Anatomy of a Fraud
For a week or more, conservatives have been touting a Congressional Budget Office report said to criticize the Obama spending proposal on the ground that little of the proposed stimulus would get to work quickly. David Brooks was especially impressed, devoting a column to the subject and promoting this ostensible CBO finding on Friday's NewsHour, while Jim Lehrer sagely nodded and Mark Shields let the matter pass. Other esteemed custodians of the national trust who accepted this CBO story were Andrea Mitchell, David Gergen, Jonathan Karl, David Gregory, and even the usually reliable Ray Suarez, who played he-said-she-said.
Except that the CBO numbers floating around were partial and preliminary. The full report has just been posted here. Here's the careful David Leonhardt in yesterday's NYT (with my italics):
The numbers came from the Congressional Budget Office and seemed to show that only 38 percent of the money in the bill would be spent by September 2010. That didn't sound very stimulating, and the numbers soon caused a minor media sensation.But anyone who looked closely would have seen something strange about the table. It suggested that the bill would cost only $355 billion in all, rather than its actual cost of about $800 billion.
Why? It turns out that the table was analyzing only certain parts of the bill, like new spending on highways, education and energy. It ignored the tax cuts, jobless benefits and Medicaid payments -- the very money that will be spent the fastest.
On Monday evening, the Congressional Budget Office put out its analysis of the full bill, and it gave a very different picture. It estimated that about 64 percent of the money, or $526 billion, would be spent by next September.
The gullible pundit squad is back on duty. I thought they were supposed to be in the tank for Obama.
(H/t: Tim Fernholz, Ryan Grim. )
Slothful reporters, incurious liberals, and devious columnists strike again!
January 28, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It ignored the tax cuts, jobless benefits and Medicaid payments -- the very money that will be spent the fastest.
So ---
If that's the program's best selling point, why not get rid of the boondoggles and give us -- the citizens -- the money and let us decide where to spend it?
January 28, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen says:
Aye, there's the rub. Will you spend it?
There are millions of people like me and my wife who won't spend it as we have all we need now. There are also many who will use it to pay bills, and others who will spend it at Walmart purchasing Chinese imports.
If Dick Cheney, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or some Hedge Fund manager gets the money how will they spend it?
January 28, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. If we can look at the election in November as a referendum on anything, I think it's legitimate to say it polled the American voter's belief of what makes an effective economic incentive.
McCain and the Repubs were all about tax cuts, naturally. Ask them about the cure for whooping cough, and they'll tell you it's tax cuts. Especially for the wealthiest among us so it can trickle down.
Obama and the Dems, on the other hand, spoke of public works projects and massive spending by the government as the "consumer of last resort" that could prime the pump once again in this consumer-driven economy.
We saw what happened. McCain's polling numbers went down nearly in direct proportion to the seriousness of the slump in our economy. For the Republicans to now insist that the stimulus plan requires massive tax cuts to gain their support should be suicidal, politically. The Dems need to hold them responsible for their own stupidity by going ahead with the stimulus plan selected by the voters while letting the GOP choke on their foolish, obstructionist call for a tax money giveaway to their corporate constituents rather than an effective use of these funds as an economic stimulus.
As a means of expressing some bipartisan sentiment, I will also say that the Dems will do well to eliminate all pork or special interest funding in this stimulus plan if it cannot be reasoned to be effective for that purpose. The complaint about millions being spent on birth control pills would seem to be legitimate, for example. Either show the way in which this expenditure will effectively stimulate the economy or abandon it as unwelcome pork.
We're talking alot of money here for this stimulus plan. The Dems need to be focused upon getting it done right with methods that are above reproach. If they can do so, I believe the voters will cut them a lot of slack for at least trying to do what's right rather than mimicking the GOP's choice to engage politics as usual.
January 28, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, except that "birth control" was a frame used by the right. The $200 million in question was to extend a Medicaid provision (dating back to President Nixon) for family planning, which would ultimately save states $400 million. For a multiplier of 2x (which is pretty effective stimulus).
The real trouble here is that the issues are complex, and the media infrastructure -- even PBS -- is only able to deal with very simple stories.
The punditocracy and the politicians practice speaking in simple-minded phrases. They've trained themselves to talk stupid. They may now actually BE stupid.
-- ARG
January 28, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would definitely say 2X is better than the 1.2X we can expect to get from the Republican tax cuts. Thanks for enlightening me on this.
If anything, I'm even more concerned that all this Democratic goodwill and willingness to try to reach across the aisle has offered little but allow the Repubs to take advantage. In so doing, the GOP is framing the discussion, and that ain't right. They lost, and lost big on the economy. They should get spanked hard.
January 29, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the biggest frustrations these last number of years has been observing the way in which the Republicans nearly always manage to define the debate. Now we see them making up facts to support their otherwise indefensible arguments.
I'm not quite ready to blame the pundits for the lapse of intellectual vigor here. After all, we've gotten pretty used to that and expect not much more from them.
But it's time the Dems learn how to get their message out effectively and counter such dishonest rhetoric with plain speaking truthtelling.
January 28, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, SJ.
It's truly unbelievable to see grown persons lying so brazenly! I'm outraged - to put it mildly.
January 28, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
SJ,
truly. The Dems need a damage control strike force
to scatter out all over TV whenever the Repubs spread out over the airwaves with their talking points like what someone else referred to as "fireants."
January 28, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Gregory is on a roll.
He advised Rachel Maddow on her show, that the NY Times story about Caroline K. taking herself out of consideration for NY Senator was NOT TRUE.
The next morning, in a one sentence statement, Caroline K. took herself out of consideration of same.
Cub Reporter, David Gregory. (You're not protected in the WH Briefing Room anymore, David.)
As for Chuck Todd ... he is daily repressing his discomfort at being around a couple of radicals like Olbermann and Maddow, who insist on telling it like it is. That's Todd's spine shivering at the proximity to real reporters.
Cub News Chief, Chuck Todd.
Go Press!
January 28, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
With debt and deficits as far as the eye can see that even Hubble can't peer to the end, more tax cuts are stupid. That is all McConnell and republicans know. We already know cutting taxes doesn't fix a thing. It just puts money into the pockets of people who already have more than they are willing or able to spend. And why should we give the republicans the time of day when they are intent upon seeing Obama and our country fail?
January 28, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media was cleansed years ago of any actual reporters.
January 28, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. We can guess why... But how, exactly, did that happen?
January 28, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
CBO story were Andrea Mitchell, David Gergen, Jonathan Karl, David Gregory, and even the usually reliable Ray Suarez, who played he-said-she-said.
bag manufacturer
August 12, 2010 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks...
türk porno
February 5, 2011 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
emekli sandığı
I used to be very pleased to discover this site.I needed to we appreciate you this great read!! I definitely enjoying every amount of it and that i have you ever bookmarked to look at new belongings you post.
araç sorgulama
March 23, 2011 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v networking, iscsi on linux
April 1, 2011 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability storage
April 29, 2011 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink