Huck's very interesting week

From NBC's Lauren Selsky
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has had, shall we say, a very interesting week while promoting his book, "A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don't!)."

Monday: When Huckabee was asked about President Obama's background and birth certificate on Steve Malzberg's radio show, he responded with this much-talked-about answer, "I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American."

Tuesday: Huckabee released a statement on his PAC website, saying: "I simply misspoke when I alluded to President Obama growing up in 'Kenya' and meant to say Indonesia."

Wednesday: Two days after Huck's inaccurate statement about President Obama growing up in Kenya came another much-talked-about comment about the president: "I do think he has a different worldview and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience. Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas."

Friday: To cap off the week, news came out that Huckabee took on Hollywood. When conservative radio host Michael Medved asked Huckabee about actress Natalie Portman having a child out of wedlock (even though she and the father are engaged to be married), Huck answered: "[O]ne of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie."

In a statement this afternoon, Huckabee clarified: "Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar and I am glad she will marry her baby's father. However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not 'slam' or 'attack' Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hardworking single mothers in our country."

Complete Bryan Fischer Interview With Mike Huckabee

 Here is the entire nine minute interview:

Uploaded by RWWBlog on Mar 2, 2011

Mike Huckabee 3-2-11 appearance on Bryan Fischer's radio program.

Huckabee And Fischer Agree That Obama's Childhood Instilled "Fundamentally Anti-American Ideas" In Him

The AFA's Bryan Fischer spent the first hour of his daily radio program doing what he usually does: railing against gays and Muslims. 

But today he kicked off hour two with a special guest: Mike Huckabee. 

Huckabee was there ostensibly to promote his new book but most of the interview spent with Huckabee lashing out at those who have criticized him for claiming that President Obama grew up in Kenya.

Huckabee insisted that he simply misspoke but then agreed when Fischer asserted that Obama's childhood is responsible for instilling some "fundamentally anti-American ideas" in him:

Huckabee: And it's really an indication of just how pathetic some of these folks are who claim to be journalists and reporters and have failed to do a decent job. You know, I admitted that I misspoke on that, but I corrected it. But what I have never done is taken to position that Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia or anywhere other than Hawaii where he claims to have been born. Frankly Bryan, that is not a popular position with conservatives but it is the position I have consistently taken and I just am very amazed at the firestorm this has caused, especially in light of the fact that the talk show host himself has said there is nothing to it.

Fischer: Well Governor, what got lost in all the shuffle was the legitimate point that you were making which is that we may have a president who has some fundamentally anti-American ideas that may be rooted in a childhood where he had a father who was virulently anti-colonial, hated the British - might have something to do with the President returning the bust of Winston Churchill back to England. You know, I was struck by the fact that when he made his tour to Indonesia, he made a point of going to an Indonesian memorial that celebrated the victory of Indonesians over British troops - again, part of that anti-colonial thing. And so I'd like you to comment on that; you seem to think that there is some validity to the fact that there may be some fundamental anti-Americanism in this president.

Huckabee: Well, that's exactly the point that I make in the book and I don't know why these reporters - maybe they can't read, I guess that's part of it because it's clearly spelled out and I'm quoting a British newspaper who really were expressing the outrage of the Brits over that bust being returned and the point was that they felt like that due to Obama's father and grandfather it could be that his version and view of the Mau Mau Revolution was very different than most of the people who perhaps would grow up in the United States. And I have said many times, publicly, that I do think he has a different worldview and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience. Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas.

Later in the interview, Fischer asked Huckabee his thoughts about the news that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum had been been suspended by Fox News as they mull presidential bids and Huckabee admitted that part of the reason he is in no rush to make any public decision about a run of his own is that, if he does, he'll also lose his gig with Fox. 

VIDEO: Breaking down the NBC News/WSJ Poll

 

Below is my conversation with NBC's Political Unit as we break down the latest NBC News / Wall Street Journal Opinion poll.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mike Huckabee on 'Fox News Sunday'

Feb 28, 2011

- 11:40 - 

Ex-Ark. gov. talks presidential politics

The battle over the health care bill

 This should be interesting, I will be checking the Fact Checker to see where he thinks things are.....

Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 01/13/2011

By Glenn Kessler

"I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit. CBO [Congressional Budget Office] is entitled to their opinion, but they're locked within constraints of the 1974 Budget Act. Listen, even the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have made clear that this bill will not save the kind of money that was predicted earlier. ....CBO can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them. And if you go back and look at the health-care bill and the assumptions that were given to them, you see all of the double-counting that went on. You see the fact that the "doc fix" wasn't even part of the bill." 
--House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), January 6, 2011

"They're going to repeal the health care bill which cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion, they've got irresponsible policies." 
--Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), January 6, 2011

The new leader of the House of Representatives, speaking to reporters at his maiden news conference last week, resorted to a lot of inside-the-Beltway language that might have left even devoted watchers of C-SPAN scratching their heads. But he's talking about a critical question--whether the health care overhaul passed last year will actually reduce the deficit or not. Republicans contend that it does not, and that is one of the main reasons they cite for wanting to repeal it. But the problem, for the GOP, is that the CBO is the official scorekeeper for Congress. By the CBO's math, the bill does reduce the deficit--and that repealing the bill would increase the deficit. Some of Boehner's assertions have a basis in fact, but you can't dismiss the umpire in the middle of the game when you don't like the calls he makes.

Meanwhile, many Democrats are playing their own games with the numbers. Weiner's statement is typical--he takes a very hazy forecast 20 years down the road and treats it as the gospel truth.

We're going to take a relatively detailed tour through these conflicting claims, and try to sort them out. Hang on, the issue's important--if a bit complicated.

The Facts

The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan arm of Congress, established in 1974, that estimates the spending associated with bills proposed in the Congress. (The Joint Committee on Taxation deals with revenues.) The CBO estimates may differ from projections made by the White House or other executive branch agencies, but its conclusions carry significant weight. The CBO's judgments become the bottom line that Congress considers when it is debating a bill. The numbers are actually a mid-range of possible outcomes and are often well-grounded estimates, but even CBO Budget Director Douglas W. Elmendorf saysthe "actual outcomes will surely differ from our estimates in one direction or another." Still, lawmakers and reporters treat them as if they are etched on stone tablets.

President Obama had promised that his health care plan would not increase the deficit, so the White House last year was on pins and needles waiting for the official CBO score. The final verdict: in the first ten years the health care bill would reduce the deficit by $143 billion. The CBO did not even try to offer a deficit-reduction number for the second decade, but gave a vague response that Democrats have translated into a hard figure of $1.2 trillion.

In many ways, the focus on the numbers is silly. The CBO has a respectable track record, but CBO's numbers are based on models, and models can be flawed. No one really knows exactly what the impact of legislative changes will be ten years from now, let alone how population growth, economic growth or other factors ultimately will affect the bottom line. It would be more logical to offer a range, but CBO is expected to produce an actual number.

Here's where it gets complicated. Let's look at the GOP charge that this number was cooked through "double-counting," questionable assumptions and the like. Boehner has a point here. CBO has to evaluate the bill as it stands. There were education provisions in the bill that had little to do with health care. Those changes to the law acount for $19 billion of the supposed deficit reduction, so let's put that aside.

That leaves $124 billion of deficit reduction related to health care. But that is pretty iffy too.

When Boehner refers to the "doc fix," he's talking about a never-implemented cut in Medicare to doctors passed in 1997--when the Republicans were in control, and Boehner was in a leadership post. Except for one year, Congress has repeatedly waived that provision but has never repealed it. Because the provision remains in law, the CBO had to assume the revenue--some $200 billion over ten years--would keep flowing even though no one in Congress supports implementing those cuts.

Now, if you add back the "doc fix," the supposed deficit reduction has disappeared. But there's more. Because of federal budget practices, the law also results in a theoretical $400 billion improvement in the cash flow of the Medicare insurance trust fund even though it does not actually enhance the ability of the government to pay those benefits. So many would argue that that $400 billion is also illusionary.

The CBO also did not estimate the cost of annual spending bills needed to implement the new law, because such actions were not detailed in the legislation. In a later estimate, the CBO suggested the cost of implementing the bill over ten years would be $115 billion. But pay-as-you-go rules would require such money to be offset, so it's unclear whether those costs would add to the deficit. House GOP leaders swear they will not fund the implementation of the bill, but the CBO more recently said that more than $86 billion in discretionary spending is for activities already authorized or being carried out, so perhaps that's a moot point.

Adding all that up--already we are adding back more than half a trillion dollars--the predicted deficit reduction of $143 billion begins to look pretty shaky, if not fictitious. But the focus on the numbers obscures a broader point made by the CBO estimate last year: Over time, the CBO experts believe, the health care law would greatly reduce the number of uninsured and begin to slow the growth of health care costs in the federal budget, especially in its second decade.

Elmendorf, however, has warned that some of policies designed to reduce health spending may be difficult to sustain--and that it isn't even clear what specific policies would actually result in real cost savings. Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid, alsocast serious doubt on whether the Medicare savings claimed in the second decade could be achieved without significant pain for many hospitals, nursing facilities and other providers.

This is why Weiner's assertion that repealing the health care bill would cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion is misleading. It's bad enough to cite a ten-year figure. But to claim a 20-year figure is absurd. There are too many uncertainties to be precise, and the CBO itself merely offered a tentative guess of a "broad range of around one-half percent of GDP," with significant caveats. Democrats simply took that percentage, multiplied it against the predicted size of the GDP 20 years from now (itself a pretty fuzzy figure) and presto, they had a number. But it's a fairly meaningless one.

Boehner and other GOP leaders repeatedly label the bill a "job-killer"--so much so the phrase is actually in the name of the repeal bill that will be considered on the floor of the House this week--but both sides can cite studies making their case. (Click here for a counter view to the job-killer moniker.) The use of the term "job-killer" is over-the-top political rhetoric, and the folks at factcheck.org have done a good job of debunking some of the claims behind that label.

Finally, the GOP's decrying that the law was crafted to reach a favorable ruling from budget scorekeepers is simply hypocritical. One of the most egregious manipulations of such assumptions in recent years was the passage of George W. Bush's tax cut in 2001. The administration and its Republican allies wanted to pass a tax cut that would reduce revenues by $1.6 trillion over ten years but were constrained by the budget rules in place at the time to just a cut of $1.35 trillion. So they simply ended the tax cuts in the ninth year (allowing them to count all the revenue springing forth in the tenth year from the return of the estate tax, higher tax brackets and the like).

In other words, they effectively stuffed a $1.6 trillion tax cut in the bill, even though the estimators were required to say it "cost" only $1.35 trillion. That ticking time bomb fell in Obama's lap this winter, forcing him to cut the deal last month that extended the Bush cuts for two more years.

The Pinocchio Test

Dig beneath the numbers and Boehner and his Republican co-horts have a point that the figures are suspect. But this is a game that both parties have played, and crocodile tears now should not obscure the many times Republicans have resorted to the same tactics in the past. The CBO number is the playing field that both sides use. And Democrats (of whom Weiner is just one example) should not be perfoming such tricks with the numbers either. In theory the claim of $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction rests on an actual estimate by a respected organization. But it's not really a CBO figure. The tenuous nature of these estimates makes it silly and counter productive to assert that the health care legislation ever was considered a deficit-reduction bill in the first place. It was a law designed to reduce the number of uninsured Americans and (with a little luck) rein in medical costs. Politicians should not pretend otherwise.

Three Pinocchios each.

(About our rating scale).

UPDATE, January 17:

Some readers have criticized me for lumping the "doc fix" into these calculations. I thought I had made it clear that this problem predated health care overhaul--Congress passed an ill-conceived formula for doctor payments in 1997--but it is a problem that needs to be fixed. The Democrats recognized this when they tried to include a fix in early versions of the health care legislation. But they they dropped it, partly because the fix was so expensive. It is a fair point that because the "doc fix" is not part of the health care bill, it should not be included in deficit calculations. In this column, however, I was trying to demonstrate how the CBO is constrained by the language of the legislation it is given to evaluate. One reason why the "doc fix" was not included in the bill is because it would have wiped out the perception of deficit reduction. If CBO scoring would have indicated sizeable deficit reduction even with a "doc fix," my guess is that a "doc fix" would have been in the bill. Ultimately, Congress will have to address this issue--and any solution will have a negative impact on federal budget projections.

About the Fact Checker

By washingtonpost.com Editors

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." -- C.P. Scott, editor Manchester Guardian, 1921

About the Fact Checker

In an award-winning journalism career spanning nearly three decades,Glenn Kessler has covered foreign policy, economic policy, the White House, Congress, politics, airline safety and Wall Street. He was The Washington Post's chief State Department reporter for nine years, traveling around the world with three different Secretaries of State. Before that, he covered tax and budget policy for The Washington Post and also served as the newspaper's national business editor. Kessler has long specialized in digging beyond the conventional wisdom, such as when he earned a "laurel" from the Columbia Journalism Review* for obtaining Federal Aviation Administration records that showed that then President Bill Clinton had not delayed any scheduled flights when he had a controversial haircut on an airport tarmac. Kessler helped pioneer the fact-checking of candidates' statements during the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, when he was chief political correspondent for Newsday, and continued to do it during the last three presidential campaigns for The Post. In 2007, St. Martins Press published his widely acclaimed book on Condoleezza Rice, The Confidante. Kessler appears frequently on television and has lectured widely on U.S. foreign policy.

Our Goal

Welcome to the new Fact Checker column. My colleague Michael Dobbs started the column during the 2008 campaign and now The Washington Post is reviving it as a permanent feature.

We will not be bound by the antics of the presidential campaign season, but will focus on any statements by political figures and government officials--in the United States and abroad--that cry out for fact-checking. It's a big world out there, and so we will rely on readers to ask questions and point out statements that need to be checked. Over time, we hope to build this page into a more interactive feature than the blog it has been.

The purpose of this website, and an accompanying column in the Post, is to "truth squad" the statements of political figures regarding issues of great importance, be they national, international or local. As the 2012 presidential election approaches, we will increasingly focus on statements made in the heat of the presidential contest. But we will not be limited to political charges or countercharges. We will seek to explain difficult issues, provide missing context and provide analysis and explanation of various "code words" used by politicians, diplomats and others to obscure or shade the truth.

The success of this project depends, to a great extent, on the involvement of you--the reader. We will rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups, and the media. Readers can even vote on what topics they need to have addressed. Once we have posted an item on a subject, we invite your comments and contributions. You can follow us on Twitter at GlennKesslerWP and also make comments and suggestions via tweets. If you have facts or documents that shed more light on the subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, let us know. We also want to make sure that the authors of questionable claims have ample opportunity to argue their case. We plan to issue our own opinion on factual disputes (see our rules on the "Pincocchio Test" on this web page) but it can be revised and updated when fresh evidence emerges.

A Few Basic Principles
·

• This is a fact-checking operation, not an opinion-checking operation. We are interested only in verifiable facts, though on occasion we may examine the roots of political rhetoric.
• · We will focus our attention and resources on the issues that are most important to voters. We cannot nitpick every detail of every speech.
• · We will stick to the facts of the issue under examination and are unmoved by ad hominem attacks. The identity or political ties of the person or organization making a charge is irrelevant: all that matters is whether their facts are accurate or inaccurate.
• · We will adopt a "reasonable man" standard for reaching conclusions. We do not demand 100 percent proof.
• · We will strive to be dispassionate and non-partisan, drawing attention to inaccurate statements on both left and right.

The Pinocchio Test

Where possible, we will adopt the following standard in fact-checking the claims of a politician, political candidate, diplomat or interest group.

One Pinocchio

Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Two Pinocchios

Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

Three Pinocchios

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

Four Pinocchios

Whoppers.

The Geppetto Checkmark

Statements and claims that contain "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" will be recognized with our prized Geppetto checkmark.

Withholding Judgment

There will be many occasions when it is impossible to render a snap judgment because the issue is very complex or there are good arguments on both sides. In this case, we will withhold our judgment until we can gather more facts. We will use this website to shed as much light as possible on factual controversies that are not easily resolved.

All judgments are subject to debate and criticism from our readers and interested parties, and can be revised if fresh evidence emerges. We invite you to join the discussion on these pages and contact the Fact Checker directly with tips, suggestions, and complaints. If you feel that we are being too harsh on one candidate and too soft on another, there is a simple remedy: let us know about misstatements and factual errors we may have overlooked.

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter @GlennKesslerWP

Democrats keep misleading on claimed budget 'cuts'

Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 03/ 4/2011

By Glenn Kessler

By Glenn Kessler

"The fact is that Democrats stand ready to meet the Republicans halfway on this. That would be fair."

-- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), March 3, 2011

"We are also prepared to put out specifics that will move another over $6 billion closer -- so that we will have met them halfway -- essentially split the difference between the president's request and [the GOP cuts in] H.R. 1."

-- Gene B. Sperling, director of the White House National Economic Council, March 3, 2011

"We have met them halfway, which in many ways is a perfect definition of an attempt to compromise."

-- White House press secretary Jay Carney, March 2, 2011

This has become a constant refrain by Democrats -- that they have already gone some distance to accommodate the Republicans' efforts to cut federal spending. We already awarded Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) two Pinocchios for this claim, but the talking point keeps popping up again and again.

We take no position on whether it makes sense to make these cuts at this time. But Democrats are being disingenuous by suggesting they have already worked hard to reduce spending or to reach out to Republicans.

The Facts

The 2011 fiscal year began Oct. 1, but Congress, then led by the Democrats, failed to pass any of the annual spending bills that would fund the government. Instead, lawmakers have passed a series of stopgap measures, known as continuing resolutions, based largely on 2010 spending. The most recent one was approved this week, though it also included $4 billion in cuts based on proposals in Obama's 2012 budget blueprint.

Yes, it's a bit confusing. Lawmakers mix and match the three budgets in their rhetoric faster than any three-card monte player.

The situation was different in 1995, the last time Republicans took control of the House. Then, the GOP pushed through $16 billion in cuts -- known as recissions -- from an existing budget that had been passed by the previous Democratic-led Congress. But since no spending bills were passed last year, politicians are able to pretend that budgets that exist only on paper are real.

When Democrats say they are meeting Republicans halfway, they are talking about "cuts" from Obama's never-enacted 2011 budget. By the White House's math, they have proposed $41 billion in cuts from the 2011 budget, plus $4 billion in the latest stopgap measure, plus $6.5 billion in unspecified cuts annnounced Thursday, for a total of $51 billion. But there was no heavy lifting involved, and certainly little discrete examination of which programs to preserve and which ones to cut. It's lot like saying you are running a 100-yard dash, but starting on the 50-yard line.

Democrats have justified this language by noting that Republicans claim they cut $100 billion from 2011 budget, when it is actually $61 billion from the 2010 budget. Republicans should not have tried to boast about such a nice, round number, but it is noteworthy that no major newspaper used that figure. Reporters did not fall for the GOP spin; it was always characterized as a $61 billion cut.

Similarly, the Democrats can not claim to have gone "halfway." It's not a difference between $51 billion and $100 billion, which makes the situation look benign.

Instead, the Democrats have offered just over $10 billion -- the $4 billion in the stop gap measure and the $6.5 billion announced late Thursday. Republicans have proposed $61 billion, so the gap between the two parties remains wide indeed.

The Pinocchio Test

"Halfway" is an appealing concept, but thus far Democrats have done little to match the cost-cutting drive launched by Republicans.

Repeating the same talking point over and over again does not make it correct. In fact, the rhetoric may come back to haunt Democrats, because in theory that would mean they eventually will have to come up with at least $30 billion in cuts from the 2010 budget.

We'll award two Pinocchios again, but if Democrats keep saying this -- or President Obama says it -- it will start to move into three Pinocchio territory.

Two Pinocchios

 

Harry Reid's illusory $41 billion in budget cuts

Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 02/24/2011

By Glenn Kessler

"We've already proposed $41 billion in cuts. So for the Republicans to say we're not cutting anything, they're being disingenuous and unfair and really not very truthful."
--Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Feb. 23, 2011

Congress is in a budget-cutting frenzy.

With a March 4 expiration of a stopgap government-funding bill looming, both sides are jockeying for position, eager to avoid blame for a government shutdown if no deal is reached.

The GOP-led House of Representatives last week passed a bill that would cut $61 billion in spending in this year's budget, and now Senate Democrats feel the pressure to show that they too are serious about reining in spending. (Few question anymore whether it makes sense to cut federal spending as the nation struggles to emerge from a recession, but that's another story.)

The way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid frames it, there does not appear to be much difference between the two sides: $41 billion in cuts vs. $61 billion in cuts. But nothing is ever simple when politicians are spouting budget figures.

The Facts

There are really three different budgets in play now, and people in Congress mislead by mixing them up.

There is the fiscal year 2012 budget, which starts in October. President Obama this month submitted his blueprint for that. Let's put that aside for now.

Then there is the fiscal year 2011 budget, which started last October. Congress never passed the annual appropriations bills needed to fund that budget -- submitted by Obama last year -- so government spending has continued on at 2010 levels, with some adjustments. Republicans are demanding that some of those appropriations be rescinded now, even with just seven months left in the fiscal year, as part of an effort to get spending back to pre-stimulus, 2008 levels.

Finally, there is the fiscal year 2010 budget, which was passed into law and ended on Sept.30, 2010. But it remains important because current government spending has been set more or less according to the 2010 pace.

Also keep in mind that the proposed cuts are taking place in the discretionary-spending part of the budget -- just one-third of the overall budget pie. Congress each year sets spending for the discretionary programs, such as Cabinet agency funding. Mandatory-spending programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, continue at the same pace unless Congress changes the laws governing those programs.

So what is Reid talking about when he says Democrats have already proposed $41 billion in cuts? He's talking about the difference between what Obama proposed last year -- and was never enacted -- and 2010 spending. Or, to put it another way, he's talking about cutting spending that never happened.

Republicans can play the same game. House Republicans brag that the House bill passed last week cut spending by $100 billion. That also is from the levels proposed in the Obama budget. So an apples-to-apples comparison would be about $100 billion in cuts in the House vs. about $40 billion in the Senate, or $60 billion in the House vs. zero in the Senate. Either way, there's a gap of about $60 billion.

A Reid spokesman offers the GOP language as an excuse. "The $41 billion is off of President Obama's 2011 budget," Jon Summers said. "The GOP also factors this into their $100 billion, so clearly both sides consider this a cut."

(For complicated, technical reasons, the numbers do not precisely line up. The stopgap funding bill is a smidgen, about $2 billion, below 2010 levels. Overall, the president proposed spending $1.128 trillion on discretionary programs in 2011 and the House bill would spend just $1.027 trillion.)

Now, of course, just flat-lining spending year after year can be a cut of some magnitude. If a family spends $100 a week on food one year, and then inflation brings costs to $103 a week the next year, there is less money for other things if income remains the same. Similarly, inflation and population growth affect the cost of government programs. Over time, the best way to compare government spending over many years is calculating its share of gross domestic product, not just looking at raw numbers.

But Obama's 2011 budget was not trying to freeze spending at constant levels. According to the historical data listed in the 2012 budget, Obama proposed a real increase in spending from 2010 to 2011. In inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama proposed a boost of $43 billion in discretionary spending. As a percentage of the gross domestic product, discretionary spending would have climbed from 9.3 percent to 9.4 percent.

The Pinocchio Test

If Reid had stipulated he was talking about cuts from Obama's never-enacted budget, he might have been on more solid ground. But then he paired his statement with an attack on Republicans, claiming that for them "to say we're not cutting anything, they're being disingenuous and unfair and really not very truthful."

It is Reid who is being disingenuous and not very truthful. He is playing with figures to conjure up $41 billion in cuts that are largely illusory. The GOP may play the same games to bump up their figures, but two wrongs don't make a right -- and certainly the GOP can claim most of their cuts are real.

Two Pinocchios

(About our rating scale).

UPDATE, 9:30 AM:
Summers, the Reid spokesman, says Reid has not compared the $41 billion figure to the $61 billion figure. We don't think this article says that. The paragraph above, starting "The way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid frames it...," was referring to the confusion readers might have when they hear Reid speak of $41 billion in cuts while newspaper headlines refer to $61 billion in cuts by House Republicans. Virtually no major news organization ran stories saying House Republicans cut $100 billion.

Leader Cantor Statement on February Jobs Report

 

The Employment Situation in February

Posted by Austan Goolsbee on March 04, 2011 at 10:15 AM EST

Today’s employment report shows that private sector payrolls increased by 222,000 in February, marking 12 consecutive months of growth that has added 1.5 million jobs at private firms. The unemployment rate fell for the third straight month to 8.9 percent. The 0.9 percentage point drop in the unemployment rate over the past three months is the largest such decline since 1983, and it has been driven primarily by increased employment, rather than falling labor force participation.

Though unemployment remains elevated, we are seeing signs that the initiatives put in place by this Administration – such as the payroll tax cut and business tax incentives for investment – are creating the conditions for sustained growth and job creation. The steep decline in the unemployment rate and the overall trend of economic data in recent months has been encouraging, but there is still considerable work to do to replace the jobs lost in the downturn. We will continue to work with Congress to find ways to reduce spending, but not at the expense of derailing progress in the job market, making the investments we need to educate our workers, investing in science, and building the infrastructure our companies need to succeed. 

In addition to the increases last month, the estimates of private sector job growth for December (now +167,000) and January (now +68,000) were revised up. Overall payroll employment rose by 192,000 last month. The sectors with the largest payroll employment growth were professional and business services (+47,000), education and health services (+40,000), manufacturing (+33,000), and construction (+33,000). State and local government experienced a large decline (-30,000), and has shed jobs in 14 of the past 16 months.

The overall trajectory of the economy has improved dramatically over the past two years, but there will surely be bumps in the road ahead.  The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision.  Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.

 WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement on the February jobs report:
“Today’s jobs report showing 192,000 new jobs is an encouraging sign that businesses are beginning to hire and people are getting back to work. However, an unemployment rate of 8.9% is still too high and we need to continue our efforts to make sure private sector employers have sure footing to invest in new employees and expand their businesses.
“House Republicans are taking decisive action to foster a pro-growth environment in this country. Our Committee Chairmen are engaged in a top to bottom review of job-destroying federal regulations and working on important pro-growth policies like tax reform and trade agreements. This week, we passed a bill to keep the government running while cutting spending by $4 billion. We also repealed the onerous 1099 provision from the ObamaCare law so that businesses aren’t bogged down in paperwork by a needless tax mandate. Interestingly enough, both of these items were passed with significant support from our Democrat colleagues. Hopefully this means they will join us in supporting further measures to fund our government responsibly and ensure that Washington begins to live within its means, but I remain concerned that their only proposals to date have been more status-quo, stimulus-style spending.
“Republicans are responding to voters’ calls in the last election to change the culture in Washington. To put it simply: less government spending equals more private sector jobs. We will continue our efforts to cut spending, overreaching regulations and government waste so that businesses have certainty to grow and create jobs and more people can get back to work.”

Michelle/pictures

 The First Lady had a conference call to discuss her Let’s Move! Healthier U.S. School Challenge with education stakeholders.  Apparently, she wanted to look her best even over the phone, as she chose this stunning turquoise dress with matching earrings.



First Lady Michelle Obama joined by Sec. of Education Arne Duncan and Melody Barnes participates in a conference call on Let's Move Healthier U.S. School Challenge in the Map Room of the White House March, 2, 2011. Participants: Secretary Arne Duncan, US Department of Education, Daniel Domenech, American Association of School Administrators, Brenda Greene, National School Board Association, Mishaela Duran, National Parent Teacher Association, Brenda Welburn, National Association of State Boards of Education, Michael Casserly, Council of the Great City Schools, Nancy Rice, Director, School Nutrition Division

‘Living Within Our Means?’

According To The President, A $1 Trillion Stimulus Boondoggle And A Budget That Grows Debt To Over $20 Trillion Is ‘Living Within Our Means’ PRESIDENT OBAMA YESTERDAY: “A Budget That Makes Sure We Are Living Within Our Means.” “That’s why I’m calling on Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress to begin meeting immediately with the Vice President, my Chief of Staff, and Budget Director so we can find common ground on a budget that makes sure we are living within our means.” (The White House, Press Release, 3/2/11) President Obama During Stimulus Roll Out: ‘We’ve Got To Get Serious About Living Within Our Means’ PRESIDENT OBAMA IN 2009: “[W]e've Got To Get Serious About Starting To Live Within Our Means, instead of leaving debt for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. That's not the responsible way.” (President Obama, Remarks At A Caterpillar Plant, 2/12/09) STIMULUS PACKAGE: Adds $814 Billion To The Debt CBO ON STIMULUS COST: “When ARRA Was Being Considered, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) And The Staff Of The Joint Committee On Taxation Estimated That It Would Increase Budget Deficits By $787 Billion Between Fiscal Years 2009 And 2019. CBO Now Estimates That The Total Impact Over The 2009–2019 Period Will Amount To $814 Billion.”(“Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output From July 2010 Through September 2010,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/10) President Obama During Budget Roll Out: ‘We’re Living Within Our Means’ PRESIDENT OBAMA: “We’re Going To Have To Get Serious About Cutting Back On Those Things That Would Be Nice To Have But We Can Do Without. That’s What Families Across The Country Do Every Day – They Live Within Their Means.” (President Obama, Remarks On Unveiling Of The Budget, 2/14/11) PRESIDENT OBAMA: “[T]he Most Important Thing I Can Do As President Is Make Sure That We’re Living Within Our Means, Getting A Budget That Is Sustainable…” (President Obama, Press Conference, 2/15/11) WHITE HOUSE BUDGET: Grows Debt To Over $20 Trillion Within 5 Years Table S-14. Federal Government Financing And Debt; Total, Gross Federal Debt Actual 2010:                   13,529 [Billion Dollars] 2011 Estimate:              15,476 [Billion Dollars] 2012 Estimate:              16,654 [Billion Dollars] 2013 Estimate:              17,750 [Billion Dollars] 2014 Estimate:              18,761 [Billion Dollars] 2015 Estimate:              19,776 [Billion Dollars] 2016 Estimate:              20,825 [Billion Dollars] 2017 Estimate:              21,867 [Billion Dollars] 2018 Estimate:              22,924 [Billion Dollars] 2019 Estimate:              24,023 [Billion Dollars] 2020 Estimate:              25,165 [Billion Dollars] 2021 Estimate:              26,346 [Billion Dollars] (Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Of The U.S. Government Summary Tables, The White House, 2/14/10, P.203) USA TODAY: “Obama’s Budget Ducks Tough Choices… He Whiffed.” “President Obama likes to talk about those ‘Sputnik moments’ when the nation rises to difficult challenges like the one posed by the Soviet space program in the 1950s. On Monday, he had a chance to turn his federal budget proposal into his own such moment. He whiffed. … It's becoming hard not to conclude that Obama doesn't much care about the debt threat or has decided to wait until after the 2012 elections. Either would be a shame, and economically risky.” (Editorial, “Our View: Obama's Budget Ducks Tough Choices,” USA Today, 2/15/11) THE WASHINGTON POST: “The President Punted. Having been given the chance, the cover and the push by the fiscal commission he created to take bold steps to raise revenue and curb entitlement spending, President Obama, in his fiscal 2012 budget proposal, chose instead to duck. To duck, and to mask some of the ducking with the sort of budgetary gimmicks he once derided.” (Editorial, “President Obama's Budget Kicks The Hard Choices Further Down The Road,” The Washington Post, 2/15/11) ERSKINE BOWLES, Democratic Chairman Of The Fiscal Commission: “The White House Budget Request Goes ‘Nowhere Near Where They Will Have To Go To Resolve Our Fiscal Nightmare.’” (“Obama Spending Plan Criticized For Avoiding Deficit Commission's Major Proposals,”The Washington Post, 2/14/11) ### SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 02, 2011

Statement by the President on Passage of Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 (H.J.RES.44)

I’m pleased that Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together and passed a plan that will cut spending and keep the government running for the next two weeks.  But we cannot keep doing business this way.  Living with the threat of a shutdown every few weeks is not responsible, and it puts our economic progress in jeopardy.  That’s why I’m calling on Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress to begin meeting immediately with the Vice President, my Chief of Staff, and Budget Director so we can find common ground on a budget that makes sure we are living within our means.  This agreement should cut spending and reduce deficits without damaging economic growth or gutting investments in education, research and development that will create jobs and secure our future.  This agreement should be bipartisan, it should be free of any party’s social or political agenda, and it should be reached without delay.   

Thune Reintroduces Sweeping Budget Reform Bill

Bill seeks to repair broken budget process

March 2nd, 2011 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Budget Committee, today reintroduced legislation that would transform Congress' broken budget process through common sense reforms and reduce the rapid growth of discretionary spending. Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) are all original cosponsors of the budget reform bill.  "The federal government's budgeting process is broken and continues to contribute to our nation's record debt and deficits," said Thune. "If American families and small businesses operated their budgets as irresponsibly as Washington does, they would go bankrupt.  "My bill would improve transparency and efficiency in the federal budgeting process by creating a legislative line-item veto, establishing a biennial budget timeline, preventing the abuse of emergency spending designations, enacting real PAYGO rules, and creating a permanent joint committee of Congress focused solely on passing spending cuts, among other reforms."  Part I: Budget Reform  Legislative Line-Item Veto  Creates a legislative line-item veto. The president may propose through a special message to Congress the cancellation of any discretionary spending item, direct spending item, limited tariff benefit, or targeted tax benefit contained within a bill. The president may submit up to five special messages to Congress on bills and joint resolutions and up to ten for any budget reconciliation or omnibus appropriations measure. Any cancellations must be applied to reducing the deficit or increasing a surplus. Within three legislative days of receiving the special message, the majority or minority leader of each House must introduce legislation to approve the provisions in the special message. The bill will receive expedited consideration in both the Senate and the House requiring only a simple majority to pass and is not amendable.  Biennial Budget  Establishes a biennial budgeting timeline. In odd numbered years, Congress would pass a two-year biennial budget. That same year, Congress would pass two-year appropriation bills. A biennial budget would give Congress more time for oversight of government spending during even numbered election years. This provision is particularly important because Congress has only completed all of the annual appropriation bills on-time in four of the last 34 years. Should Congress fail to pass a biennial budget and appropriation measures, there would be an automatic Continuing Resolution at the previous year's funding level (not to exceed specified discretionary spending caps).  Binding Federal Budget  Adds teeth to the budget process by passing a biennial joint budget resolution rather than a concurrent budget resolution. The president would have to either sign the budget into law, or veto the budget. If the president vetoes the joint budget resolution, Congress must vote on the veto override. If this veto override fails, an automatic Continuing Resolution is put in place for the relevant biennium.  Preventing the Abuse of Emergency Designations  Improves the process of adding an emergency designation to bills. It would require that there be an affirmative vote to add an emergency designation to a bill, would require a bipartisan motion to be filed signed by 16 Senators stating that the spending is an emergency (necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent), and would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to add an emergency designation to a bill. The emergency designation was used to pass over $200 billion in deficit spending since the enactment of the FY 2010 Budget Resolution.  New Community Living Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) Act Trigger  Creates a CLASS Act Trigger if the program is not actuarially sound over a 75-year time frame. The CLASS Act, a controversial long-term care entitlement program created by the new health spending law, has been described by the Senate Budget Committee Chairman as a Ponzi scheme. The CLASS Act trigger would require the president to submit a plan to reform the CLASS Act and allow for this legislation or different legislation which would resolve the imbalance to receive expedited consideration. It is expected that the program will suffer from significant adverse selection as those in need of this insurance are more likely to enroll. This will further drive up costs and premiums and lead to decreased enrollment. The problems associated with this program are expected to lead to large deficits in future years.  Honest Accounting for the Medicare Cost Containment Trigger  Reforms calculation of the Medicare cost containment trigger. As part of the Medicare Modernization Act, if the Medicare Trustees report two years in a row that funds from the general fund will account for more than 45 percent of total outlays in the current fiscal year or any of the next six fiscal years, the president is required to present legislation to prevent this from occurring. Congress then has expedited procedures to consider legislation to address this issue. However, due to the double-counting of new revenues and savings in the Medicare Trust Fund, it is expected that Medicare will not surpass this 45 percent threshold in the coming years even though these savings are effectively being used to pay for the new health exchange subsidies. This proposal eliminates that gimmick and prevents savings and revenues from the new health care law from being counted when calculating the 45 percent threshold.  Improving Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) and Trust Fund Accounting  Reforms PAYGO rules to prevent the double-counting of new revenues or reduced spending in trust funds for the purposes of offsetting other expenditures. Over $600 billion in trust fund offsets were used to pass the health care reform bill and last year an attempt was made to increase the per-barrel tax for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to offset other non-related tax measures. By preventing these changes from being used as an offset under PAYGO rules in the future, this provision would end the practice of double counting the spending reductions and revenue increases in trust funds.  Credit Reform Act (CRA) Modernization  Amends the CRA to direct Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to score purchases of debt, stock, equity, or capital using a discount rate that incorporates market risk. The CRA directs the CBO in scoring federal loan programs and loan guarantees. The current methodology does not account for market risk, a key factor when the government is the lender of last resort, leaving taxpayers exposed to uncompensated risk. This methodology was not used to score the $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund in the Small Business Jobs Act which led to taxpayers being exposed to an additional $7.3 billion in risk.  Part II: New Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction  Standing Joint Committee of Congress for Biennial Budget Deficit Reduction  Creates a permanent Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction composed of 20 members. Ten members would be from the House of Representatives, including five members appointed from the majority party by the Speaker of the House and five members from the minority party to be appointed by the minority leader. Ten members would be from the Senate, including five members appointed from the majority party by the majority leader of the Senate and five members from the minority party to be appointed by the minority leader.  Not later than July 15th of each odd numbered year, the Joint Committee must introduce legislation that eliminates or reduces spending on government programs and achieves a savings equal to or greater than the deficit reduction target. The deficit reduction target is ten percent of the previous two years' budget deficits not exceeding ten percent of total outlays and not less than one percent of total outlays of the previous year. These savings must be achieved over the subsequent two years. The legislation is not amendable and would receive expedited consideration in the House and Senate. If the legislation is vetoed, both the Senate and the House must vote on the veto override within one week.  Part III: Eliminating Wasteful Spending  Discretionary Spending Caps  Establishes binding discretionary spending caps for all non-defense, non-veteran, non-homeland security discretionary spending from 2011 to 2021. Discretionary spending caps are set at FY 2008 levels adjusted for inflation and any bill that exceeds the spending caps is subject to a point of order requiring a three-fifths vote to waive in the Senate and a two-thirds vote to waive in the House of Representatives.  These spending caps are enforced through sequestration. Within 15 calendar days after Congress adjourns to end a session, the Office of Management and Budget shall issue a final spending reduction report to reduce any excess discretionary spending. Upon receipt of the report, the president must issue an order to carry out the discretionary spending cuts needed to meet the spending caps. The president's order shall reduce, by a uniform amount, non-defense, non-veteran, non-homeland security discretionary spending to meet the discretionary caps. Congress may waive the presidential orders by a two-thirds vote in both chambers.