You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

rosco 357

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"In just one month, the Democrats have spent more than President Bush spent in seven years on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina combined."
Mitch McConnell on Friday, February 27th, 2009 in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference

McConnell contends Democrats have already exceeded Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina spending

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says it took only one month for the Democrats to exceed three of President Bush's big-ticket items in spending.

It was red meat for the crowd at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, where the Kentucky Republican spoke on Feb. 27. But cut into it and it starts to look overcooked.

McConnell recalled that Democrats had relentlessly criticized Bush's spending. "But now the shoe is on the other foot. And what have we seen?" he said. "Well, in just one month just one month, the Democrats have spent more than President Bush spent in seven years on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina combined in one month."

This is quickly becoming a Republican talking point. Rep. John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, used the same line in a statement on March. 4.

Asked to back up the claim, McConnell spokesman Josh Holmes pinned the Democrats' spending in one month at $818 billion. That's the $31 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program passed in January plus the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February.

That $818 billion exceeds the $655 billion the Defense Department spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2008, plus the $132 billion the government spent responding to Hurricane Katrina, Holmes said. He cited this Government Accountability Office report as the source of the war-spending figure, and the Congressional Research Service for the Katrina figure.

We'll grant that Katrina cost about $132 billion and the SCHIP bill will spend $31 billion (that spending is paid for, mostly with an increase in cigarette taxes).

But we take issue with McConnell's calculations of Democratic spending and Bush's war spending.

First, about $326 billion of the $787 billion cost of the stimulus is from tax cuts, according to this report by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. That is not generally considered "spending" certainly not by McConnell's audience at CPAC. And even if it were, it was unfair to say the Democrats "spent" the entire $787 billion in one month; the spending will take place over the next seven years, with the bulk of it coming not the month it was passed, or even this year, but in 2010.

If McConnell believes that to schedule spending is effectively to spend, then he'll have to take another look at his war figures. The very report that his spokesman used to justify a war-spending estimate of $655 billion through 2008 said, "As of September 2008, Congress has appropriated a total of about $808 billion" for the global war on terror. The difference is made up of future obligations to which Bush committed, and McConnell did not count those.

And even $808 billion does not include all the necessary war spending for fiscal year 2009, which began October 2008. Traditionally all 2009 spending would be included in the budget President Bush drafted in February 2008, but Bush chose to fund the war through emergency supplemental appropriations instead. He did not ask Congress for a 2009 supplemental appropriation before he left office, choosing instead to leave that to the next president. (President Obama asked for another $76 billion for the wars for fiscal 2009.)

And the wars will continue beyond 2009. If McConnell is saying the Democrats spent the entire cost of the stimulus in one month, doesn't he have to hold Bush responsible for at least some of the longer term costs of the war? "If you look at the total cost of the stimulus bill it seems to me you also need to look at what the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan will be for the next few years," said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel for the Concord Coalition.

Some experts have said that once costs like veterans' benefits are factored in, the war in Iraq will cost several trillion dollars .

In any event, the lowest estimate of Bush's war spending through 2008 that is even remotely defensible is $808 billion. Tack that onto the $132 billion cost of Katrina and you get $940 billion for the wars and Katrina.

That's well over the expenditures expected from the Democrats' stimulus and children's health insurance bills, which total $686 billion once tax cuts are subtracted. Even if we included the cost of the tax cuts (for a total of $818 billion), he would still be wrong because that's less than the $940 billion that uses a more accurate cost of the war spending.

And even that analysis, remember, is generous to McConnell since it includes several years of spending from the stimulus and SCHIP bills, not "one month."

McConnell's claim stands up only if you treat tax cuts as spending, accept an incomplete estimate of the wars' costs and group several years of planned spending into a one-month spending spree by the Democrats but not for Bush. That is, it doesn't stand up at all. We find this claim False.

MY WORDS ,, OK I'm not taking sides just posting . i have not put a url for these post about truth o meter, i saw on TV where i forget one 24 hour news was using this sight as a fact source, on a big board, so i went there to check it out, what im impressed about is they seem to have there shit together, and don't play sides but only investigate the facts, i have been selfish and wanted to keep this sight to myself, lol, but i know that is not fair, u need to see on the right side, the sources of their findings at the web sight,, now it does have an obamameter, that shows how obama is doing on his campaign promises, so i now will post the url, i never meant to cover the board with truth meters, but i found some things very interesting, u all know my political feelings, but above all i don't like politicians playing loose with the so called facts for their benefit no mater the party, maybe this sight it not correct always, but so far all i read make a lot of sense in how they arrive at there judgements, anyway enjoy the sight. thanks Rosco,,, some may have been to the sight, as follows,


It is a very interesting site Rosco, maybe Gypsy will enjoy it since the name FOX isn't associated with it.

rosco 357

yep as i said they do seem to try to weed out the facts and non facts, on both sides, did u notice , it is from Tyler's neck of the woods down there in florida, st petersburg, i have not even read the whole sight ,, or the obamameter,, i just dont like to see politician spew things and ppl believe all they say, so i like this sight, as it seems to try to get to the bottom on both sides ,, i dont seem to have much time for TV , but i like hannity, but when i know or have read up on some issues, i notice hannity does not lie, but he leave things out, i want to call him and tell him , hey how about this part u did not mention,lol but both sides do that, and when they have guest , one of each they talk over each other, and really u get nothing out of there convo,, so this is another reason i like the sight, but i just found this sight a few days ago, as i saw it being used for a factual source on i think CNN, or fox, i don't watch msnbc,,, but hey it could be biased, but i have not read enough to judge it, but at first glance i think it is trying to do the right thing, ,, where is gypsy, is she with figi, lol,, HELLO GYPSY where is u,, take care,,

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum