Franken-Lies-And-the-Lying-Liars-Who-Tell

ence" number, 3.1 percent. The fact that Hannity chose to omit this one specific number
shows that, yet again, he knew he was lying.
Remember our first meeting, Sean? Remember, we discussed intellectual dishonesty?
Even if Kottman's numbers weren't phony, and even if Hannity were correctly interpreting
the table, and even if the "cumulative" technique were something other than a laughable
charade, then still, even then, Congress would have only passed $274 billion in extra
spending in a period when the debt shot up $1,402 billion. So even in this loony right-wing
fantasyland of a budget scenario, the deficits still weren't caused by Democratic congressional
spending.
Still, I was curious. What really happened in the so-called "eighties"? So, at the risk
of being bored, I called back Tom Mann, who put together an accurate table. Unlike the Hannity/Kottman
table, which is the work of a hack, this table is the work of a scholar, which
comes from the Latin scholarum, meaning "one who uses facts instead of lies." (Italics mine.)
Actual Real Facts Table
Fiscal
Year
Proposed Actual
% Difference
% Difference
(Cumulative)
1982 695 696 0.1 This
1983 758 770 1.6 is
1984 849 859 1.2 a
1985 926 932 0.6 totally
1986 974 968 -0.6 bogus,
1987 994 995 0.1 piece
1988 1024 1041 1.9 of
1989 1094 1100 0.5 shit
Totals $7314 $7361 column
Average 0.6
Source: Budget of the United States, Fiscal Years 1982-1989;
Congressional Almanac 1982-1989
Kudos to Tom for his excellent work on this one, especially the clearer right-hand
column. Kottman, if you remember, styles himself "The Reality Hammer." Well, we Democrats
have a few tools in our figurative toolbox as well. So let's apply our "Lie Detecting
Plunger" to the lie-clogged toilet of Hannity's budget analysis.
Lie #3: The numbers on the chart are phony.