Bill Maher, David Letterman - April 25, 2011

I don't watch David Letterman, because more often than not, he's not funny anymore.

Last night, I noticed the insufferable Bill Maher was Letterman's guest. I was curious about how the very liberal Letterman would interact with the ugly Maher. So, I decided to watch Maher's segment.

Maher's appearance was mercifully short and he basically spewed the same vile stuff he spews elsewhere. The segment was predictable, lacked energy, and, most importantly, wasn't remotely entertaining. Maher is getting lazy. He needs to come up with some new material. Even his Sarah Palin insults were rehashed trash. I had pretty much heard it all before.

However, one thing that surprised me about the segment was the decision by CBS to bleep (silence) Maher's use of the term "teabaggers" when he referred to members of the Tea Party.

When Bob Schieffer or his guests say "teabaggers" in the same context, it's aired. I guess the CBS news division has different standards than the entertainment division.

Brent Baker, NewsBusters, has some transcript highlights and video from Maher's Letterman guest stint:

Transcript

DAVID LETTERMAN: What about your Tea Party pals, what do you hear there?

BILL MAHER: Well, the Tea Party, you know, they are sad, unfortunate people because -- well, they are, because they are, you know, corporate America's useful idiots. (Applause) They are they -- I would have more respect for them if they knew a thing, if any fact could get in that tin foil helmet. If they would get out of their chat rooms and have their house tested for lead for just a minute. (Laughter)

LETTERMAN: Is this part of your friendship campaign, Bill? Is this-

MAHER: No, I don't have any respect, no, I don't have any respect for the tea-(baggers) [word silenced] and I do call them the tea-(baggers) [word silenced again] -- even though they hate it. I will stop calling them Tea-(baggers) [word silenced] when they stop calling it Obamacare, that's my deal. (Applause)

But here's the thing. Their whole campaign is based on money. It's all about we have too much debt, the deficit is too high. They are, after all, named after a tax revolt. But you know, there's these things called facts. Where did all this debt come from. Well, the facts will tell us it was mostly ran up under Bush. Two wars that we put on the credit card. (Applause) Prescription drug program that was unpaid for. Tax cuts for the richest one percent, that was unpaid for. Where were the Tea Party then? Crickets. But suddenly, when President Nosferatu took office -- suddenly debt became intolerable.

So there’s just something about him that they don't like. I can't put my finger on what it is. (audience laughter) But there's some way that he’s just not like them. I don't know what. He's skinny that must be it. He's skinny, they're fat and he's skinny.

Video.



This stuff is so stale.

It's Obama's race that fuels opposition to his policies. Sure, that's the reason for his low approval ratings. It's his skin color.

What a load!

It's unacceptable for Maher to state that the Tea Party, when it comes down to it, is a branch of the KKK.

Maher and Letterman ignore the fact that Tea Party activists are just as critical of Republicans for their reckless spending of our tax dollars. The November 2010 election clearly showed that voters cared about the government's fiscal irresponsibility and wanted change.

Here are some inconvenient FACTS for Maher:

From CNSNews:

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

From the Weekly Standard, via NPR:

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Bottom line: Maher is flat-out wrong about so much.