The following is a fact-check from the August 22, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:
GOV. JENNIFER GRANHOLM (D-MI) | The CBO has said that cutting taxes for the wealthiest 2% of Americans is the least effective way to create jobs – MOSTLY TRUE
GOV. GRANHOLM: The CBO has said that cutting taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent is the most ineffective way of creating job growth.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the largest decrease of the employment rate this year and next would arise from increasing aid to the unemployed. And the smallest effect would be generated by extending higher exemption amounts for the AMT in 2010 or reducing income taxes in 2011. We could not find the CBO explicitly stating that cutting tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans would be the most ineffective way of creating job growth. But in general, they did say that raising taxes in 2011, which is when Bush’s tax cuts expire, would lead to the smallest effect of reducing the unemployment rate. Thus, we rate Jeniffer Granholm’s statement MOSTLY TRUE.
This fact-check took a combined 1.5 hours.
The following is a fact-check from the July 11, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:
ED GILLESPIE (Republican Strategist)
1) After the Bush administration tax cuts, there were 52 months of continuous job creation – TRUE
2) 52 months of job creation is the largest such period in American history - TRUE
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, my point was not wanting to go back to the math because the fact is, under the Bush tax cuts, we did have 52 months of–in uninterrupted job creation, longest in the history of the country…
According to both CBS News and FactCheck.org, jobs were created for an uninterrupted period of 52 months from August 2003 to December 2007, which was indeed a record for consecutive job growth in the U.S. But as FactCheck.org points out, looking only at this record could be misleading, for while it is indeed the longest consecutive period of job creation, the number of jobs created during that period was not especially large. 8.3 million jobs were added between August 2003 and December 2007, but over the course of the Clinton administration, for instance, 22.7 million jobs were added during a period when there were also seven months which included declines (thus making that growth non-continuous). Therefore it would be difficult to argue that this was either a period of particularly substantial job creation or that the record continuity of that creation was ultimately more significant. It’s also not clear what role the Bush tax cuts had to play with regards to the job creation rate.
1) Because Mr. Gillespie’s statement that there were 52 months of continuous job creation is technically true, we must rate it TRUE - but believe that the overall context is somewhat misleading.
2) We rate Mr. Gillespie’s statement that the 52 month growth period was the largest in American history TRUE.
This fact-check took a combined 3 hours.