-2003; the tax cuts alone added $2.6 trillion to the public debt over 2001-2010. (The other major drivers of this fiscal deterioration were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which Daniels didn't bother to pay for or even put on budget.) The 2001 recession certainly contributed to the emerging deficits--just as half of this year's deficit can be chalked up to economic weakness--but the Bush administration's economic policies ensured a mediocre economic recovery. [EPI, 1/24/12] 

Many Policies Passed Under Daniels And Throughout The Bush Administration Continue To Be The Primary Cause Of The Deficit

Ezra Klein: Bush Policies Responsible For Vast Majority Of Debt Increase Under Obama Administration. In a January 31 Washington Post column, Klein estimated that Obama's policies are responsible for $983 billion of the nearly $5 trillion increase in public debt over the course of his administration, while the remainder of the debt increase is attributable to Bush-era policies - many of which were enacted during Daniels' tenure at OMB. From The Washington Post:

[I]f you're a deficit-obsessed voter, the clock doesn't answer the key question: How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it's about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama's opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama's policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

A chart accompanying the column made in conjunction with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) illustrated the debt impact of Bush's policies versus Obama's:

[The Washington Post, 1/31/12; The Washington Post, 1/31/12]

For more on the impact that Bush's policies have had on the federal debt, click here.

Kilmeade: Surplus Inherited By The Bush Administration "Was On Paper, It Wasn't In The Bank"

Kilmeade To Daniels: The Surplus Inherited By The Bush Administration "Was On Paper, It Wasn't In The Bank." From Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: They're trying to blame it on someone else, but it keeps coming back to you. Your Office of Management and Budget and people know what you've done as governor and Democrats are praising you as well. But they keep saying, "Well, you drove up the deficit." But in reality -- there's a different reality to what you actually inherited, correct? 

DANIELS: Yeah, sure. There was a bubble breaking back then, too, and all the revenue that people imagined was coming, everyone thought was coming --  

KILMEADE: The surplus was on paper, it wasn't in the bank. 

DANIELS: Yeah, it never happened and wasn't going to, given the, again, the economic recession that took place then. But, you know, it's really not worth arguing about at this point. We're in a very bad place, and the question is -- as it always is - is what do we do now? And what this administration is doing with regard to economic growth and spending discipline is simply not going to get the job done. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/22/12]

But The Bush Administration Inherited A Real Budget Surplus From The Clinton Administration

FactCheck.org: "Any Way You Count It, The Federal Budget Was Balanced And The Deficit Was Erased" Under Clinton. In a February 3, 2008, post, FactCheck.org pointed out that, even after removing Social Security surpluses, "there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while." From FactCheck.org:

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

The post further noted that even under a different accounting process called "accrual accounting," the "annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998,  $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000.  So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."

FactCheck also included the following chart:

[FactCheck.org, 2/3/08]

The Economist: "The Clinton Administration Delivered A Couple Of Years Of Real Verifiable Budget Surpluses In The Late 1990s." A July 27, 2011, post on The Economist's Democracy in America blog noted that, while the long-term debt projections of the late 1990s may not have materialized, "The Clinton administration delivered a couple of years of real verifiable budget surpluses in the late 1990s, and if Clintonian levels of taxation and spending had continued, they likely would have generated annual surpluses that would have shrunk the debt by over $2 billion over the decade thereafter." From The Economist:

The Clinton administration's calculations in 2000 that the government would pay off its debt and accumulate savings of $2.3 trillion over the following ten years were wrong. And they were wrong not because of any stupid error or dramatically incorrect theory about the economic world, but simply because they failed to predict that the American economy would experience a financial crisis in 2008, followed by the worst recession since the Great Depression and a historically anaemic recovery. (I assume they failed to predict the 2001 tech-crash recession as well.) The Clinton administration delivered a couple of years of real verifiable budget surpluses in the late 1990s, and if Clintonian levels of taxation and spending had continued, they likely would have generated annual surpluses that would have shrunk the debt by over $2 billion over the decade thereafter. But the forecast that they would have eliminated the debt entirely and replaced it with trillions of dollars in sovereign wealth was a mirage. [The Economist, 7/27/11] 

NYT: Bush Administration Went "From Healthy Surpluses At The End Of The Clinton Era ... To Nine Straight Years Of Deficits." A July 23, 2011, New York Times editorial blamed "largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions" for taking the federal budget "from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits." From The New York Times:

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here -- from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

[...]

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton's policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit. In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush's policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama's policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary. [The New York Times, 7/24/11]

Daniels Is A Fox News Star

"A Star Is Born": Fox Figures Lauded Daniels For His Response To The State Of The Union. In January, Fox figures gushed over Daniels' Republican response to the State of the Union, with Chris Wallace claiming that "a star is born." Others praised Daniels' address as "poetic," "funny," "strong," and "quite impressive." [Media Matters, 1/25/12]

And Fox Similarly Whitewashed GOP Sen. Rob Portman's Fiscal Record As Bush OMB Chief

Fox Whitewashed Portman's "Interesting Background" As Bush OMB Director. In August 2011, reporting on the lawmakers selected to negotiate deficit reduction, Fox News' Mike Emanuel touted Sen. Rob Portman's (R-OH) "interesting background," saying that not only does he have legislative experience, but "he's done the budget from the administration side of things." But Portman's "interesting background" was serving as OMB during the Bush administration when federal deficits more than doubled. [Media Matters, 8/10/11]

]]> J.V.B. http://mediamatters.org/research/201205230007 Wed, 23 May 2012 13:47:20 EDT