McClellan debuts with dissembling about taxes and deficits (7/16)

By Ben Fritz

In his first briefing as the President's press secretary yesterday, Scott McClellan revealed an ability to spin just as ably as his predecessor, Ari Fleischer. Just as Fleischer and others in the administration have done, McClellan incorrectly suggested yesterday that tax cuts played no role or a small role in the the growing federal deficit, which the Office of Management and Budget said yesterday will be over $450 billion this year.

Asked about the new deficit figures, McClellan said the following: "Now, we had a recession. We also had declining revenues because of that. And we had a war on terrorism. That's what led to the deficit that we are in today."

This is patently ridiculous. Newly released budget information from the OMB demonstrates that the 2001, 2002 and 2003 tax cuts cost a total of $177 billion in 2003, a sizable chunk of the $455 billion deficit.

Later on, in an exchange with a reporter, McClellan didn't pretend the tax cuts don't exist, but inaccurately downplayed their importance:

Q: One more thing, if I may. You had a laundry list, basically, about what has contributed to the deficit, and you didn't include the tax cuts in there. Was that an oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no. Again, there's going to be a full briefing on there. But, clearly, it was, you know, the slower economic recovery and weak stock market that caused revenues to decline, which explains the biggest change that you'll see in our budget position -- followed by cost of war and the economic growth plan.

After correctly stating that the combination of the slow economy and weak stock market has been the biggest cause of deficit growth, McClellan dissembles when he says that is "followed by cost of war and the economic growth plan." Put simply, he has the order of these two factors reversed.

OMB data reveals that the entire cost of all new spending in 2003, as compared to assumptions made in April of 2001 (when it was estimated the federal government would run a $334 billion surplus this year), is $193 billion. Given new spending on unemployment and homeland security, amongst many other non-war factors, it's extremely unlikely that over $177 billion of that figure is attributable to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, while the OMB data does not break down how much was spent on recent wars, the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated, based on data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that of the deterioration in the budget picture since January of 2001, "Some $90 billion comes from the costs of war (defined broadly)."

Not an impressive debut for the man charged with honestly telling the press and public about the President's policies.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

7/16/2003 01:49:49 PM EST |

Not quite a "false claim" (7/16)

By Ben Fritz

In the heated controversy over whether the President misled the nation with false intelligence about Iraq, accuracy is crucial. Critics, after all, are accusing the Bush administration of making a misleading case for war using questionable evidence. But a new ad from the Democratic National Committee shows that some of his critics are guilty of inaccuracy as well.

The advertisement, which has received a great deal of news coverage despite airing in only a few markets so far, begins with simulated typing on-screen that reads "In his State of the Union address George W. Bush told us of an imminent threat." It then shows the president during the State of the Union saying, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa."

The DNC doesn't quote the President in full, however. What he said was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." While it is true that many intelligence analysts in the CIA, State Department and elsewhere did not believe this evidence, the British government still stands behind it.

Furthermore, while the ad says "A year earlier, that claim was already proven to be false," the articles the ad cites specify that members of the Bush administration believed that claims Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger were false. But Bush said "Africa," not "Niger," and Bush administration officials have recently said that the claim referred to other nations besides Niger.

Of course, citing evidence he had every reason to believe was false makes the President guilty of deception (not to mention other deceptive claims the Bush administration made about Iraq that are largely absent from recent press reports). But the fact that Bush sourced his claim to the British, as well as the reference to all of Africa, not just Niger, make the issue a bit more complex than the DNC's ad portrays it to be. Both sides should be held to a high standard of accuracy in such an important dispute.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-The strategically ambiguous George W. Bush (Bryan Keefer, 6/12/03)
-More myths, misconceptions and unanswered questions about the war in Iraq (Brendan Nyhan and Bryan Keefer, 5/28/03)
-Myths and misconceptions about the war in Iraq (Brendan Nyhan and Bryan Keefer, 4/4/03)
-Myths and misconceptions about Iraq (Bryan Keefer, Ben Fritz and Brendan Nyhan, 3/20/03)

7/16/2003 01:30:23 PM EST |

The catch in Bush's $15 billion HIV/AIDS plan (7/14)

By Ben Fritz

In his State of the Union address this year, President Bush proposed spending $15 billion over the next five years on HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, primarily in Africa. Since then, as this Financial Times op-ed explains, the five-year plan has been authorized by Congress, but no funds have yet been appropriated and signed into law, meaning the $15 billion may not actually be spent.

Moreover, Bush himself did not request a full year's allotment of funds, asking for only $2 billion for fiscal year 2003, which was significantly less than the $3 billion Congress had authorized to fulfill his plan. Last week, the House of Representatives appropriated just a little over $2 billion, the Washington Post reported, while the Senate passed a nonbinding resolution to spend $3 billion.

Clearly, there's reason to doubt whether $15 billion will ever be spent, but this hasn't stopped President Bush from touting his plan as if the funds were a sure thing.

"Over the next five years, we will spend $15 billion in the global fight against AIDS," the President said in a recent press conference in South Africa. In an interview with the South African Broadcasting Corporation, he stated, "Well, let me start with the HIV program. I mean, enthusiasm is to the tune of $15 billion -- that's pretty darn enthusiastic." And in a recent press briefing about the President's trip to Africa, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice referred to "the $15 billion AIDS package."

The Bush administration has said it will request more money in subsequent years, but given high federal budget deficits and uncertainty as to whether Congress will appropriate the money, acting as if the $15 billion is a certainty is not an accurate representation. This hasn't stopped some in the press, however, from repeating the Bush administration's line as fact.

"The president's five- nation trip is aimed at showcasing his administration's Africa agenda," said Ray Suarez of PBS's "Newshour with Jim Lehrer." "That includes a $15 billion program to fight the spread of AIDS." A Reuters report said that "Bush comes armed with a $15 billion, five-year plan to fight the disease in Africa and the Caribbean." The Conservative News Service declared that, "President Bush will be pushing forward his AIDS relief initiative this week during his visit in Africa after setting aside $15 billion over the next five years, primarily in 14 African countries." Perhaps most misleading, though, was an Associated Press article which said, "Bush has won from Congress a plan to spend 15 billion dollars on drugs and prevention programs."

As this year's budget request by the President and funds allocated by the House indicate, that plan is not necessarily on track in reality. When Bush and the press speak as if that money is certain, they give the public a distorted take on the truth.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Spinsanity's coverage of President Bush

7/13/2003 10:29:26 PM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS