Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Novak: Clinton Cooked Government Books?
NewsMax.com ^ | 8/08/02 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 08/08/2002 10:32:33 AM PDT by kattracks

Figures on corporate profits were wildly overstated by Clinton administration statisticians during 1999 and 2000, a government report issued last week reveals, begging the question of whether the feds engaged in the kind of bottom-line book-cooking that has recently seen a number of corporate executives being led away in handcuffs.

"The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election," reports nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Starting in 1999, as the report by Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis makes clear, before-tax business profits were overstated by a factor of 10 percent. As the presidential election drew closer, that discrepancy skyrocketed to nearly 30 percent.

The bogus figures gave the U.S. electorate a false picture of a thriving economy, allowing Clinton's would-be successor Al Gore to campaign as the rightful heir to "the longest economic boom in American history" when in fact the economy had been heading into the tank for two years.

Clinton Under Secretary of Commerce Rob Shapiro dismissed the notion that the distorted figures represented any kind of Enrongate-style fraud, insisting to Novak, that the agency's Bureau of Economic Analysis is "the most non-political, non-partisan agency in the government."

Still, Novak's report has more than a few in the business community wondering when those who presided over the government's fraudulent bookkeeping will be held to the same level of accountability as executives from WorldCom, Tyco and half a dozen other corporate giants now under investigation.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Clinton Scandals
Corporate Scandals



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2000election; books; bush; clintonscandals; cooked; deceit; economy; government; inherited; lie; sham
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 08/08/2002 10:32:33 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Nothing to see here, folks. Move on...
2 posted on 08/08/2002 10:38:55 AM PDT by Russ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Novak's report has more than a few in the business community wondering when those who presided over the government's fraudulent bookkeeping will be held to the same level of accountability as executives

never. Congress makes the laws, including one that apparently puts a briber in jail while the Congressman bribee goes free.

It is my understanding that the Clinton administration changed the way that many statistics were kept...things like unemployment. It is possible that they cooked the books in many ways.

3 posted on 08/08/2002 10:42:41 AM PDT by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Russ
"the most non-political, non-partisan agency in the government."

Just like the "most ethical Administration". Another lie from his enablers.

4 posted on 08/08/2002 10:51:02 AM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I am shocked I tell you shocked, that Clinton and company would lie and cook the books.
5 posted on 08/08/2002 10:55:02 AM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame
It is my understanding that the Clinton administration changed the way that many statistics were kept...things like unemployment. It is possible that they cooked the books in many ways.

This is my recollection too. I vaguely remember that they changed the way inflation is calculated. I thought at the time that it seemed sneaky. I can't remember the details of what was changed, though. I try not to remember too much of the Clinton years since it tends to make me mad.

6 posted on 08/08/2002 11:00:09 AM PDT by iceskater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
katt...

Clinton and Gore promised us huge surpluses for at least a decade, you mean it aint so????? Course I use to believe in the tooth fairy.

7 posted on 08/08/2002 11:04:19 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
A cousin of mine who once worked in the Bureau of Labor Statistics told me that, when they didn't have a figure ready in time for the deadline, they made a figure up. My impression from what he said was that the made-up figures were not chosen to fit any ideological agenda: the bureau was just anxious to meet the deadline. But that was pre-Clinton. I suspect that the Clinton people, seeing that the government was already making figures up, decided to make up the numbers that were most favorable politically.
8 posted on 08/08/2002 11:04:20 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
katt...

Clinton and Gore promised us huge surpluses for at least a decade, you mean it aint so????? Course I use to believe in the tooth fairy.

9 posted on 08/08/2002 11:04:20 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Russ
Put a hose in the ground and flush Robert Rubin out of the rat hole he is hiding in. Bait won't work, he is so fat he can't eat anymore. Only way to get him is to use water pressure to pop him out of the ground.
10 posted on 08/08/2002 11:04:37 AM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
If the GNP was exaggerated in 1999 and 2000, how can we be sure that it really dropped in the first three quarters of 2001?
11 posted on 08/08/2002 11:05:46 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Good ole Carl at Newsmax. Not afraid to break news that is out there but is only being talked about by a Rush Limbaugh or Gordon Liddy.

This story REALLY should be front page news.

12 posted on 08/08/2002 11:06:14 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In a completely unintended way, Bush's election may turn out to be a good thing for the Democrats, especially with a press/media that likes to rewrite recent history.

How much tin foil would I need to espouse that the DNC and Clinton cronies helped orchestrate the Florida scenario because they knew: A) The economy was on borrowed time and better to have Bush in White House than Gore; and B) it effectively removes Gore from the list of serious future presidential candidates?

13 posted on 08/08/2002 11:12:39 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Credibility is everything. How far back in administrations were the numbers made up? Just wondering how far back the delusions go.
14 posted on 08/08/2002 11:13:47 AM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bump - Rush was all over this in his first hour today. Lets hope it makes the front page, in some form, in our lifetimes.
15 posted on 08/08/2002 11:15:58 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame
It is my understanding that the Clinton administration changed the way that many statistics were kept

Check out post #24 on this related thread: Clinton-Cooked Books? (Sorry - I don't know how to direct a link to a particular reply.)

16 posted on 08/08/2002 11:17:11 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: swheats
My cousin would have told me that in the late 1970's or early 1980's. I forget exactly when.
17 posted on 08/08/2002 11:19:47 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
bump
18 posted on 08/08/2002 11:22:43 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
If the GNP was exaggerated in 1999 and 2000, how can we be sure that it really dropped in the first three quarters of 2001?

Interesting thought. It probably didn't play out this way, but it would be an interesting strategy to sabotage the next administration (if the sitting president has already had 2 terms, what does he care?). Just inflate all the numbers for your last 2 years in office, and make yourself look real good (legacy!). Then, when the next president gets in office and tells the truth, he looks real bad by comparison (legacy!).

I always suspect the worst when it comes to Clinton, but I doubt that this scenario actually went through his head.

19 posted on 08/08/2002 11:25:47 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Clinton? Lie and cheat? Bill Clinton?

Sheesh. Next you'll be telling me the War on (Some) Drugs is just a way to fill prisons, make jobs, radically expand the power of the federal government and shred the Constitution.

20 posted on 08/08/2002 11:26:52 AM PDT by Jonathon Spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *clintonscandals
Index Bump
21 posted on 08/08/2002 11:33:07 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
Imagine it this way, If Gore had prevailed in the recount or won outright, the already declining economy would have plunged even more sharply, revealing massive corporate fraud, and made much worse by Gore administration tax increase proposals and business re-regulation run amok.

We would likely have been attacked even sooner and more fiercely by Islamic extremists due to the installation of a Jewish Vice-President, along with a high potential for an oil embargo.

The economy would have been worse than 1991 and we would now be on the verge of having dozens of truly conservative Republicans sweeping into Congress this november in a replay of 1994. Hopefully culminating in the election of a real conservative, President George Allen in 2004, on a platform of massive tax reductions, restoration of public trust and confidence, and military reconstruction. A replay of 1980.

For these reasons I am truly sorry that Bush prevailed. The way things are going it will result in another Clinton presidency, far worse than the first. A replay of the Roosevelts.

22 posted on 08/08/2002 11:34:53 AM PDT by muleboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The regime of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001" not only was addicted to lying, they weren't even especially gifted liars much of the time. To the point of being altogether incompetent. And perhaps that very incompetence shall prove to be the true legacy of those years.

It has been well known for years that Democrats don't know how to fight a war. Perhaps it shall also become a truism that they don't know how to govern a country either. Probably a mid-sized city is about the limit of their capabilities.

23 posted on 08/08/2002 11:39:35 AM PDT by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Hal
Your winnings, sir.
24 posted on 08/08/2002 11:45:14 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Wow, who'd of thunk it......

/eyes rolling,headshaking,sarcasm

25 posted on 08/08/2002 11:46:47 AM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame
The information is astounding, but will it ever appear in the media? NOT! I really began to wonder about the economy during the Klintoon/Gore admin when oil prices skyrocketed in early 2000. The heavy effects of the increases did not show up in the official numbers these criminals were and are still touting as their doing. It was all a sham, but we should have expected this from the biggest political liars in US history. Just think, it's obvious that they hid the facts in order to make Gore President. They were, are and will always be infernal scoundrels!

Question: why did the present admin (Dept. of Commerce) not find and immediately publicize this information? Enquiring minds want to know...

26 posted on 08/08/2002 11:50:59 AM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
This story REALLY should be front page news.

It would be, if only the administration would publicize the report.

Oh, I know the press would spin it as sour grapes from Bush, but most people know what Clinton was about - what the press is about - would draw the right conclusions.

The Bush folks HAVE to use this and NOW, the economy is the Dem's lynchpin in November.

27 posted on 08/08/2002 12:06:25 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I don't doubt it for a New York second.
28 posted on 08/08/2002 12:15:30 PM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame
Congress makes the laws, including one that apparently puts a briber in jail while the Congressman bribee goes free.

Actually the legal system in DC sees it that way too. During the Clinton administration, I worked for a company (No longer in existence) that was found guilty of giving gift to Agriculture Secretary Espy, but Espy was found innocent of receiving them.

If you are a democRAT, you can do no wrong.

29 posted on 08/08/2002 12:16:14 PM PDT by w1andsodidwe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
The Bush folks HAVE to use this and NOW, the economy is the Dem's lynchpin in November.

I agree, but nobody in the Bush Administration is asking me :(

30 posted on 08/08/2002 12:21:37 PM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
Think back with me folks. Greenspan knew for the last two years of Clinton that the numbers were bogus. There was an article sometime in the 1999/2000 time frame regarding the FED's using numbers from an independent research group. Plus that in with his other comments about "irrational exuberance". Of course it was discussed here, but as usual the smart media types missed the connection.
31 posted on 08/08/2002 12:33:21 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: gov_bean_ counter
That doesn't surprise me in the least. The question that puzzles me is why on one hand would Greenspan have been dropping hints that all is not as it seems, but on the other setting interest rates to artificially continue the bubble for the benefit of S(l)ick Willie?
33 posted on 08/08/2002 12:40:07 PM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
In 1999 and 2000 Greenspan was raising rates quickly. As I recall he raised 6 times in a very short time frame. My business is a very good indicator of economic activity and my business was very slow in 2000 and hit a real brick wall in August of 2000 which to me was the beginning of the recession.

When Bush and Cheney were warning about the economy before the election, everyone said they were talking it down. What they were basing this on were actual figures not cooked books.

34 posted on 08/08/2002 12:57:20 PM PDT by lone star annie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lone star annie
I forgot to explicitly mention the 1999-2000 rate increases as being beneficial to S(l)ick (though it is a common misconception that busting economies are historically beneficial to RATs).
35 posted on 08/08/2002 1:04:11 PM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Russ
Nothing to see here, folks. Move on...was EGGSACTLY what I was thinking. Duh....who DIDN'T know the Clintons were cooking the books? The dead or STUPID people....geesh....I would LOV to see a Clintonoid go to prison.
36 posted on 08/08/2002 1:46:40 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I can't wait for the major media to explode with outrage at this!
37 posted on 08/08/2002 2:15:02 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muleboy
George Allen? Is he good?
38 posted on 08/08/2002 3:27:44 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: maryz; Freee-dame
-Here--
39 posted on 08/08/2002 3:36:51 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Clinton's parting gift to Bush?
Poking the Taliban hornet's nest...and running:

"Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands." UN, Dec. 20th...2000.

Link to copy of original NY Times article, scroll down to near bottom.

Why did Clinton wait until Dec. 19th, 2000 to push the UN for tougher sanctions against the Taliban?

Clinton's 1999 State Dept. Report on Terrorism shows that his administration knew much about the international terrorist threat....complete with weapons, locations, history of terrorist actions, etc. The UN understood the danger...they pulled their own people out the same day they issued the new threat.

On Dec. 18th, 2000, the electoral college elected President Bush, officially ending the lengthy 2000 election. On Dec. 19th, Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions on our most deadly enemy. On Dec. 20th, the UN reluctantly issued the threat with the 30 day grace period....to go into effect Jan. 19 th, 2001 - President Bush's inaugeration eve.

Other Clinton gifts left for the new President:
Clinton's peace proposals, which he unveiled at a meeting in Washington last week, call for a Palestinian state in 95 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. They also envision Palestinian control over Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount area, which is in the eastern part of the city.
CNN, Dec. 24, 2000.

See also:
Clinton Timing Release of New Peace Proposal, Sept.28, 2000.
US Embassy - press conference, Dec. 20, 2000
CLINTONWORLD.



And more:
Last minute regs. putting ANWR and more than 5.6 million acres of federal land and our resources essentially off limits, signing the "Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000" (the "Act") on December 21, 2000..."record funding" - 5 years worth, killed the program created by Congress in 1999 to allow imports of low-cost prescription drugs, repealed the "tough new ethics rules" regarding lobbying he imposed on senior White House staff and other high-level administration appointees when he came into office, chose the UN over US sovereignty by signing us onto the ICC, changed arsenic level regs. for drinking water (and destroyed the "scientific evidence")...among the added 30,000 pages of new federal regulations, awarded $1 billion in grants for inner city housing, relaxed export controls on military grade computers, vandalized government property, appointed 21 of his own Dems. to protect our nation from cybersecurity threats- including Gore advisor Jack Quinn and Wellington Webb.
Just three weeks before his scheduled return to private life, Clinton instructed White House domestic policy aide Bruce Reed and economic chief Gene Sperling to "keep coming up with new ideas," according to Reed.
One morning at the nub end of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton chief of staff John Podesta walked into a senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room waving a copy of USA Today. Holding the paper aloft, Podesta read the headline out loud, "Clinton actions annoy Bush." The article detailed the new rules and Executive Orders the outgoing President was issuing in his final days, actions aimed in equal measure at locking in Clinton's legacy (in areas like environmental protection) and bedeviling his successor. "What's Bush so annoyed about?" Podesta asked with a devilish smile. "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done."
Link.

"We laid a few traps," chirps a happy Clinton aide.....

40 posted on 08/08/2002 3:38:56 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Great links, thank you!
41 posted on 08/08/2002 3:41:28 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
What steams me is this.... not only did Clinton get a completely sham economy, "It's the economy stupid," but Bush Sr. claims up and down that Greenspan sabotaged him by hiding a recovery. "It's the economy stupid." This is big, deep, and ugly.

All those demon-rats bragging about their sham economy making up for his lack of character. What good is a rosy economy when it's a $$%% LIAR IN CHARGE OF TELLING YOU what state the economy is in???!!!!

Sham economy outs Bush Sr. Sham economy props Clinton/Gore. Idiot voters saying character doesn't matter because their liar-in-chief is bragging about his great sham economy. And then sham economy hurts GW. BEAM ME UP!!!!!!

42 posted on 08/08/2002 3:52:09 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Greenspan messed over GW's father. And now one must wonder how much Greenspan was involved in this fairy land economy? It had to be a lot I would imagine. Greenspan, the Kingmaker, tried to help Gore out? Didn't fly this time.

Gads what a god the media has made him out to be. The golden calf.

43 posted on 08/08/2002 4:17:27 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
To me, Greenspan's main talent seems to be spinning mellifluos, yet meaningless yarns to Congressmen & Senators at hearings. I'll be dogged if I can figure out what the man is talking about when he speaks.
44 posted on 08/08/2002 4:21:26 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
You're very welcome. Clinton's mischief - willfully leaving a mess for the incoming President - threatened our national security. His post-presidency behavior is more worrisome, imho. No former President would behave this badly. No existing laws cover his actions. Meeting with foreign leaders to criticize current US policy and undermine delicate international relations during wartime....I know no word to describe this. Perhaps someday "Bill Clinton" will do, like "Benedict Arnold" before him.
The CNN link proves that the mainstream media knew that the outgoing Clinton administration was setting traps for Bush. Perhaps the big media pardon-fest was a smokescreen...Clinton did far worse in those final days and if CNN knew, the "media" knew.
45 posted on 08/08/2002 4:57:05 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
bttt and Thank You.
46 posted on 08/08/2002 5:45:21 PM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Rush said this was the largest accounting fraud of the century.
47 posted on 08/08/2002 5:52:04 PM PDT by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
bump
48 posted on 08/08/2002 5:52:19 PM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
> Novak: Clinton Cooked Government Books?

Question marks are normally used only on questions.

Dave in Eugene
49 posted on 08/08/2002 7:37:17 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election," reports nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak

Well Well .. This might explain why Clinton kept coming out with his graph charts and telling us how great things were

Somehow I am NOT surpised

50 posted on 08/08/2002 7:57:51 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson