The Clinton Economic Plan
THE CLINTON ECONOMIC PLAN
Special Amnesia Edition
Editor's Note: Reporters told the voters last fall that Bill Clinton would cut taxes for the middle class, and that his economic plan was solid and credible. When President Bush and Vice President Quayle said otherwise, reporters called their assertions misleading or wrong. Would reporters apologize, or praise his actual economic plan? Read on:
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong on Clinton's Tax Promises
"President Bush's new ad portrays Bill Clinton as a big taxer and a
danger to the middle class....That's misleading. In fact, Clinton has
proposed cutting taxes for the sort of people in this ad. The tax
increase that the ad claims could result under Clinton is based on
leaps of logic about how he would pay for his promises."
-- NBC reporter Lisa Myers on NBC Nightly News, October 2, 1992.
CBS reporter Eric Engberg: "The tax figures jump from the
screen with fact-like exactness. They were provided, not by Clinton,
but by the Bush staff, which admits they are based on assumptions. They
assume Clinton will fail to get his program through Congress; that his
proposal to tax the wealthy won't raise enough money; and that he will
then tax the middle class, which he says he won't."
Off-screen CBS producer: "The stacking up of assumptions like this, there's a word we use for that."
Steven Colford, Advertising Age: "I think it's lying."
-- CBS Evening News, October 5, 1992.
"One of the best things that may come out of the election cycle is
that people don't like negative campaigning. The Bush people knew they
were in trouble, they couldn't move past 42 percent, so they thought if
they went negative, with the ad about Clinton's tax program, which is
very misleading to say the least, that they would begin to build up
Clinton's negatives."
-- NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell, October 7, 1992 Today.
"There are some factual things to clean up. When Dan Quayle said
they would be raising taxes on people down to about $36,000, that's
based on Bush campaign projections of the Clinton economic program."
-- NBC anchor Tom Brokaw after the vice presidential debate, October 13.
"The Bush campaign calculates that since Clinton could not possibly
raise the money he needs to pay for his spending programs with his
revenue proposals, he would have to impose a 36 percent tax rate on
anyone making over $36,000 a year. Independent examination of this
charge by, for example, press organizations, has found it, to say the
least, misleading."
-- ABC's Jeff Greenfield on Nightline, October 13, 1992.
"It was Quayle who repeatedly twisted and misstated the facts...
Quayle misrepresented Clinton's economic plan, which calls for a net
tax increase of only $46 billion spread over four years -- the $150
billion Quayle mentioned, minus the $104 billion in cuts he neglected
to mention."
-- CNN reporter Brooks Jackson, October 14, 1992 Inside Politics.
Reality Check:
"Looks like Dan Quayle was right. Last
year's vice presidential debate...produced an accurate prediction from
Quayle about the Clinton budget plan...The final plan, according to
Clinton officials, will hit those making $30,000 and above."
-- USA Today, February 18.
Clinton's Tough Cuts
It's one for one [tax hikes to spending cuts] and it's gutsier than
any Republican President has done in 12 years of feel- goodism. This is
going to be politically courageous and you're going to hear a lot of
screaming."
-- Newsweek reporter Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group, February 13.
"Offering a new direction for the country, President Clinton today
begins selling his tough budget-cutting program to the American people."
-- CBS This Morning co-host Harry Smith, February 18.
"In an about-face from the economic policies of the past 12 years,
which emphasized ever increasing government debt, President Clinton
outlined a plan based on fiscal restraint... Greenspan could be in the
unfamiliar position of formulating monetary policy to prop up an
economy beset by higher taxes and a significantly lower rate of
government spending."
-- U.S. News & World Report cover story, March 1 issue.
Reality Check:
"Clinton did not point out that his
supposed domestic cuts are offset by more than 131 proposals to
increase domestic spending by a total of $123.7 billion. All told,
proposed increases in domestic spending outweigh the proposed `cuts' by
$10 billion over the next four years."
-- Heritage Foundation Backgrounder by Daniel J. Mitchell, February 18.
Medicare Cuts -- In the Rate of Growth
Proposed Medicare, Medicaid Cuts Total $62.6 Billion Over Five Years
-- Washington Post, February 19
Health Care Putting Limits on Growth of Medicare
-- New York Times, same day
Clinton's Great Plan
"I think regardless of what you think of the specifics of the
program, the President deserved great, great credit for having the
courage to come forward with a plan to deal responsibly with the
deficit. Yes, there are flaws....But I think that Bill Clinton really
set the nation on a new course last night in trying to deal responsibly
with our problems, and make the tough choices."
-- NBC's Lisa Myers on Today, February 18.
"Many economists say the Clinton program -- especially his plan for
higher taxes and spending cuts to shrink the federal budget deficit --
is exactly what the economy needs. They say if the program can get
through Congress intact, it could help boost the economy not just in
1993, but through the rest of the decade... Economists were pleased to
see line-by-line spending and revenue projections, not vague targets,
common in the Reagan and Bush years."
-- USA Today reporter Mark Memmott, February 18.
"Clinton has at least faced the facts squarely, which is more than
his immediate predecessors ever did, and he is forthrightly taking the
heat for the tax increases that serious deficit reduction demands.
Simply to move the debate from whether the deficit should be tackled to
how the red ink should be stemmed is the definition of courage in
modern American politics. So give him that....Clinton's economic plan
deserves to be known as a new New Deal, and Congress should pass it
quickly."
-- Time chief political correspondent Michael Kramer, March 1 issue.
"As the soundbite from the Fed chairman said a moment ago, we're
doing this to improve the living standards, not of us, necessarily, but
of our children and of our grandchildren. The payoff for this kind of
pain doesn't come in five years. It doesn't necessarily come in ten
years. It comes in 15, 20, and 25 years from now, when we start to get
the economy growing faster, productivity increases going up faster, the
kinds of benefits that we really hope will help us do things like pay
Social Security benefits 25 years from now and so forth."
-- U.S. News & World Report economics writer Susan Dentzer, Feb. 19 CNN & Company.
"Fear not -- there won't be a new baby boom nine months from now
because you and your spouse had to huddle under the covers to keep warm
after President Clinton's energy tax takes effect. You'll just have to
drive a little less and snuggle a little more."
-- Boston Globe summary of tax plan, February 21.
Sam Donaldson: Raise My Taxes
"In 1981, Ronald Reagan lowered my income rate, terrific, my tax
rate. Then he indexed my taxes. He didn't explain to me how government
could index what it bought. The way it worked under Ronald Reagan was I
couldn't creep into a higher bracket and pay more in taxes....It's time
that people like me start paying more of a fair share, and it's time
that people started giving up their subsidies, and I agree we need more
cuts. And we will return to fiscal responsibility and away from the
la-la land of the Reagan-Bush era."
-- ABC reporter Sam Donaldson at the Conservative Political Action Conference, February 20.
"I would tell [Clinton] two things: means test all government
programs for every recipient of them, including Social Security, and
get real with the energy taxes. That's the way we're going to go. Don't
put seven cents on. To be effective, put 50 cents on. We are still
undertaxed by energy by large quantities, and we can stand it. So let's
not just ratchet it up year after year, because once a tax is in place,
folks, it just increases. Let's do it now."
-- Donaldson on This Week with David Brinkley, February 21.
Before the Plan: Rooting for a Middle Class Tax Hike
"But [Clinton] said that he would never tax the middle class, and if
things didn't work out right, he would still not tax the middle
class....he really took a pledge last night not to talk about the
things that would hurt the middle class, and I think it's
intellectually one of the worst things I've seen Bill Clinton do."
-- NBC White House reporter Andrea Mitchell, October 20, 1992 Today.
"I think it would be entirely to the good if it [improved growth]
made him abandon this ridiculous middle class tax cut. Because the fact
is what Clinton needs even in the intermediate term is a global
stimulus package."
-- Newsweek reporter Margaret Warner on CNN's Capital Gang, November 28, 1992.
Clinton's Honesty
"For the past 12 years, the job of balancing the federal
government's books has been rife with avoidance and obfuscation. Reagan
budget director David A. Stockman began the process with his `rosy
scenarios' and `magic asterisks,' accounting tricks that helped him
submit what looked like balanced budgets even as he added billions to
the deficit....Now President Clinton and his Office of Management and
Budget Director, Leon E. Panetta, are vowing to change all that,
beginning with the economic program they plan to unveil on
Wednesday....Panetta's talk of honest budgeting is part of a cultural
change that seems to be underway at OMB."
-- Washington Post reporter Steven Mufson, February 14 news story.
"[Clinton] offered a budget plan that would reduce the deficit with
more realistic estimates than the `rosy scenarios,' `magic asterisks,'
or other gimmicks of the Reagan-Bush presidencies."
-- Mufson, February 18.
"Clinton is determined to avoid Reagan's and Bush's mistakes. His
predecessors used rosy economic forecasts rather than politically
unpopular spending cuts and tax increases to make unrealistic promises
they could not deliver. Clinton is taking the opposite route. He is
proposing real cuts and taxes, but is using pessimistic economic
assumptions and worst-case budget estimates to lower expectations for
results."
-- Knight-Ridder reporter Owen Ullmann in the February 21 Philadelphia Inquirer.
Reality Check:
"Among the questionable spending cuts over
four years were $52 billion from better management of government, $7.9
billion from `streamlining' government, $4.4 billion from `technical
adjustments.'"
-- Knight-Ridder Washington reporter Robert Rankin, February 18 Philadelphia Inquirer.
"The administration's $30,000 threshold, for example, is not what
most people understand as income, or even the form 1040's familiar
adjusted gross income line. It is a figure concocted to include all
kinds of `non-cash income,' including fringe benefits and even the
imputed rental value of the family home. As administration officials
have conceded, the higher tax bites actually begin at a figure closer
to $20,000 than $30,000....The more that is learned about the plan, the
less solid it looks. As much as $54 billion of claimed spending
reductions are actually increases in taxes or fees."
-- Washington Post reporter David Broder in a February 24 column.
Blaming the GOP
"If Republicans don't cooperate, are you prepared to make it tough
on them, and remind the nation that it was Ronald Reagan who quadrupled
the deficit, and cast the Republicans as the architects, new architects
of gridlock?"
-- Today co-host Bryant Gumbel questioning Vice President Gore, February 18.
"Wasn't it the Republican Party under the leadership of Ronald
Reagan especially, and George Bush who put the country in the fix it's
now in?"
-- NBC anchor Tom Brokaw questioning Rep. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), February 17 Nightly News.
"If the American electorate wanted no change, it could have voted
for George Bush....the Bush-Reagan deficit...grew almost exponentially
under Republican administrations."
-- CNN reporter Charles Bierbauer, February 16 Inside Politics.
Let's Emulate Europe
"There is no mystery in how [the deficit] can be brought down... the
U.S. simply has to choose from a menu of unpalatable options that
include deeper cuts in defense spending, tougher controls on medical
services, higher taxes on federal pensions, and a broad- based tax on
energy or consumption, preferably both. We know how to do this. Impose
measures already commonplace in other industrialized countries. The
weapons are there. It's the will to use them that's the problem."
-- NBC commentator John Chancellor, February 16 Nightly News.
"No, President Clinton is not on 60 Minutes Sunday, but we hope he'll be in the audience. Lester Thurow has the best explanation yet of what's wrong with us."
-- CBS promo for February 14 60 Minutes profile of liberal economist Thurow, who argued that the U.S. should follow the government industrial plans of Europe.
Clinton: Mount Rushmore?
Clinton - Old CW: Not ready for prime time. New CW: Almost ready for Mount Rushmore.
-- March 1
Forced to Raise Taxes?
"George Bush and Congress passed a similar $496 billion plan in 1990
that -- like Clinton's -- included higher taxes on the rich and higher
energy taxes. Bush relied more on spending cuts than tax increases.
That left Clinton with fewer spending cuts to choose from this year --
forcing him to fall back on heavier taxes."
-- Media General News Service reporter Gene Marlow in the February 18 Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Gibson's Good Question
"I was researching back because I thought there had been three tax
increases in the last few years that were going to be specifically
devoted to deficit reduction. A major foundation in Washington said it
was four increases in the last ten years that were designed for deficit
reduction -- in each year, the deficit has gone up. So why should
people believe there'll be any change in the deficit this time?"
-- Good Morning America co-host Charles Gibson to Al Gore, February 18.
Who's Senator Michelle?
"It was interesting that Senator Michelle, House Minority Leader, addressed Ross Perot's supporters as a separate group."
-- Reporter Denise Richardson on Rep. Bob Michel's Republican response
to the President in a question to a man on the street, February 18 Good Morning America.
Publisher: L. Brent Bozell III
Editors: Brent H. Baker, Tim Graham
Media Analysts: Brant Clifton, Chris Crowley, Andrew Gabron,
Kristin Johnson, Steve Kaminski
Circulation Manager: Jennifer Hardebeck
Interns: David Muska, Bill Thompson
