As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne explained very well today, George W. Bush has developed a reputation for being an honest man, while Bill Clinton and Al Gore were branded as liars. It’s a reputation Bush clearly hasn’t earned.
Dionne detailed a handful of Bush administration whoppers, including untruths surrounding the necessity of taking a jet to the USS Abraham Lincoln two weeks ago, lies about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities before war began in March, and outlandish claims that a dividend tax cut will create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
To his credit, Dionne believes there are three potential reasons to explain Bush’s ability to get away with saying so many things that clearly aren’t true: “(a) The Bush spin machine is much better than Clinton’s or Gore’s, and it can brush off absolutely anything; (b) the mainstream media are petrified that they’ll be accused of being unpatriotic or — much worse — French, so they report these things and then let them slip away without much comment or investigation; (c) Bush can get away with things few other politicians can because the view that he’s ‘decent, likable and truthful’ is now so deeply embedded in public opinion.”
I think Dionne’s right and it’s probably a combination of those factors that contribute to the problem.
With this in mind, I thought it’d be fun to look at a speech Bush gave yesterday in New Mexico to tout his economic plan and do a little “fact checking.”
“In March of 2000, the stock market started to decline. In January of 2001, we were in a recession, which meant three quarters of negative growth.”
Actually, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, not three, but that’s not the point. Bush has been making this claim a lot because, as he sees it, it gets him off the hook for the economic troubles we’re in. If we were in a recession in January ’01, the month Bush was inaugurated, then he’s not responsible for the downturn and he gets to blame Clinton. He’s made the same claim in several radio addresses. The problem is it isn’t true.
The two quarters before Bush’s inauguration experienced positive, albeit mild, growth — 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. So when Bush says we had “three quarters of negative growth” by January ’01, he’s not telling the truth — we hadn’t even experienced one quarter of negative growth. So when did the economy slow down? According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in March 2001.
“The best way to create demand for goods and services is let the people keep more of their own money.”
No one outside the White House seems to believe Bush’s plan to cut taxes for the wealthy will create jobs. A few weeks ago, the Washington Post checked with economists who aren’t on the president’s payroll as to whether Bush’s arguments hold water. Not surprisingly, they weren’t impressed with the White House’s plan.
“I suppose it matters whether you think economics matters,” said one GOP economist when asked whether Bush’s plan would work.
As the Post explained, “If stimulating the economy is simply a matter of pumping in money, these should be flush times, economists say, because the last two years have seen the largest tax cut in a generation and the largest two-year federal spending binge since Jimmy Carter was president.” But the point is the economy is still growing at an anemic rate. We’ve already cut taxes, but GDP is barely growing and unemployment has gone up significantly, not down as Bush promised.
“You see, in 2001, I went in front of the Congress, said, we’ve got an economic issue; let’s have tax relief for the American people. And they passed substantial tax relief. But the problem was the tax relief plan was phased in over three, five or seven years.”
This is disturbingly disingenious. It wasn’t Congress’ idea to phase in the tax cuts over several years, it was Bush’s idea, or more accurately, the White House aides who tell Bush what his ideas should be. In fact, the White House intentionally shaped the 2001 tax plan to phase in over several years so as to disguise the actual size of the overall tax cut. The plan was filled with smoke and mirrors, even with a “sunset clause” making the whole tax cut disappear in 2011, in order to minimize the real cost. If the 2001 tax cut plan was enacted all at once, the plan would have cost the government $2.5 trillion. To hear Bush whining about the “phase-in problem” of the 2001 plan is ridiculous; it was his plan.
“Oh, you’ll hear the talk about how this plan only helps the rich people. That’s just typical Washington, D.C. political rhetoric, is what that is. That’s just empty rhetoric.”
No, it’s not just “empty rhetoric.” Bush’s plan would deliver a tax cut of $482 to households with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000. The same plan delivers a tax cut of $89,500 to households with incomes over $1 million, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Pointing out this incredible discrepancy is not just “typical Washington political rhetoric,” it’s a legitimate complaint about an unfair tax policy.
It’s worth noting a report from the Post that explains the $550 billion tax cut passed by the House last week is even worse. The middle-income households would receive a tax cut of $452, slightly less than Bush’s plan, while millionaires would receive a cut of $93,537, significantly more than Bush’s plan.
“I’m worried about the deficit.”
Could anyone still believe this?