Hannity, Rush and GOP: the misinformation squad

MCL note: This is long but it does debunks mostly the right wing and GOP talking points

Limbaugh, Hannity, and the GOP: an iron triangle of stimulus misinformation

On any given day during the current congressional debate over the economic recovery plan, chances are good that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity will say something false about the administration's or congressional Democrats' efforts to pass a bill. And they do not promote these falsehoods in isolation; they are often promoted concurrently with each other and with Republican members of Congress. President Obama reportedly chastised congressional Republicans for "listen[ing] to Rush Limbaugh," and, as Media Matters for America has pointed out, Limbaugh has also demonstrated a proclivity for listening to -- and parroting -- congressional Republicans. For his part, in consecutive shows on January 30 and February 2, Hannity hosted Sens. Mitch McConnell, Tom Coburn and John McCain on his radio show, and on February 4 he hosted Rep. Mike Pence on Fox News. As a result, Hannity and Limbaugh have created an echo chamber of Republican talking points and misinformation criticizing the economic recovery plan. And given the acknowledgment by some national journalists that they pay attention to Limbaugh and Hannity, it follows that they care what the two are saying about the stimulus -- CNBC anchor Erin Burnett said as much about Limbaugh, touting his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on that topic as "serious."

CLAIM: Corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts would provide substantial stimulus

In a January 29 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) attacked the economic recovery plan and offered his own "Jobs Plan That Works," saying, in part: "Just as we cut taxes for families and small businesses, we need to cut them for corporations as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent. And we shouldn't be afraid to say so. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world, driving investment and jobs overseas. Lowering this key rate will unlock trillions of dollars to be invested in America instead of abroad." On the January 21 edition of Hannity's Fox News show, Michael Steele, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: "You want -- if you want to stimulate this economy, eliminate the capital gains tax for two years and see what happens. See what happens on Monday morning if you eliminate it today." Like DeMint and Steele, Limbaugh, in his January 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed on how best to stimulate the economy, wrote: "I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%." On the January 27 broadcast of his radio program, Hannity attacked the tax cuts in the recovery package as "anemic" because "They don't cut corporate tax rates. They don't cut capital gains tax rates."

However, as Media Matters has noted, many economists do not view corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts as particularly effective methods for stimulating the economy. Mark Zandi -- the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser -- included in 2008 written congressional testimony a table stating that every dollar spent through a "Cut in [the] Corporate Tax Rate" produces a GDP increase of only $0.30 -- the third least-efficient provision of the 13 he studied. A 2003 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report stated that a "capital gains tax cut appears the least likely of any permanent tax cut to stimulate the economy in the short run; a temporary capital gains tax cut is unlikely to provide any stimulus."

From Limbaugh's January 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed:

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

From the January 27 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: I look at this as smother the private sector, in terms of the stimulus package. I don't see this as a stimulus package. And when I look at the tax cuts -- as you point out have historically gotten us out of recessions -- in this plan they're anemic. They don't cut corporate tax rates. They don't cut capital gains tax rates. It's a lifeline that the private sector I think needs, you know -- that they need to stabilize. They need to invest. They need job growth. They're the ones that create jobs.

CLAIM: Recovery package is "spending," not "stimulus"

As Media Matters noted, on the January 28 edition of his show, Limbaugh hosted Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), who stated of the recovery legislation: "[T]his is a spending bill. This is not a stimulus bill. ... Even the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by the Democrats now, says it is not a stimulative bill." Limbaugh then said on the January 29 edition of his show that "if we're gong to stimulate the economy, there's got to be something in here that stimulates, and there just isn't. It is just traditional typical Democrat spending." Then, as Media Matters documented, the February 3 broadcast of the CBS Evening News uncritically aired a clip of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claiming that the economic recovery legislation was "not a stimulus package. It's a spending package." And Media Matters noted Hannity's February 2 falsehood that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "say[s] it's not a stimulus bill." In fact, the notion that "spending" is distinct from "stimulus" and the claim that the bill is not "stimulus" have been challenged by economists. CBO director Douglas Elmendorf stated in congressional testimony that the House legislation, H.R. 1, "would provide massive fiscal stimulus" and that the CBO, along with "most economists," believes that all of the spending in the bill "provides some stimulative effect." Additionally, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has said, "[S]pending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple."

From the February 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Here's the problem, Bob [Beckel, Democratic strategist], is that the Congressional Budget Office, which used to be the gold standard that we used to rely on to give us information, even they say it's not a stimulus bill. Goldman Sachs' CEO says it's not a stimulus bill.

What they're telling us is the following, is that, you know, the infrastructure spending and the real spending in this bill comes out in 2010, 2011, 2012. How does that -- how do you label that a stimulus bill?

From the January 29 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I'm going to tell you what: The more this is learned -- the more of this kind of thing in this bill is learned, the more the American people are not going to want any part of this. And they're being told once again this has to happen now or we're going to have a terrible result in the economy. It's going to get even worse. And they tell us, by the way, it's going to get worse if this stimulus bill, "Porkulus" [sic] bill, goes to the Senate and the president signs it and so forth.

But this is not -- if we're gong to stimulate the economy, there's got to be something in here that stimulates, and there just isn't. It is just traditional typical Democrat spending.

CLAIM: Spending after beginning of recovery is ineffective stimulus

On the January 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity, former Bush White House senior adviser Karl Rove attacked the recovery package, saying: "Look, this is a mishmash of spending proposals, not stimulus proposals. When you have a stimulus bill that spends more in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and in the out years than it spends in 2009, that's not a stimulus bill, that is a spending bill." Hannity and Limbaugh have echoed this line of attack. As noted above, on the February 2 edition of Hannity he said: "What they're telling us is the following is that, you know, the infrastructure spending and the real spending in this bill comes out in 2010, 2011, 2012. How does that -- how do you label that a stimulus bill?" On January 28, Hannity claimed that the "better part of this money is not going to be spent until 2010, 2011, 2012," adding: "So how is that a stimulus? We'll be out of the recession by then." On January 22, Limbaugh said: "So here now for those of you waiting for Obama to get you your healthcare, to drive you to the hospital, to fill up your car, to get you your job, to get you your gift certificate at Wal-Mart, now we're being told that over half the money wasn't going to show up until after 2010 when the recession's over?" As Media Matters has noted, however, in his January 27 written testimony, CBO's Elmendorf said:

Because most periods of economic weakness are fairly short-lived, it is generally preferable that stimulus policies be short-lived. Currently, however, CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate. Indeed, a fiscal stimulus that ends before the economy has started to regain its footing runs the risk of exacerbating economic weakness when the stimulus ends.

From the January 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: So here now for those of you waiting for Obama to get you your healthcare, to drive you to the hospital, to fill up your car, to get you your job, to get you your gift certificate at Wal-Mart, now we're being told that over half the money wasn't going to show up until after 2010 when the recession's over? By the way, I'm gonna tell you what: If he gets what he wants, if he gets what he wants, there isn't going to be a recession in 2010. It's going to be a depression.

From the January 29 edition of Hannity:

HANNITY: The amazing thing to me is the more people get the details of this bill and what's in it and all the pork and how the stimulus is back-loaded, the more they oppose it. Is that good for the Republicans opposing this now?

ROVE: Well, yes, it's good for the Republicans, but more importantly, it's good for the country. Look, this is a mishmash of spending proposals, not stimulus proposals. When you have a stimulus bill that spends more in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and the out years than it spends in 2009, that's not a stimulus bill, that is a spending bill, a pork bill that is designed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to grow government.

From the January 28 edition of Hannity:

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Look, the Heritage Foundation did an analysis, the CBO did an analysis, and what they've determined is the following: that this -- Barack Obama said this is a stimulus, a jolt to the economy. The better part of this money is not going to be spent until 2010, 2011, 2012. So how is that a stimulus? We'll be out of the recession by then.

CLAIM: Illegal immigrants receive tax credits under stimulus plan

As Media Matters noted, a January 29 Associated Press article cited a single anonymous "top Republican congressional official" in reporting that the stimulus bill "could steer government checks to illegal immigrants," as it "would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for" tax credits. Both Limbaugh and Hannity repeated this claim on the January 29 editions of their radio shows. The claim, however, is false. In fact, the recovery bill specifically precludes from eligibility for the Making Work Pay tax credit of $500 per individual and $1,000 per family "any individual unless the requirements of section 32(c)(1)(E) are met with respect to such individual." Section 32(c)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code, which specifies requirements for individuals to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, states:

(E) Identification number requirement

No credit shall be allowed under this section to an eligible individual who does not include on the return of tax for the taxable year --

(i) such individual's taxpayer identification number, and

(ii) if the individual is married (within the meaning of section 7703), the taxpayer identification number of such individual's spouse.

The law defines "taxpayer identification number" for purposes of Section 32(c)(1)(E) as "a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration":

(m) Identification numbers

Solely for purposes of subsections (c)(1)(E) and (c)(3)(D), a taxpayer identification number means a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration (other than a social security number issued pursuant to clause (II) (or that portion of clause (III) that relates to clause (II)) of section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act).

Therefore, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act bars anyone without "a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration" from eligibility for Making Work Pay tax credits. The AP later revised its January 29 article to make that clear.

From the January 29 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: So the "Porkulus" [sic] bill has passed the House, and yet why do the Democrats don't -- seem to not think that they've had a victory? Why does Obama think that he really hasn't had a victory? I've noticed all day today, they're not happy about this. They got what they wanted. Do you know that in this "Porkulus" bill, it has been learned, in addition to everything else, illegal immigrants will also be given checks of $500 to $1,000 as tax credits. So we're going to be giving cash to illegal immigrants as well, in addition to all the other things that are in the "Porkulus" bill.

From the January 29 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: And do you realize the AP even reported that if you thought the Obama-Pelosi-Reid pork-fest was bad before, did you know that under this plan some of the stimulus cash, which is going to put we the taxpayers on the hook for decades, and our children and grandchildren are going to bear the burden of this debt when we're gone, that it's going to to illegal aliens? Illegal immigrants? The House Republicans just uncovered that little detail this morning, and the AP reported "the $800 billion economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants," according to a top Congressional Republican asserting Thursday.

"The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks. Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file a tax return with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer ID number, to qualify for the tax credits." [laughs] Oh, let's not read the darn thing before we start passing -- yeah, it's only $819 billion. What's the big deal?

CLAIM: The New Deal failed, prolonged Great Depression

On the January 23 edition of Hannity, former New York City mayor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said: "[T]he actions of the New Deal, which may have had other reasons for them, did not work from the point of view of solving the Depression. In fact, by 1936, '37, '38, the Depression was arguably just as bad as it was in 1929." Hannity and Limbaugh have also worked attacks on the New Deal into their criticisms of the economic recovery package, with Limbaugh stating as fact that the New Deal "didn't work," and "prolonged" the Great Depression. Such claims have been flatly rejected by prominent economists, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who has said that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not go far enough to end the crisis and that it was actually Roosevelt's reversal of New Deal policies -- in an attempt to balance the budget -- that hindered recovery.

From the January 27 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: I don't think anyone could make the case that FDR's plan, New Deal, actually saved us from the Depression. I don't think that the stimulus that the Japanese government spent in the '90s actually saved them from their economic slowdown, it actually hurt them. Why do we seem to be batting our heads against the wall and wanting to revisit things that have failed in the past?

From Limbaugh's interview with Hannity on the January 21 edition of Hannity:

LIMBAUGH: I -- it has never worked. The New Deal didn't work. You know, Hoover was president through the Depression for one year. FDR prolonged the New Deal for seven or eight years, and yet he's given credit for ending the Depression. Didn't happen. World War II ended it. The New Deal didn't work.

This is new New Deal. It doesn't work. If it works, it will be the first time that it works, but it never has, and I don't think this is going to be the record-breaker.

HANNITY: So I'm guessing you didn't get your Obama commemorative dinner plates, Rush?

From the January 17 edition of Hannity:

HANNITY: You have a piece coming out. There's been a lot of intellectual debate, a little chatter, discussions going on about the success, in terms of whether government can be that answer and whether or not it worked for FDR. Liberals claim, in fact, it was the New Deal that got us out of the Depression. There are others that have a very different point of view and really think FDR made a lot of mistakes by implementing bigger government programs. And that actually it was World War II, in one way, that saved the economy. Now my father fought in World War II. Where do you stand on this?

JONAH GOLDBERG (National Review Online editor): Well, the argument is over whether or not the Great Depression was prolonged by the New Deal or ended by the New Deal. And the general consensus is is that the Great Depression certainly wasn't ended by the New Deal. And that it really only ended either during World War II, or during the post-world war boom.

From the January 7 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I take it back. It does work. It did work. FDR and his New Deal worked in fact precisely as he intended it to. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is the model for Barack Obama's raw deal. And FDR's New Deal was a champ. There may have never been anything like it. Until the October surprise of last October, which led to the new New Deal equaling the raw deal.

No, I know, folks. I know the New Deal did not get us out of the Depression. I'm not saying that that's its measure of success. The New Deal worked for Franklin Delano Roosevelt like a charm, though. It empowered the Democrat [sic] Party with unbeatable majorities in the House and Senate for 40 years. It worked like a champ.

From the November 20, 2008, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: You know, if you go back and you actually can find some objective history of the Great Depression and FDR, there are many indications that FDR -- I mean, the New Deal did not fix the Great Depression; it made it worse. The New Deal prolonged it. But in the process, FDR secured massive power for himself as well as his party. And Obama has indicated that his model is FDR.

CLAIM: Fiscal stimulus in Japan failed during the "lost decade" of the 1990s

On October 22, 2008, the Republican caucus of the House Budget Committee released a report citing "Japan's policy responses during its so-called 'lost decade' of the 1990s" as evidence that economic stimulus plans supported by Democrats in Congress would be ineffective. Both Limbaugh and Hannity have similarly cited Japanese fiscal policy in the 1990s in arguing against a large-scale economic recovery plan to combat the current recession in the United States. However, prominent economists have stated that economic conditions did improve when Japan undertook fiscal stimulus policies but that reversals of those policies hindered Japan's recovery. On February 6, for example, Krugman said: "[I]t's clear. The Japanese -- when they were really pushing hard, when they had strong programs, when they spent a lot on trying to buck-up their economy -- it actually did grow. What happened was they chickened out very early in the process, said, 'OK, let's cut back, let's raise interest rates, let's raise taxes, let's cut back on those public works.' And they lost momentum, and they never got it back." Similarly, Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in his September 1998 book, Restoring Japan's Economic Growth, that Japan's "1995 stimulus package ... did result in solid growth in 1996, demonstrating that fiscal policy does work when it is tried. As on earlier occasions in the 1990s, however, the positive response to fiscal stimulus was undercut by fiscal contraction in 1996 and 1997." He concluded:

Similar contractions undertaken both openly and by hidden means in 1994, 1996, and 1997, with reference to announced but unimplemented spending, had destructive effects. Future government packages must recognize that when the Japanese government paid for fiscal stimulus in 1995, it got economic growth, and that when it mistakenly pursued fiscal austerity in most of the remainder of the 1992-97 period, it got economic contraction.

From the January 27 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: If government spending solved recessions, we'd never have a recession, now would we? If it was so good, why didn't it work for Japan when they had eight stimulus plans back in the '90s? Why did the Treasury secretary under FDR say, "We spent all of this money and it didn't work" seven years into the New Deal if this is such a great program?

[...]

HANNITY: I don't think anyone could make the case that FDR's plan, New Deal, actually saved us from the Depression. I don't think that the stimulus that the Japanese government spent in the '90s actually saved them from their economic slowdown; it actually hurt them. Why do we seem to be batting our heads against the wall and wanting to revisit things that have failed in the past?

From the January 27 edition of Hannity:

HANNITY: David, I believe in free-market capitalism.

DAVID BOIES (attorney): Right. I do, too.

HANNITY: $1.1 trillion. You know, historically, FDR's Treasury secretary said seven years into spending, [Henry] Morgenthau, he said it didn't work. It didn't work for Japan. It hasn't worked in --

BOIES: Well, Japan didn't try it.

HANNITY: They had eight stimulus plans.

From the January 23 edition of Hannity:

GIULIANI: And if -- if you think you're going to get your way out of this recession by all kinds of social programs, welfare programs, you're just going to make it much worse.

HANNITY: Well, in the 10 years that the Japan -- the Japanese economy was suffering in the '90s, they had eight separate stimulus packages that created, in their history, massive debt. It was unprecedented.

GIULIANI: Right.

HANNITY: And it didn't work. And you're right, historically --

GIULIANI: And the actions of the New Deal, which may have had other reasons for them, did not work from the point of view of solving the Depression. In fact, by 1936, '37, '38, the Depression was arguably just as bad as it was in 1929.

HANNITY: Yeah, it's true.

From the January 7 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: And all of this, this trillion-dollar stimulus, this deficit, annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, that's being tacked on top of the certain bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare. Massive debt that cannot be repaid. Got us where we are just two months ago. And yet everybody seems to be clapping their hands: "Yeah, yeah, we got a stimulus coming, man. We're gonna get out of this."

We're quintupling our problem. This is so obviously stupid and we've got a guy who's trying to replicate FDR here. We've got the Great Depression, the Japanese economy in the '90s as a guide. We know this public works spending does not work.

CLAIM: Economic recovery bill amounts to spending more than $200K per job created

A January 15 "Stimulus Quick Facts" press release issued by the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee falsely asserted that "President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job." Both Limbaugh and Hannity have echoed this false talking point. But by calculating the per-job cost by dividing the estimated total cost of the recovery bill by the estimated number of jobs created or saved -- and thus suggesting that the sole purpose of that package is to create jobs -- Hannity and Limbaugh joined other media figures in ignoring other tangible benefits stemming from the package, such as infrastructure improvements and investments in education, health, and public safety.

Moreover, economists, including Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, have presented another criticism of the claim. In a January 24 post on The American Prospect's Beat the Press blog, Baker wrote: "The Republicans have become fond of saying that President Obama's stimulus package will cost $275,000 for every job created. The media have been typically derelict in simply reporting this number without making any assessment to evaluate it -- as though readers in their spare time are supposed to determine whether it is accurate or not." Baker continued:

Okay, let's do the reporters' work for them. First, where do the Republicans get this number? They divide the the $825 billion cost of the stimulus by 3 million jobs that President Obama had originally pledged.

Their arithmetic is right but both numbers are wrong. First, the projections from the Obama team is that their package will create 4 million jobs, not 3 million. Furthermore, it is important to note that this over 2 years, not one year.

The cost is also wrong, or at least misleading. If we assume that the stimulus will work as planned, then it will boost GDP by approximately 1.5 times the amount of spending or $620 billion a year. If GDP rises by this amount, then it will translate into roughly $155 billion a year in higher taxes/lower spending than if we didn't do the stimulus. This is money that should be subtracted from the cost to the taxpayers.

So, if net out the increased revenue from the growth generated by the stimulus we end up with a 2-year cost of $515 billion which will generate roughly 8 million job-years. That comes to about $65k per job year, less than one-fourth of the Republicans' number.

Similarly, in his January 25 New York Times column, Krugman wrote, "As the debate over President Obama's economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan's opponents aren't arguing in good faith. ... The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts."

From the January 28 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: This Heritage article, "Why Government Spending Doesn't Stimulate Economic Growth," I found it. Found it on their website, AskHeritage.org. They are producing new information and analysis on these spending bills daily.

For example, if an $800 billion stimulus plan is approved and 3.7 million jobs are really created, that's about $217,000 per job. Now, I know that everybody who gets a new job under this plan is not going to get paid $217,000, so where the hell is the rest of it going?

The SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Program. If that's approved, that effectively puts more kids in America on government health insurance than in private insurance. And it, by the way, classifies kids as up to 30 years of age. Now these are facts.

From the January 26 edition of Hannity:

HANNITY: They're going to spend more in a week than they spend usually in a year, Dick.

DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): That's right.

HANNITY: And they're going --

MORRIS: It's incredible.

HANNITY: -- if, on the high side, we reached their job-creation number of 4 million, that's going to cost $217,000 to get that job.

MORRIS: Yeah. And we're not going to do that.

CLAIM: $4 billion for ACORN

A January 23 "Leader Alert" from House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) office claimed that the economic recovery bill "could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)." At least one Republican senator has made similar claims. Limbaugh and Hannity have embellished this claim, asserting that the language of bill contains $4.19 billion going directly to ACORN. In fact, the bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding, and it requires that the $4.19 billion it allocates for "neighborhood stabilization activities" be distributed through competitive processes. Moreover, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis wrote on The Huffington Post that "ACORN isn't getting any of this money" because "we aren't eligible for it in the first place."

From the January 27 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: What do I think about this stimulus? It's like my brilliant proposal yesterday. Why do we have to have this money washed by the money launderers in Washington? Why don't they just let them keep -- people who are producing it keep it and stimulate the economy themselves? Why does it have to go to Washington for these bigwigs to sit around and ponder who's going to get it? Do you know that in the Obama stimulus package, $4.19 billion is going to ACORN? Obama's community organizing -- you -- would somebody tell me what the stimulus is in that?

Oh, it's not called "ACORN," it's called "neighborhood stabilization programs." Now, would somebody explain to me what in the name of Sam Hill -- and there was a Sam Hill; I looked it up -- would somebody explain to me what in the name of Sam Hill $4.19 billion to a voter-fraud organization has to do with stimulus?

From the January 27 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: If this stimulus package is passed, it's only going to make things worse. "Well how could you say that, Hannity? Thirty-five percent of this is tax cuts. You conservatives say you want tax cuts." Well, if you define tax cuts as giving a check to people who don't pay taxes. I actually define that as a new welfare program. That is a big part of this stimulus package. How many of you know that in this stimulus package, $4.19 billion to ACORN. You know, the group that could be eligible for billions of dollars as they have -- $4.19 billion to quote, "neighborhood stabilization activities.

[...]

HANNITY: I look at this as smother the private sector in terms of a stimulus package. I don't see this as a stimulus package and when I look at the tax cuts, as you point out have historically gotten us out of recessions, in this plan they're anemic. They don't cut corporate tax rates, they don't cut capital gains tax rates. It's a lifeline that the private sector I think needs -- you know, that they need to stabilize. They need to invest. They need job growth. They're the ones that create jobs, and I think they're using this to advance a political agenda. You know, $4 billion for ACORN? I mean, even the Congressional Budget Office, the so-called gold standard, says it's not going to work, Neil, so what's our worst-case scenario here?

Limbaugh's and Hannity's sway on the media

The congruity between Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and the Republicans' attacks on the economic recovery package may also impact press coverage of the debate on the economic recovery bill. Indeed, on January 29, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Limbaugh on the economic recovery package in which he offered his own "Bipartisan Stimulus" plan for the economy. Limbaugh's op-ed drew praise from CNBC host Erin Burnett, who said Limbaugh had "serious things to say" and offered "interesting ideas," such as "cutting the corporate tax" and "slashing capital gains [taxes]." Unmentioned by Burnett were the numerous economists who do not view corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts as particularly "serious" or effective methods for stimulating the economy. In addition, on January 29, under the headline "Limbaugh Wants Meeting With Obama," Time editor-at-large Mark Halperin stated on his Time.com website, The Page: "The talk radio king says Thursday he wants to personally present a stimulus proposal to the president." Halperin frequently publishes snippets of Limbaugh's commentary on his Time.com website, The Page.

In June 2008, The New York Times Magazine published a lengthy profile of Limbaugh, written by a reporter who said of his subject: "I'm not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him."

NBC News managing editor and Nightly News anchor Brian Williams has previously said, "I think it's my duty to listen to Rush," adding: "I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due." As Media Matters noted at the time, Limbaugh was repeatedly featured on the MSNBC and CNBC programs Williams hosted before Williams became Nightly News anchor. In 2006, Limbaugh was one of the first persons featured on The CBS Evening News' short-lived "Free Speech" segment, in which he attacked unnamed Americans who did not conform to his definition of "patriotism." In February 2007, ABC News highlighted Limbaugh as an "observer" who "questioned" what then-presidential candidate Joe Biden meant when he described Barack Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Unmentioned by ABC News was Limbaugh's history of racially charged comments, including comments about Obama.

Hannity also enjoys the attention of mainstream media personalities. ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity's radio program on April 15, 2008, during which Hannity suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama at the Democratic presidential debate the following evening about his "association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground." Stephanopoulos assured Hannity that he was "taking notes right now," and followed through on Hannity's suggestion at the debate (though he later denied that Hannity had exerted any influence on his questioning).

Hannity has hosted other prominent journalists as well. In October 2006, Halperin appeared on Hannity's radio program and agreed wholeheartedly with his host that "the liberal media does exist" and that the "old media is liberal." Halperin told Hannity that conservatives have "[e]very incentive to listen to your program, to go on the Drudge Report, because when they read The New York Times, or listen to ABC, they just feel alienated, like these organizations are out to get them." According to a Nexis search, CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes at least five times since 2004 to discuss politics or his books. And on January 28, Hannity hosted ABC Good Morning America co-host Chris Cuomo to discuss the economic recovery package.

Obama, the press and the bipartisan trap

From Smirking Chimp

I'm not sure how many thousands of questions have been asked over the years at White House press briefings, but I would suggest NBC's Chuck Todd may have recently asked one of the most inane.

The history-making moment unfolded in the White House press room on January 23, when the topic open for questioning was President Obama's proposed economic stimulus package and whether the administration, which was hoping for a bipartisan effort on the legislation, would be disappointed if the bill passed with little Republican support. And that's when Todd asked if Obama would veto his own bill if it didn't garner enough Republican votes.

It's hard to imagine that a reporter for an elite news outlet, operating at the pinnacle of his profession as a White House correspondent, would ever ask that question, would ask if a president would take the step of vetoing his own legislation because not enough politicians from the opposition party had voted in favor of it.

For anyone who understands the extraordinary amount of time, energy, and political capital that goes into passing any piece of legislation, let alone the historic, enormous, and urgently debated stimulus package, the idea that a president would reject legislation simply for theatrics -- simply to prove a PR point about the need for greater bipartisanship -- only highlights how unseriously Chuck Todd seems to take the legislative process. But more important, the entire point of the proposed stimulus package is to jump-start the economy right now. Why on earth would Obama veto his own legislation, thereby delaying the potential recovery?

If nothing else, though, Todd's absurd query helped highlight the unheard-of double standard that's been constructed by the press specifically for the new Democratic president with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship. Virtually all the news accounts are stressing the same story: If there's little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it's Obama fault, and his fault alone. (No surprise, the media narrative echoes the latest GOP talking point, as dutifully pushed by RNC writers like Peggy Noonan.)

A bit ironic, isn't it? While addressing the issue of bipartisanship (i.e. "involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties") the press holds only one party accountable: the Democrats. Apparently, that's how the press now views the issue of bipartisanship -- it's something Democrats must bring to fruition.

In fact, the press has set up Republicans with perhaps the easiest short-term political victory on record. All the GOP has to do is oppose Obama on the stimulus package, and the Beltway media will proclaim Obama the loser. (Heck, they already have.) Does it get any easier than that? Republicans literally do nothing and then get crowned the winner. "Republicans find their voice," cheered a Politico headline last week for a story about how "[c]ongressional Republicans, who only weeks ago were sheepish about their own electoral failures and cowed by Obama's polish and popularity, are suddenly punching back."

Obviously, Republicans have every right to adopt whatever legislative strategy they want. But when it comes to journalism, why do pundits and reporters suggest that today's lack of bipartisan cooperation reflects poorly on only Obama, or that it highlights a glaring failure on his part?

It's interesting, because for decades, the calculus inside Washington, D.C., newsrooms seemed to be that obstructing a very popular president presented enormous political obstacles for the opposition party. That standing in the way of a president with a popular mandate (in this case, a Democratic president who won Republican-leaning states such as Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia) was politically risky, and in some cases suicidal. Those guidelines, though, have pretty much been put aside for covering Obama.

For instance, if you search the Nexis database, you'll find relatively few mainstream media references to Republicans as "obstructionists" during the past week. In fact, one of the few references I found came from The New York Times, which assured readers, "Republicans, for their part, do not want to be seen as obstructionists of a popular new president in a time of national distress" [emphasis added]. How perfect is that? Republicans don't want to be seen as obstructions, and the press, dutifully, isn't portraying them that way.

What's additionally curious about the press' obsession with bipartisanship and Obama's search for Republican votes is that Obama doesn't really need Republican support to pass his stimulus package. The shrinking band of Republicans in the House is powerless to stop the bill, and if just a couple of Republican senators support it, the bill will pass with 60-plus votes. Yet the often breathless coverage leaves news consumers with the impression that if Obama doesn't win over lots of Republican supporters, his legislative effort, and indeed his entire presidency, could be doomed.

"The [stimulus] bill will be judged a political success not simply if it becomes law, but if it's deemed 'bipartisan' -- with joint ownership that takes a first step toward the new brand of politics Obama has promised," announced ABC News' Rick Klein. He added that if the bill didn't pass with bipartisan support, "the luster of Obama's leadership" would "fade."

That's right. Some in the media have already decided that it's irrelevant whether the president's signature legislative initiative passes. Instead, the bill won't be tagged a "success" (by the press, of course) unless it passes with a certain number of opposition party votes, unless it ushers in a completely new era in Washington politics.

The Los Angeles Times seemed to agree, reporting

on January 29, "[I]t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being inaugurated, Obama still hadn't erased decades' worth of partisan squabbling. That's a reasonable standard, right?

If Republicans simply do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? No, not really. But according to the press, Obama -- and Obama alone -- is supposed to change that mindset. Actually, according to the L.A. Times, he's supposed to have already changed it.

Traditionally, the standard the press used for judging a new president was: Could he get his initiatives passed? With Obama though, that's morphed into, can he get his initiatives passed in a certain way? Because, apparently, Americans now keep running tallies of C-SPAN roll call votes on their refrigerators to determine the success of a president.

As The Hill announced last week, "If the bill is approved by Congress with minimal GOP support, the partisan nature of how the legislation got to his desk will be a key storyline when Obama signs the measure" [emphasis added]. Who will determine that "key storyline"? The Beltway press corps, of course. Just look at recent examples:

• "Unless he comes up with a new incentive for Republicans to change their position, Mr Obama's bipartisan aspirations could go up in smoke before he has completed a week in office." [Financial Times]

• "The solid Republican opposition, led by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio), raises questions about whether the new era of bipartisanship that Mr. Obama promised during the campaign is truly within reach." [The Wall Street Journal]

• "If it gets no Republican votes -- a growing possibility -- the plan could trigger the kind of ugly, divisive partisan fight that Obama has been trying mightily to avoid." [McClatchy Newspapers]

• "Republicans are expected to press the president strongly on the stimulus bill, and if the meeting becomes tense, it would quickly remind voters that partisanship in the nation's capital -- despite Obama's vow to reduce it -- is alive and well." [The Hill]

• "President Barack Obama's pledge of bipartisan cooperation with Congress will be tested as he tries to fulfill a campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay and establish a new system for prosecuting suspected terrorists. The undertaking is an ambitious one. Fraught with legal complexities, it gives Republicans ample opportunity to score political points if he doesn't get it right." [Associated Press]

Notice how the AP placed the onus of bipartisanship squarely on Obama. And notice how it's Republicans who stand poised to "score political points" if Obama's pursuit of bipartisanship fails. Talk about stacking the deck. All Republicans have to do is not be bipartisan, and the AP, as well as the rest of the Beltway press, will likely declare them the winners in the showdown; they'll announce that Republicans outmaneuvered and thwarted Obama.

What should be obvious to political journalists is that bipartisanship requires action from both sides. What Obama campaigned on was the idea that he would do his best to change the gridlock in Washington. That he would reach out to Republicans in meaningful ways and lead by example. Did Obama claim that he would change the entrenched culture in the first week? No.

And was his rhetorical hope for bipartisanship somehow unusual or historic? No. Every successful presidential candidate over the past few decades has done the same thing, in part because the idea is very popular among voters. ("Mr. Bush stressed in his inaugural address Saturday that he wanted to set a tone of civility in Washington, and work with Democrats toward common goals," reported the

International Herald Tribune on January 25, 2001.) But with Obama, the press treats his time-honored hope for bipartisanship as being eminently more pressing. For the new Democratic president, obtaining bipartisan agreements somehow defines him.

Indeed, it would be one thing if Obama ran on the idea of reaching out to his opponents and then arrived in Washington and did no such thing. If that were the case, it would certainly be accurate for the press to point out the hypocrisy and label his non-efforts a failure. But clearly, Obama has made all sorts of gestures of goodwill, usually overt, in recent days.

Obama traveled to the home of conservative columnist George Will and spent the evening with a group of GOP-friendly columnists who had vociferously opposed his candidacy. Over the objection of some Democrats, Obama ordered family-planning funds for the low-income to be jettisoned from the stimulus bill after Republicans complained. And Obama traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with Republicans, a move that Politico agreed represented "an exceptional gesture for any president." In fact, according to The Boston Globe, in his first days in office, Obama reached out directly to congressional Republicans more often than the previous Republican president had done eight years earlier. Also, Obama's Cabinet may ultimately feature three Republicans: Robert Gates, Ray LaHood, and Judd Gregg.

How have Republicans responded? They launched an organized effort to embarrass Obama by voting against his Treasury secretary. They aired at least one TV ad campaign attacking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada for supporting the stimulus bill. House leaders publicly called on all members to vote against the bill just hours before Obama politely agreed to travel to Capitol Hill and meet with Republicans. Every GOP House member voted against Obama's stimulus package. And the new RNC chief crowed that the "goose egg" GOP vote on the stimulus bill was "[a]bsolutely beautiful."

If the final stimulus package fails to achieve bipartisan support, the press ought to widen its focus beyond the White House to ask why that happened. _______

Tentative Stimulus deal reached

Officials say tentative stimulus deal reached

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer 30 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Amid stunning new job losses and yet another bank failure, key senators and the White House reached tentative agreement Friday night on an economic stimulus measure at the heart of President Barack Obama's recovery plan. Two officials said the emerging agreement was for a bill with a $780 billion price tag, but there was no immediate confirmation.

The tentative agreement capped a tense day of back room negotiations in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, joined by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, sought to attract the support of enough Republicans to give the measure the needed 60-vote majority.

Officials strongly suggested that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's vote would be needed to assure passage. The Massachusetts Democrat, battling a brain tumor, has been in Florida in recent days and has not been in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day more than two weeks ago. The senator's office did not comment.

Reid met privately in the Capitol with members of his rank-and-file to present the proposed deal.

At $780 billion, the legislation would be smaller than the measure that cleared the House on a party-line vote last week. It also would mean a sharp cut from the bill that has been the subject of Senate debate for a week. That measure stood at $937 billion.

Beyond the numbers, though, any agreement would mark a victory for the new president and would keep Democratic leaders on track to fulfill their promise of delivering him a bill to sign by the end of next week.

Earlier Friday, Obama said further delay would be "inexcusable and irresponsible" given the worst monthly jobs report in a generation — 598,000 positions lost in January and the national unemployment rate rising to 7.6 percent. Late in the day federal regulators announced the closure of First Bank Financial Services in Georgia, the seventh failure this year of a federally insured bank.

At the Capitol, the tension was thick.

"The world is waiting to see what we're going to do in the next 24 hours," said Reid who has spent much of the week trying to balance demands among moderates in both parties with pressure for a larger bill from liberals in his own rank and file.

By midday, the majority leader had spoken once with Obama by phone and five times with Emanuel. He met with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, but it was not immediately clear whether a deal was within reach.

"We're clearly not there yet," said Collins, who had met with Obama at the White House earlier in the week. "I'm still hopeful that we can achieve a compromise because the stakes are high and the goal is important."

The bill's price tag stood at $937 billion, an enormous total that has risen in recent days with the addition of tax breaks for consumers who purchase homes or cars.

One Republican-proposed document outlined proposed cuts of more than $85 billion. Most of that _$60 billion — would come from money Democrats want to send to the states to avoid budget cuts for schools as well as law enforcement and other programs.

Talk of cuts in proposed education funds triggered a counterattack from advocates of school spending as well as unhappiness among Democrats.

One, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, told reporters he and others hoped that some of the funds on the chopping block would be restored next week when negotiations open on a House-Senate compromise.

At its core, the legislation is designed to ease the worst economic recession in generations, and combines hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending with tax cuts. Much of the money would go for victims of the recession in the form of food stamps, unemployment compensation and health care. There are funds, as well, for construction of highways and bridges.

But the administration also decided to use the bill to make a down payment on key domestic initiatives, including creation of a new health technology industry and so-called green jobs designed to make the country less dependent on imported oil.

And Democrats in Congress decided to add additional huge sums for the states struggling with the recession, as well as billions more for favored programs such as parks, the repair of monuments in federal cemeteries, health and science research and more.

With Obama enjoying post-inauguration support in the polls and the economy shrinking, Democratic leaders in Congress have confidently predicted they would have a bill to the president's desk by mid-February.

But Republicans, freed of the need to defend former President George W. Bush's policies, have pivoted quickly to criticize the bill for its size and what they consider wasteful spending.

The entire Republican rank and file voted against the measure in the House, effectively prodding senators to take up the same cause.

In the intervening days, Republicans have appeared to catch the administration and its allies off-guard, holding up relatively small items for ridicule and routinely seizing on comments from Democrats critical of the House-passed bill.

At the same time, they have stressed a desire to help the economy but have said they prefer tax cuts and spending that would have a more immediate impact on job creation.

Democrats hold a 58-41 majority in the Senate, but 60 votes are needed for passage of the bill because it would raise the federal deficit.

Privately, Democrats in Congress have been critical of Obama and his aides for failing to counter the Republicans more effectively. In recent days, the president has sharpened his rhetoric against unnamed critics of the bill whom he accused of trying to re-establish the "failed policies" of the past eight years.

As Reid struggled to nail down the necessary votes, the White House announced Obama would travel to Florida and Indiana next week to campaign for a stimulus measure. Both states have Republican senators. The president also is scheduled to hold a prime-time news conference on Monday where questions about the economy are likely to dominate.

Despite the struggle, some Republicans seemed to sense the White House would ultimately prevail, and sought political mileage.

Obama "could have had a very, very impressive victory early on," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who heads the Senate Republican campaign committee. "But this is not turning out to be an impressive victory. it is turning out to be a little bit of a black eye. MCL comment: What makes this debate funny to me is that the same people who's fighting this bill(the Republicans) were the same ones that green lighted every spending bill George W. Bush wanted from Iraq to tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires which got us into these deficits in the first place. Obama did a great thing last night he reminded people whose fault it was and not too many Republicans and their allies in the right wing whore press can't deny it.

Sean Hannity putting the CON in conservative

Discussing the economic recovery bill during the February 2 broadcast of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "say[s] it's not a stimulus bill." However, in analyzing the House version of the bill, H.R. 1, and the proposed Senate version, the CBO stated that it expects the measures to "have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years." Additionally, as Media Matters for America documented, in his January 27 testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said that H.R. 1 would "provide massive fiscal stimulus that includes a combination of government spending increases and revenue reductions." Elmendorf further stated: "In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years."

Hannity also suggested that the CBO, in addition to Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein, has stated that money spent "in 2010, 2011, 2012" would be ineffective as economic stimulus, asserting that "[w]hat they're telling us" is "the infrastructure spending and real spending in this bill comes out in 2010, 2011, 2012. How does that -- how do you label that a stimulus plan?" But as Media Matters has noted, economists, including Elmendorf, have said that fiscal stimulus in 2010 or later would be effective in the current economic situation, in which economic output is projected to remain below its potential long after the technical beginning of the recovery. In his January 27 testimony, Elmendorf stated that, unlike in ordinary "periods of economic weakness" that "are fairly short-lived," "CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate."

From the February 2 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: We had a stimulus in the early part of the year. What -- when has government spending like this -- first of all, it's unprecedented in American history. James, when has this ever worked in history? It never has.

JAMES DELINGPOLE (author): In my country, we've been punished for this over the last 12 years. You can either advance the cause of the economy or you can advance the cause of socialism. You can't do both.

HANNITY: And Great Britain is on the verge of bankruptcy.

DELINGPOLE: I'm afraid it is. Yeah, we've seen it all before.

BOB BECKEL (Fox News contributor): It was on the verge of bankruptcy when the -- when Labour took over. That was the problem.

And by the way, in that introduction you just gave, when you described that bill, there were more factual errors in the opening of that than I've ever heard you give, which is an amazing thing. There's no mall money, No. 1.

HANNITY: There was. They took it out.

BECKEL: It's not in the bill, Sean.

HANNITY: They took it out.

BECKEL: There's a final bill - let me explain to you how this works. House, Senate, get together conference. Right. Now --

HANNITY: I understand.

BECKEL: And you're going to -- I know you do. I'm proud of you, and that Catholic education did you a world of good.

Now, I don't know where you've gotten misguided, but somewhere along the way. Look, the fact of the matter is that the Republicans now have gotten a lot in this bill in the last 48 hours. Obama has met with more Republicans in three days than George Bush met with Democrats in four years.

And you get business tax breaks, and you've now got housing credits that the Republicans wanted. What more do you want? And you lost. And you lost. If it were up to me --

HANNITY: I understand Obama and Nancy Pelosi say that at every meeting.

Here's the problem, Bob, is that the Congressional Budget Office, which used to be the gold standard that we used to rely on to give us information, even they say it's not a stimulus bill. Goldman Sachs' CEO says it's not a stimulus bill.

What they're telling us is the following is that, you know, the infrastructure spending and the real spending in this bill comes out in 2010, 2011, 2012. How does that -- how do you label that a stimulus bill?

BECKEL: First of all, if I could just update you at little bit. At this hour, they're now up to 74 percent in the first two years -- the Congressional Budget Office.

Secondly, what is your alternative? Do you want to go back to George Bush economics?

Obama on stimulus critics: 'Are these folks serious?

From Raw Story

Obama on stimulus critics: 'Are these folks serious?

by David Edwards Update: Reid says he has enough votes to pass bill today Speaking at the Department of Energy Thursday, President Barack Obama made his most forceful case yet for the stimulus bill. "The time for talk is over, the time for action is now," he said. Obama posited that a green energy policy was an important component of the stimulus package. "When you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself, 'are these folks serious?' Is it any wonder that we haven't had a real energy policy in this country?" Obama asked. "Washington might not be ready to get serious about energy independence, but I am," Obama said. According to a breaking report on MSNBC Thursday afternoon, Reuters is reporting that Sen. Harry Reid believes he has enough votes to pass the stimulus bill today. "'We hope to have a vote today,' Reid told reporters, just days after Democrats admitted that they were short and needed at least a few Republicans to pass the measure," Reuters reports. The Hill reports, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Thursday that he has enough votes to pass a more than $900 billion stimulus bill out of the Senate." "Reid said he believes at least two Republicans of 'good will' would support the Democratic-crafted package," Alexander Bolton's article continues. "'Do we have the votes? I believe we do,' said Reid, who expects a final vote on the package will be held on Thursday."

A history lesson for Rush

<A HREF="http://ads.cnn.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=183510&AdID=266674&TargetID=29142&Segments=776,789,2274,2607,2690,2743,3030,3285,4008,4898,6298,7822,8463,8796,9496,9781,9784,9853,12398,13105,13106,13108,13109,13112,13760,14036,15605,16113,16309,16338,18517,18672,18857,18902,18961,18982,19419,20139,20647,21188,21717,21928,21967,22006,22082,22283,22506&Targets=31327,2739,29029,1515,54499,53380,34549,29142,56452,47962,54700&Values=30,60,84,100,150,682,685,686,917,971,1285,1588,1601,1672,1690,1714,2647,2673,2738,4418,4445,25381,47124,52263,52508,52897,56058,56872,57005&RawValues=&Redirect=http://www.cnn.com/onair" target="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/cnn_adspaces/2.0/creatives/2009/1/16/84017jk_728x90.jpg" WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 BORDER=0></A>

Commentary: A history lesson for Rush Limbaugh By James Carville CNN Contributor Editor's Note: James Carville, a Democratic strategist who serves as a political contributor for CNN, was the Clinton-Gore campaign manager in 1992 and political adviser to President Clinton. He is active in Democratic politics and a party fundraiser. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh, the moral and intellectual leader and most influential person in the Republican Party in the United States, wrote in the august op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, the acknowledged epicenter of right-wing thought, that President Obama should adopt a bipartisan solution to address the president's economic stimulus plan -- or as Limbaugh refers to it, "porkulus." Limbaugh proposes that because the Democrats got roughly 54 percent of the votes to the Republicans' 46 percent, the stimulus package should be allocated along his definition of ideological lines, i.e. 54 percent towards infrastructure improvement and 46 percent toward tax breaks for Limbaugh and his friends. He writes, "Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. "As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me." And he is serious. However much one may disagree with the current "daddy" of all Republicans (Beg to differ? See Rep. Phil Gingrey, who apologized last week for doubting Rush), you have to admire El Rushbo's principled stance and his well-known consistent ideology. Why surely it seems like just yesterday that Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 (and arguably won the popular vote in Florida too). Limbaugh must have called for the incoming Bush administration to allocate ideas based on the proportion of election returns. I'm sure President Bush and the Republicans in Congress graciously accepted their 49.5 percent share of everything. (Note: We would be much better off right now had this actually happened.) With 50 percent of the federal government during President Bush's term, Democrats might have reduced the deficit (a truly Clintonista idea). Wall Street might have been more heavily regulated and K Street's lobbyists might not have been running the Capitol. Democrats might have invested money into infrastructure improvements so that bridges didn't collapse or entire cities flood. We wouldn't have spent $350 million per day in Iraq. Heck, had Democrats been able to control 50 percent of the government from 2000 to 2004, we wouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place. There might have been more spending on education and a fully funded No Child Left Behind Act. It is a remarkable time in American politics when a respected ideologue like Limbaugh can take to a hyperpartisan place like the pages of The Wall Street Journal, and deliver such a consistent message. We Democrats should congratulate Rush on the purity, intellectual integrity, and consistency of his positions. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of James Carville.

Lawyer: Kilpatrick not bitter

Freed Kilpatrick 'not bitter,' his lawyer says BY M.L. ELRICK FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick left jail early this morning with a new look, an apparent new appreciation for freedom, and a new high-powered lawyer who said he doesn’t have any plans to sue anybody … … Yet. Emerging from a Wayne County Jail cell situated across an alley from Detroit Police headquarters, a slimmer and shaggier Kilpatrick paused in the doorway of the Andrew C. Baird Detention Center around 12:30 a.m. As his newest attorney, Willie Gary, said Kilpatrick would have nothing to say, the 38-year-old ex-mayor looked around with a somewhat bewildered expression. Through the thick beard that replaced his formerly closely cropped whiskers, he flashed a smile. Then he plowed toward a waiting Chevy Suburban as a phalanx of large and nattily attired escorts tried to form a wall against reporters and photographers. After a caravan of SUVs sped away, Gary told reporters Kilpatrick wanted to speak, but instead heeded his lawyer’s advice. “He’s not bitter; he said he learned a lot. He said this has been an experience that he’ll never forget. And he thinks because of it he’ll be a better person,” Gary said. “Right now he’s just concerned about getting home to his mom, his sister and, of course, his other family.” Although Kilpatrick is due to join his wife, Carlita, and their three sons in Texas as early as today, his first stop was apparently at the home of his mother, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Detroit. His sister, Ayanna, lives next door to the congresswoman’s home just west of the New Center. Gary, a Florida lawyer whom the Miami Herald says has built a fortune by winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars, said he came to Detroit at Kilpatrick’s request. But he said he is still trying to determine if the ex-mayor has a case. “What I’m doing is, we’re just kind of doing some due diligence to make sure that in the process of all of this that there were no violations of his rights,” Gary said. “He understands what he’s facing. He’s paid his dues. He’s done what the system has asked him to do. But along the way we are concerned that there may have been some violations of his rights. We think that the process has to work for everybody, regardless of who you are.” Gary declined to say which of Kilpatrick’s rights may have been violated. Gary was asked if he might sue SkyTel, the company that leased the city text messaging devices on which Kilpatrick and his former chief of staff and lover sent incriminating messages. All he would say about potential targets was that he was concerned with Kilpatrick’s rights “during the case, the rights with all of the evidence, the rights with respect to just how certain matters were handled, how certain matters were dealt with in terms of and specifically in terms of some of the records that were out, that got out.” The Free Press reported last year about text messages that showed Kilpatrick and his former chief of staff and lover, Christine Beatty, lied during a police whistle-blower case when they denied having an affair and trying to fire a deputy police chief investigating the mayor’s inner circle. The pair’s attempts to cover up the lies cost taxpayers more than $9 million and prompted the Wayne County prosecutor to file 15 felony charges against them. Kilpatrick pleaded guilty to two felony perjury charges and no contest to a felony assault charge stemming from the case. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail and five years probation, ordered to pay $1 million in restitution, give up his law license, resign as mayor and agree not to run for public office for five years. Beatty later pleaded guilty to two felony perjury charges and is serving a 90-day sentence. Kilpatrick served 99 days in jail after getting credit for a night he spent in jail on a bond violation and for good behavior. Gary said Kilpatrick emerged in good spirits, noting that he was excited to have lost 25 pounds. “The mayor,” Gary started, correcting himself. “The former mayor. … He wishes the city well, all of the people well. … There are no hard feelings.”

Republican governors push for stimulus bill

GOP governors press for stimulus bill By BETH FOUHY Associated Press

NEW YORK— Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state's congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan.

"As the executive of a state experiencing budget challenges, Gov. Douglas has a different perspective on the situation than congressional Republicans," said Douglas' deputy chief of staff, Dennise Casey.

Not a single Republican voted with the majority last week when the House approved Obama's $819 billion combination of tax cuts and new spending. The president's goal is to create or preserve 3 million to 4 million jobs.

Republicans led by House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained that the plan is laden with pet projects and will not yield the jobs or stimulate the economy in the way Obama has promised.

The measure faces GOP opposition in the Senate, where it will be up for a vote in the week ahead.

But states are coping with severe budget shortfalls and mounting costs for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. So governors, including most Republicans, are counting on the spending to help keep their states afloat.

This past week the bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.

"States are facing fiscal conditions not seen since the Great Depression — anticipated budget shortfalls are expected in excess of $200 billion," the NGA statement said. "Governors ... support several key elements of the bill critical to states-increased federal support for Medicaid and K-12 and higher education; investment in the nation's infrastructure; and tax provisions to spur investment.

Clyde Frazier, a professor of political science at Meredith College in North Carolina, said it wasn't politically inconsistent for Republican governors and members of Congress to part ways on the stimulus plan.

"For governors, it's free money — they get the benefits and they don't have to pay the costs of raising the revenues," Frazier said. "Senators and representatives get only some credit for the expenditures, and they have to pay the bill."

That's not to say Republican governors are entirely enthusiastic about the plan. Some worry about the debt incurred through so much federal borrowing.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a former member of the House, said he would accept the stimulus money but would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he wasn't sure whether he would accept the approximately $3 billion his state would be in line for.

"Yes, we need some help and we appreciate the help," Barbour said in an interview. "But I don't know about the details and the strings attached to tell you if I'll take all of it or not."

The most outspoken critic has been South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has warned for months of a steep spike in inflation and a severely weakened dollar if Obama's plan passed. His state is on track to receive $2.1 billion of the stimulus money; Sanford has not yet said whether he would accept it.

"It's incumbent on me as one of the nation's governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar," Sanford said in an interview. "This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession."

Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.

Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama's plan.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2012, said governors have little choice but to accept the relief being offered. "States have to balance their budgets," he said. "So if we're going to go down this path, we are entitled to ask for our share of the money."

But Pawlenty expressed reservations about the cost of the plan and its impact on the federal deficit, which has already grown to over $1 trillion.

"I'm quite concerned about the federal government spending money it doesn't have," Pawlenty said. "We're on an unsustainable path of deficit spending and borrowing."

---

Republicans scrap the buy American clause

Top Republican: Scrap 'buy American' stimulus clause

The US Senate should strip a "Buy American" clause from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, the chamber's top Republican said Monday amid anger at the restriction from US allies. "I don't think we ought to use a measure that is supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted to set off trade wars when the entire world is experiencing a downturn in the economy," said Senator Mitch McConnell. Asked whether he would support trying to strip the measure from what is now roughly an 888-billion-dollar economic stimulus package, the Republican minority leader told reporters: "I think it's a bad idea to put it in a bill like this, which is supposed to be about jump starting the economy, yes." The House of Representatives last week voted to require that public works projects funded by its 819-billion-dollar stimulus bill to use only US iron and steel. The Senate version extends that restriction to all manufactured goods. McConnell's comments came as Canada Trade Minister Stockwell Day warned that US protectionism "can only trigger retaliatory action" as he urged Obama to fight the provision. The Republican leader also urged Obama to lean on his Democratic allies in the US Congress to accept or at least accommodate Republican ideas for how best to pull the US economy out of a paralyzing recession. "I hope he can get through to them that the way to build this package is, indeed, to do it on a bipartisan basis, which doesn't mean just talking to us, but including ideas that we think would work," said McConnell. That would include plans for government-backed, four percent fixed mortgages to qualified homebuyers, and cutting the bottom two income tax bracket rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent, he said. McConnell also denounced the amount of social safety net spending in the stimulus plan and indicated Republicans would like to see fewer zeros on the overall price tag. "We've been throwing figures around like it was paper money," he said. "We all agree that we need to do something, but I don't think we should just completely act like the amount is irrelevant." While Senate procedures give the minority Republicans powers to slow or stall legislation, McConnell made clear his party's goal is not to stymie passage of a bill that might revive the US economy. "Nobody that I know of is trying to keep a package from passing. You know, we're not trying to prevent a package from passing. We're trying to reform it -- reformulate it -- put it in a different place," he said.