Video: Geithner busted on “war savings”
posted at 9:41 am on December 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Via Jim Hoft, a moment of brilliance from Chris Wallace entirely flummoxes the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday on Fox News Sunday. Wallace challenges Tim Geithner on the lack of real spending cuts in the proposal he brought to Capitol Hill last week, and Geithner objects, claiming that the White House has trillions in cuts in their proposal — from ending the wars. When Wallace reminds Geithner that no one planned to keep fighting those wars in the first place, Geithner loses his composure and starts complaining about Republican gimmicks:
WALLACE: Or they now say because you’re not willing to cut spending enough.
GEITHNER: No, but that’s not true. Again, if they want to do more on the spending side than the $600 billion we proposed on top of the trillion already enacted, in top of the savings from the wars, then they can tell us how they propose –
WALLACE: Savings in the wars that we were never going to fight?
GEITHNER: No, that’s not true. We’re — as you know, we’re winding down two wars.
WALLACE: I understand that.
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: And you are thinking savings that nobody thought that you were going to spend that money any way. It’s a budget gimmick, sir.
GEITHNER: No, that’s not right. You know, let me say it this way, those were expensive wars, not just in Americans lives but in terms of the taxpayers’ resources. And when you end them as the president is doing, they reduce our long term deficits and like in the Republican budget proposals, the world should reflect and recognize what that does in savings.
And we propose to use those savings to reduce the deficits and help invest in rebuilding America. We think that makes a lot of sense.
WALLACE: But it was money that wasn’t going to be spent anyway, and –
GEITHNER: If those wars have gone on, they would be spent.
WALLACE: I understand. But you’re not saving — you’re not ending the wars for budget purposes. You’re ending the wars because of a foreign policy decision. The wars weren’t going to be fought. You’re not really saving money.
GEITHNER: Chris, we all agree –
WALLACE: I mean, it’s a budget gimmick, but it’s money never intended to spend.
GEITHNER: No, it’s not a budget gimmick unless you are — when Republicans propose, it’s a budget gimmick?
WALLACE: Sure, absolutely.
GEITHNER: And you should address that to them. But what it does is –
WALLACE: Well — so, I’m addressing it to you.
Why don’t we count the $200 billion we’ll save by not invading Honduras, too? Hey, we can not invade Canada and save a couple of trillion dollars. If we really want to cut spending, let’s not invade China! We can save eleventy-zillion dollars that way.
In other Geithner gimmick news, he insisted that there wouldn’t be a fiscal-cliff deal without tax hikes:
Actually, I think that’s probably true — but Republicans in the House aren’t going to pass tax hikes without substantial spending cuts and entitlement reform either, Mr. Secretary. Better go back to the drawing board.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
So, since nobody seems to know, let’s speculate. Mitt is going to be:
virgo on February 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM
There is no one whom the conservatives will be happy with or not eat, so as Hillary says “What’s the difference?” No one in their right mind with a set of morals would want anything to do with Washington. BTW, you don’t rise to fame on your resume without ability. What a duh statement.
AReadyRepub on February 24, 2013 at 2:27 AM
It doesn’t matter what is said on Fox day after day, or even on the average day, what is said on talk radio. The inroads that need to be made are in statements of truth and facts refuting the current propaganda machine in the White House. So, to the extent that our side can engage in the kind of hyperbole and humor that is actually picked up by the MSM and the internet, or have individuals, say a Rubio, that they will actually notice, we can make a few inroads.
I don’t notice FOX moving to the center.
It is what I noticed during the campaign, they could not do any journalism on their own, not even expository journalism on the candidates, that would not be Fair and Balanced enough. They tended to repeat what AP and Reuters put out as facts.
In spite of a few places where they followed Fast and Furious before others, or a little bit more incredulous that nothing happened in Benghazi, they are just not out on the front doing independent leading edge news reporting and journalism, they are doing safe reporting, with some opinion thrown in, and then they have feature stars, like Hannity, O’Reilly etc.
The news writers at Fox submit themselves to the premise that AP and Reuters are sending them the facts and they repeat them. They are reacting to the same thing the MSM is reacting to, and a lot of it is generated by the administration, or sound bites taken out of context.
Fleuries on February 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3