In this section, Dan Rather expresses delight in the economic successes of the 90s but chagrin with the economic successes of the 80s. Rather says that "what former President Reagan and those who support him call the Reagan Revolution put more money in the pockets of the rich." There was great economic prosperity in the 80s, but it was called the "decade of greed" by liberals in the media. The 90s also saw great economic prosperity, with most of it going to those at the highest economic rung, said the same economic analysts. This time around, Rather placed no blame for income disparities on President Clinton and praised the economic good times. Neither president should be "blamed" for any of this, though, since economists don't agree on how much a president can affect the economy, but if one is in the business of blaming or praising, one should do so fairly.

"With the economy humming, CBS's White House correspondent Scott Pelley reports, President Clinton was singing his own praises, this time with the facts and figures to back him up."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 6, 1998.

"A vote to support President Bush's idea to cut the capital gains tax cut for the wealthy. Sixty-four Democrats bucked their own House leaders, abandoned them, and joined the Republicans to support the measure. Mr. Bush says that cutting the capital gains tax for the wealthy will boost the economy and create jobs. Opponents don't believe that and call it simply a tax giveaway for the wealthy."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, September 28, 1989.
Note: Rather defines the issue as a "tax cut for the wealthy" and then says opponents call it a giveaway "for the wealthy," leading one to conclude he is such an opponent.

"New questions were raised today about President Reagan's ability, willingness and clout to help calm the shock waves still reverberating from Wall Street."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, October 21, 1987.

"For his part President Clinton's public reaction was to criticize the Republican majority for running a do-nothing Congress [during the impeachment inquiry]. The President accused Republicans of ignoring the U.S. federal budget and allied problems and the global economy, health care and Social Security."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, October 5, 1998.

"At his news conference Wednesday night, President Reagan said the recovery is beginning to flex its muscles. And the latest reports...indicate recovery may indeed be just around the corner. Tonight Ed Rabel looks at some people for whom just around the corner isn't close enough."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 15, 1983.

Shortly after he became president, George W. Bush made a big push for his first tax cut plan. One of the reasons he gave for Congress to pass them was to help stave off a recession which he blamed on former president Bill Clinton. At the time, many Democrats portrayed Bush's words as rhetorically excessive and harmful to the nation's economic health. Dan Rather relayed those concerns repeatedly.

"The incoming Bush administration continues to talk about the possibility of a recession, and the Clinton White House accused the president-elect today of talking the economy down for partisan political reasons, among other things to make his big tax-cut plan more attractive, say the Democrats." (CEN, 2000-12-21)

"President Bush is keeping up his drumbeat of negative talk about the health of the U.S. economy and using that in his efforts to sell Congress on a big tax cut. By most independent assessments, the economy is sending mixed signals. (CEN, 2001-01-24)

Things have changed now that the presidential campaign season has started as Democrats downplay economic growth while Republicans talk it up. Unlike before, Rather has voiced no objections to such "negative talk." In fact, he's been engaging in it himself.

"Not a va-room but a putt, putt, putt," Rather teased at the top of the Feb. 6 Evening News. "Tonight, America's economic engine creates some new jobs but not nearly enough to replace the thousands lost."

"It is growing but the U.S economy isn't producing enough jobs, at least not yet. The government's official figures out today say unemployment in January was running 5.6 percent. While that is down a bit, the decline is largely the result of workers giving up on finding a job and no longer officially listed as unemployed. The economy created some new jobs in January, about 112,000, but economists say that is below predictions and expectations and not nearly enough to meet demand."

But Rather was just repeating a refrain he'd sang on the previous Friday's News when he followed Democrats' lead in "talking the economy down" (despite having condemned doing so when Bush had done it):

"New figures indicate the U.S. economy is still growing, but how about creating some jobs?" Rather teased. "New numbers are out about the U.S. economy, and they're mixed. They show the economy was growing in the fourth quarter of last year at a respectable annual rate of 4 percent."

Rather called a 4 percent growth rate "respectable" in 2004 but earlier during the presidency of Bill Clinton, he heaped praise on an even smaller growth rate.

"The government reported today that the US economy was growing at a rapid pace in the final three months of last year, 4.3 percent. For all of 1997, the U.S. economy expanded 3.8 percent. That's the strongest showing in nine years." (CEN, 1998-01-30)

After George W. Bush began running for reelection, Rather changed his attitude about "talking down the economy" as he strove to portray the nation's economy as doing poorly. He also did the same with unemployment figures, never mentioning that presidents Clinton and Bush had virtually identical unemployment rates while running for reelection according to the U.S. Department of Labor. After news broke that several American civilians had died in Iraq, Rather even when so far as to claim that civilians were risking death there because of the "long job slump:"
DAN RATHER: What drives American civilians to risk death in Iraq? In this economy, it may be for some the only job they can find. This family paid the ultimate price. [other stories] Given such risks, it may be hard to see why any civilian would agree to work in Iraq. But as CBS's Bob McNamara reports, among other reasons, the long job slump has left many Americans desperate enough to risk everything for a decent paycheck.
BOB McNAMARA: The line is hundreds long, job hunters in Houston applying for work as cooks, truck drivers and construction workers in the chaos of Iraq.
Unidentified Man: I'm not afraid. Some of these days I have to go anyway.
McNAMARA: They're warned the work demands long days and little time off.
CLARK DUNLAP (Halliburton Recruiter): It will be living in Hades. Daily air temperature, ambient air temperature, can be 125, 135 degrees.
McNAMARA: Still, the Texas unemployment rate is higher than it is nationwide. And lured by potential tax-free, six-figure incomes, some hadn't even told families they were here.
JOHNNIE JOHNSON (Job Seeker): I don't think they would mind for--the simple fact is that, you know, to me, there's not that many jobs right now.
McNAMARA: But 1,000 miles from Houston and a world apart from Iraq, here in Middletown, Delaware, one family learned ever so tragically where the desperation for work can lead when the job is in the middle of a war.
LINDA LINDERMAN (Wife): He said, 'I'm--I'm made of steel. I went through Vietnam. I can--you know, I can do this, too.'
McNAMARA (voiceover): Fifty-eight-year-old Art Linderman was ambushed by Iraqi insurgents at the wheel of his supply truck, so critically wounded he was on life support before dying in late January.
(on-camera) Was he for this war?
LINDERMAN: No, I--I don't think he was.
McNAMARA: He was over there to make a living?
LINDERMAN: He was over there to make a living, and that's all there was to it.
McNAMARA: Art Linderman had been out of steady work for over two years. In Iraq, he wore a helmet, flak jacket and carried a gun. Any brushes with danger he did have he never let on to his family.
ART LINDERMAN (Son): You could just basically hear it in his voice that, you know, things weren't good.
McNAMARA: Researchers tracking Iraq's rebuilding estimate at least 30 civilian contract workers have been killed since major hostilities were declared over last may.
Mr. LINDERMAN: It's not worth it in the long run.
Mrs. LINDERMAN: Money's not everything.
Mr. LINDERMAN: No.
McNAMARA: Art Linderman risked his life for a financial nest egg he and his wife could retire on.
Mrs. LINDERMAN: Sometimes I feel like the phone's going to ring and it'll be him or he'll come walking through the door.
McNAMARA: And tonight four more Americans also won't be coming home. Bob McNamara, CBS News, Middletown, Delaware.
--Dan Rather and Robert McNamara on the CBS Evening News, March 31, 2004.

This piece, which Rather introduces as revealing "who would get what" under the tax cut plan proposed by George W. Bush in January of 2003 is completely one-sided as the reporter, Byron Pitts, uses faulty math to denounce the alleged unfairness of the Bush plan. Pitts complains that "a person earning $175,000 per year could save $3,500. Someone earning $50,000 could expect to get back an extra $1,000. Anyone earning $25,000: zero." But what Pitts fails to mention is that both individuals are getting the same tax cut, just in proportion to their income. The $175K earner makes 3.5 times as much as the $50K earner, and in turn receives a tax reduction which is 3.5 times as much. The amount of taxes the person earning $25K has to pay before the rate reduction is not mentioned since many people in this bracket do not pay federal income taxes.
DAN RATHER: If President Bush and his Republicans get their version of tax cuts through Congress, who would get what and what would you get out of it? CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts has the bottom line on that.
JOANNE LESSNER (Taxpayer): It's raining.
Unidentified Child: Uh-oh.
BYRON PITTS: For Joanne Lessner, a middle-class wife, mother of two and freelance writer--
Child's Game: This is a duck. Quack, quack.
PITTS: --President Bush's $600 billion economic plan, as she sees it, is little more than a feel-good gift that won't give much to most Americans, especially the middle class.
LESSNER: This is sort of like a box of chocolates. It's nice, I'll eat them, I'll take my $400 and then it'll be gone. It's not a lasting--it's not a lasting gift.
PITTS: That $400 rebate check will go to families like the Lessners as part of the president's child tax credit. As for Mr. Bush's proposal to eliminate the dividends tax, the bigger your wallet, the bigger the benefit. Estimates are 74 percent of the tax break in 2003 will go to people making more than $100,000 a year, and 25 percent to those making more than a million dollars.
AVERY NEUMARK (Certified Public Accountant): When you go to the lower brackets, there is no savings.
PITTS: We asked accountant Avery Neumark to do the math. Under the president's overall tax plan, a person earning $175,000 per year could save $3,500. Someone earning $50,000 could expect to get back an extra $1,000. Anyone earning $25,000: zero.
NEUMARK: If you were to summarize this tax proposal as we see it today, the winners are the wealthy.
LESSNER: No, we're not climbing up there right now.
PITTS: Joanne Lessner does not see herself as wealthy, but rather as a working woman concerned about her family, concerned about a possible war with Iraq and the economy long term.
LESSNER: I would like a stimulated economy. So what's the gift equivalent of a stimulated economy? A Rolex watch? I don't know.
PITTS: That's nice.
LESSNER: Not bad, huh?
PITTS: And not part of the president's economic plans, either. Byron Pitts, CBS News, New York.
--Dan Rather and Byron Pitts on the CBS Evening News, January 6, 2003.

DAN RATHER: Here in Washington, the official Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address will be delivered by Governor Gary Locke of Washington state. His is among at least 44 states now facing big budget problems and considering slashing vital services, raising taxes or both. Just take the case of Oregon. CBS's John Blackstone went there for tonight's Eye on America. JOHN BLACKSTONE: At Franklin High in Portland, Oregon, the state budget crisis has become all too real for Sandra Childs and her students.
SANDRA CHILDS (Teacher): As a teacher I have to figure out what I'm not going to teach.
BLACKSTONE: With the state running out of money, schools may be forced to close as much as a month early, giving Oregon the shortest school year in the nation.
I mean, the first thing I thought about when I heard we're going to cut the school day in--in--in Oregon by five, 10, 15, maybe 20 days and--hey, all the kids will be delighted, right?
STEPHANIE TOLONEN (Student): I was real happy when they said the days were going to be cut. I was, like, 'Yeah, more summer.' But now so many days being cut, if it's cut next year, what are we going to do for college?
Group of Students: (In unison) Hey, hey, ho, ho, these budget cuts have got to go!
BLACKSTONE: The budget cuts have been met by student protest as schools lay off teachers, drop after-school sports and cancel weeks of classes across the state.
Unidentified Boy: Moment of silence. Keep your head down to mourn Portland public schools.
BLACKSTONE: Has it got tougher? Is there any evidence of that?
Unidentified Girl: Yeah, I mean, down to--my math class has 45 people in it.
BLACKSTONE: The future may depend on Measure 28, an increase in state income taxes being voted on today in Oregon.
Unidentified Woman: Are you ready to rally for our schools?
BLACKSTONE: The measure would bring some $300 million, only a small patch for the state budget's nearly $2 billion hole. While the loss of funds for schools has stirred the most protest in Oregon, the budget cutting will go well beyond the classroom, with a list of targets that is long and painful.
The state police plan to lay off 135 troopers and close three crime labs. Many courts will be cut back to four days a week. Prosecutions for misdemeanors such as burglaries and drug possession may be halted for lack of funds. Hundreds of heroin addicts will no longer get methadone treatment at free clinics.
TIM HARTNETT (Treatment Agency Director): We know that as many as 95 percent of them will return to a life of heroin use.
BLACKSTONE: Back at Franklin High, students have a feeling of betrayal.
LUCAS MAY (Student): What I'm seeing now is kind of like the end of public education as I know it.
MASON: For the state, it's a budget crisis likely to pass when the economy improves. But many students fear their one opportunity for education is being sacrificed and now will be gone forever. In Portland, Oregon, John Blackstone for Eye on America.
--Dan Rather and John Blackstone on the CBS Evening News, January 28, 2003.

"In America in the 1980s, what former President Reagan and those who support him call the Reagan Revolution put more money in the pockets of the rich. We already knew that. But a new study indicates that those who did best of all by far were the very richest of the rich."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 5, 1992.

George W. Bush was scheduled to speak about his budget to Congress. It included a tax cut package Democrats thought was risky:
"Where is the US economy headed? Signals are mixed, but today's consumer confidence numbers are down. Enter the president, with a TV pitch for a tax-cut gamble he says will boost the economy."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 27, 2001.

"Everyone knows the rich got richer in the 1980s [during the Reagan and Bush administrations]. Now a new study shows how dramatic the change was. According to the Economic Policy Institute, more than half of America's new wealth went to the richest one-half of one percent of families. The bottom 60 percent of families in income saw no gain or got poorer."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, October 29, 1992.
Note: A Similar study done by the same think tank in 2000, the liberal Economic Policy Institute, showed that the income gap in 2000 "is greater than at any time since the gap was tracked, back in the 1940s," according to Jared Bernstein of the EPI.

Interest groups are famous for concocting interesting publicity stunts to get themselves on TV. During one of the many recent tax cut battles in Washington, a liberal group called the Children's Defense Fund organized a number of women to push babies in strollers around Capitol Hill in protest of House Republicans' alleged refusal to extend a per-child income tax credits to families. Reporting on the congressional fight which actually pitted a larger tax reduction bill offered by the House (which Republicans there said was even more inclusive) against a smaller one offered by the Senate.

Reporting on the struggle, CBS's Joie Chen used the stroller march as her peg, but somehow managed to not label the group that sponsored it as liberal, while at the same time tagging House Republicans as conservative:

"[I]t is not partisan to say that during the Clinton years the economy has been outstandingly good. That's a fact."
--Dan Rather, May 12, 1999.

The Seattle area was struck by an earthquake:
"Ironically, this earthquake hit on the same day President Bush proposed a federal budget that would save about $25 million by killing a program to help communities prepare for natural disaster. President Bush contends it was ineffective. Seattle was one of the first cities to take advantage of that program."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 28, 2001.

The economy had begun to show signs of slowing down. George W. Bush said a tax cut would help get it going again:
"President Bush insists what the economy really needs is his major tax cut. Democrats, and some independent economists, believe the Bush push is risky business. CBS News White House correspondent John Roberts reports on George Bush on the road and out campaigning again."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 28, 2001.
Note: Some independent economists oppose Bush's tax cuts but others support them.

President Reagan submitted his last budget proposal of his presidency to Congress:
"It contains more for guns, less for butter, and it is out of balance and will add to the deficit."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, Jan 9, 1989.

The GDP was up 5.6 percent during Democratic president Bill Clinton's presidency in late 1998:
"Good evening. It's just plain amazing. With 40 percent of the world in recession, if not depression, figures out today show the U.S. economy is coming off its strongest quarter in two years, growing at a remarkable rate of 5.6 percent in the final three months of 1998 [...]"
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, January 29, 1999.

"President Bush today celebrated his first major legislative victory. At a White House ceremony Mr. Bush signed signed a $1.35 trillion dollar federal income tax cut. This includes lower tax rates and a rebate; the checks go out next month. Democratic opponents say the cuts are fiscally irresponsible and dangerous and unfairly, heavily favor high-income Americans."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, June 7, 2001.
Note: Rather said only what Democrats thought of the tax cut.

"Republicans vowed to press for huge cuts in government spending and $245 billion in tax cuts. President Clinton vowed to veto it as too radical and too extreme."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, October 25, 1995.
Note: Rather did not say why the Republicans wanted the cuts.

"On Capitol Hill, the Senate voted overwhelming approval today for the big balanced budget blueprint. Supporters of the plan say it would balance the budget in five years, provide $85 billion in tax breaks mostly for families with children, cut the capital gains tax which would help immediately the wealthy, and save $321 billion out of Medicare, defense and other spending."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, May 23, 1997.
Note: Rather says himself that the capital gains tax cut "would help immediately the wealthy," not, "opponents say the tax cut would help immediately the wealthy."

"And, Eye On America -- a town fighting back against greed, corporate raiders, and the hangover of the go-go '80s."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 19, 1992.
Note: See above.

"Republicans were still pumping out a stopgap budget certain to draw another presidential veto, a bill containing what President Clinton called tonight, quote, 'critical cuts in Medicare and other programs.'"
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 16, 1995.
Note: Rather did not explain why the Republicans wanted it, only on why the Democrats didn't want it.

"On Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled House voted mostly along party lines tonight to pass President Bush's federal budget blueprint. This includes his big tax-cut plan, partly bankrolled, critics say, through cuts in many federal aid programs for children and education."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 28, 2001.

"These latest shocks to the US economy come as negotiators for President Bush and the Congress are still debating tonight over what to do about the national debt. The latest sticking point, President Bush's insistence on cutting the capital gains tax for mostly wealthy Americans."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, September 18, 1990.

"[T]his reporter has done some critical analysis of some of Mr. Forbes's ideas that didn't add up--such as his math about the so-called flat tax."
--Dan Rather in "Rather's Notebook," at the CBS Web site, November 11, 1999.
Note: Dan Rather got his degree from Sam Houston Teachers College in journalism.

"A key Republican senator, Pete Domenici, told reporters this evening President Bush does not have the votes to pass his big tax-cut plan, at the very least not yet. And Democrats in Congress put out their version of a budget and tax-cut plan. It features tax cuts half the size of the Bush proposal, fewer of those cuts going to the wealthy, many more targeted to middle- and lower-income Americans. The Democrats would also earmark more of the federal surplus for national debt reduction and for creating a prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 15, 2001.
Note: Rather's coverage of this issue is typified by this story, which follows CBS's precedent of relaying only tax-cut opponents' arguments, as a study by RatherBiased.com documents.

Dan Rather and his CBS colleagues gave reports about the debate over President Bush's tax cut proposal. All three reports were comprised of what Bush's Democratic opponents did not like about his plan:
DAN RATHER: There was an upbeat prediction today from a key member of the Federal Reserve, and it's at variance with some of what the Bush administration has been saying. William McDonough says the US economy should pick up in the second quarter of the year, and by the second half growth should be, and I quote him now, "quite strong." That's even without the big tax cut President Bush insists is needed to give the economy a boost. CBS's John Roberts reports on the president's latest sales pitch.
JOHN ROBERTS: President Bush was locked in full campaign mode today, parading before the cameras families he claims will benefit from his tax cut.
GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm asking all Americans to examine this plan, and I'm asking for your support.
ROBERTS: Mr. Bush will send his plan to members of Congress on Thursday. Today he sent this warning aimed at both sides of the aisle.
BUSH: I want the members of Congress and the American people to hear loud and clear this is the right-sized plan. It is the right approach, and I'm going to defend it mightily.
ROBERTS: Democrats, collaborating on a smaller tax-cut proposal, have vowed to fight the Bush plan, targeting it is a budget-buster that caters to the rich.
TOM DASCHLE (D–S.D.): You know, if you make over $300,000 a year, this tax cut means you get to buy a new Lexus. If you make $50,000 a year, you get to buy a muffler on your used car.
ROBERTS: On the Republican side, Mr. Bush faces a different problem. Already they're talking up adding more tax cuts to his plan. And then there's the lobbyists, who'll wonder why Mr. Bush gave nothing to corporate America. Critics charge the bill could eventually top $3 trillion.
BOB McINTYRE (Citizens for Tax Justice): Well, I'm afraid that we're going to see Congress bidding against each other to try to add things to this tax bill to please favorite contributors or constituencies. If that happens, gee willikers.
ROBERTS: Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice can't forget the last time Congress wanted a tax-cut spree in 1981. America is still paying the bill. And while those magnificent surplus projections make it seem like anything is possible, even the man who took the lid off the tax-cut punch bowl cautions they are only a best guests.
ALAN GREENSPAN (Jan. 25): The errors that are being made in these long-term projections are really quite extraordinary.
ROBERTS: The Democratic leadership today criticized the president for trying to lock in a tax cut before he even has a budget, and they also voiced concern that his hands-off philosophy to make suggestions and let Congress work it out may give Republicans a green light for a tax-cut free-for-all. Dan.
RATHER: John Roberts.
--Dan Rather and John Roberts on the CBS Evening News, February 5, 2001.

DAN RATHER: Looking beyond the photo-ops and spins, CBS's Bob Schieffer has one of what we call his Real Deal analysis for you tonight on how this volatile mix of tax-cut numbers and political equations could affect you. Bob.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, Dan, to put it bluntly, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, the Democratic leaders at the Capitol, see this in a very different way. They told us tonight that when the Bush tax cut is added to the administration's projected spending plans, the cost will not only eat up the entire surplus, but, even worse, government would have to dip into Social Security surpluses to pay for it. They say that is because the Bush tax cut would actually cost $2.3 trillion, not $1.6 trillion, when you add in interest and other costs. By Democratic figuring (image showing graph), that is 85 percent of the expected 10-year surplus, leaving only $400 billion to cover spending increases already projected to run more than $700 billion on such programs as prescription drugs,education and defense. Gephardt and Daschle want a tax cut, too, something in the neighborhood of $800 billion, but they fear anything larger could set off the kind of red ink spending that produced the enormous deficits of the 1980s. Dan.
RATHER: Bob Schieffer at the Capitol.
--Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer on the CBS Evening News, February 5, 2001.

"A win for the working poor. The House approves an increase in the minimum wage."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, May 23, 1996.
Note: Economists are not sure if increasing the minimum wage will benefit poor workers. Some think it would provide low-wage workers with a necessary living wage, others think it would cause businesses to cut jobs they might otherwise have left open. Obviously Rather gives his opinion.

RATHER: "[C]hildren are already suffering from cutbacks during the Reagan Administration."
SPENCER: The crisis was caused by "social apathy, in particular on Reagan era budget cuts."
--Dan Rather and Susan Spencer on the CBS Evening News, April 1989. print_file('footer'); ?>