The summary of Senate Leader Tom Daschle’s recent speech attacking President Bush was headlined, "Daschle Blames Tax Cuts for Recession and Deficits." At least that’s the way CNN Headline News put it. Daschle did not go that far, although he came close. He accused the Bush Administration of being responsible for "the most dramatic fiscal deterioration" in history. He dismissed the economic significance of the 9/11 attacks and the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Instead, he said the tax cut was the "biggest reason" for the fall in the federal surplus and that it "probably made the recession worse." With one exception, the major media failed to note the evidence that his claims are false.

Several stories emphasized the alleged large size of the tax cut. The New York Times called it "major." Several stories referred to it as the $1.35 trillion tax cut. It is phased in over a ten-year period. But MSNBC was the only news organization that ran a story noting that the bulk of the tax cut has not been implemented. Raymond Keating of the Small Business Survival Committee told them that Daschle’s claims were "bizarre." MSNBC confirmed Keating’s criticism, noting that, "Only five percent of the total tax reductions which were signed into law took effect in fiscal year 2001, which ended last September. The bulk of the tax cuts do not take place until 2004-2006, according to calculations by the Congressional budget Office." Seventy-two percent of the tax cut takes place after 2005.

MSNBC noted that the National Bureau of Economic Research said the recession began in March of 2001, less than fifty days after Bush took office. The New York Times noted this fact as well, near the bottom of its story about Daschle’s speech. But this is critical to understanding how the recession can not be logically attributed to Bush’s policies.

Daschle’s attacks were big news. But while he called for fiscal responsibility, no major media outlet counted up the number of spending proposals in his speech. The Internet site, CNSNEWS.com, did so, noting 15 different new or expanded federal spending programs. Yet Daschle had the audacity to say this represented a return to fiscal discipline and integrity.

In an editorial, the liberal Washington Post was honest enough to note that Daschle’s spending programs would weaken the budget. It also noted that he supports a pork-filled farm bill that the Bush Administration opposed. But it went on to say that Daschle should have gone further in his remarks and urged the reversal of the "expensive" Bush tax cuts. It said he was on "firm ground" in opposing the administration’s economic stimulus plan, without noting that he had prevented a vote on that plan. Bush had a majority of Senators who were willing to vote for it, but Daschle didn’t let the legislation come up for a vote. Daschle also prevented a vote on a Bush energy plan designed in part to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Associated Press called Daschle’s speech "blistering." But it was also false and deceptive. Daschle is free to play politics but he should not be permitted by the media to play fast and loose with the truth.

Reed Irvine can be reached at ri@aim.org

Like What You Read?

Back To Media Monitor Section

AIM Main Page