| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Jasmine" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2004 03:04:06 PM |
| Object: |
Report Shows How Bush Is Squeezing Middle Class |
Report Shows How Bush Is Squeezing Middle Class
President Bush is now barnstorming the country claiming his record shows
that he cares about America's middle class. On everything from taxes to
health care to workers wages, the President says he has fought for average
Americans. But a new comprehensive report shows that in almost every key
economic area, he has actually gone to bat for his wealthiest contributors,
at everyone else's expense.
According to a cover story in this month's American Prospect, Bush has
pushed policies that benefit the major special interests funding his
campaign, while rejecting commonsense, bipartisan proposals that would help
the middle class. On taxes, for instance, Bush has claimed, "If you're
struggling to get into middle class and you feel like you're paying plenty
of taxes, take a look at my agenda."[1] Yet, as the Prospect report points
out, Bush's tax policies have actually shifted more of the tax burden off of
the wealthy, and onto the middle class.[2] His policies have also raised
federal fees on the middle class, and forced state and local governments to
raise middle class taxes to deal with the record federal deficits.
On health care, Bush has said he is working "to help more American families
get health insurance."[3] Yet, as the Prospect report shows, the only major
initiative Bush has offered is an industry-backed proposal that experts say
could further raise health insurance premiums and deductibles for average
Americans. Similarly, Bush has refused to support real legislation to lower
the price of prescription drugs in America.
On wages, Bush has said he wants to help Americans earn better paychecks -
but as the Prospect report shows, he has simultaneously refused to support a
minimum wage increase while pushing to eliminate overtime pay protections
for millions of workers.
Read the full American Prospect report online here,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1203578&l=50799.
Sources:
1. "President Emphasizes Minority Entrepreneurship at Urban League," The
White House, 7/23/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1203578&l=50800.
2. "CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich," Yahoo!News, 08/13/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1203578&l=50801.
3. "Remarks by the President at Traverse City, Michigan Rally," The White
House, 07/23/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1203578&l=50802.
Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration disotortion.»
.
|
|
| User: "Frenchurian Candidate John $$ BILLIONAIRE$$ Kerry I love Jockstrap" |
|
| Title: Re: Report ShowsMedia Spin & Lies |
17 Aug 2004 05:36:28 PM |
|
|
Media Push Kerry Spin on How Tax Cuts
Help Rich the Most
A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study released on Friday documented
that without the Bush tax cuts the top 20 percent of taxpayers would have
paid 78.4 percent of all income taxes collected, but thanks to the tax cuts
their burden rose to 82.1 percent of income taxes collected while the share
borne by the middle 20 percent, which would have been 6.4 percent, fell to
5.4 percent. So how did the media treat this ongoing trend in which the tax
burden is continuing to shift toward the wealthiest? By highlighting data
from the study which either pointed out the self-evidently obvious and thus
hardly newsworthy -- that the higher your income the larger the numeric
value of your tax cut -- or by claiming the tax cuts shifted the tax burden
away from the wealthy, a contention based upon including taxes untouched by
the Bush plan.
"A new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office," NBC Tom
Brokaw touted, "shows the average tax cut for the top earners, with an
average income of $1.2 million, was $78,460. The tax cut for those in the
middle, with an average income of $57,000, was $1,090." Over a graphic which
announced that the "richest one percent received 1/3 of the President's tax
cut," with the "1/3" enlarged in red, reporter Carl Quintanilla, who didn't
bother to note the disproportionate share of taxes paid by the rich,
trumpeted how the report "came practically gift-wrapped" to the Kerry
campaign.
And the media eagerly delivered the gift.
The New York Times headlined its Friday story: "Report Finds Tax Cuts
Heavily Favor the Wealthy." The Wall Street Journal: "Budget Office Says
Biggest Tax Cuts Go to Richest 1%." And the Washington Post: "Tax Burden
Shifts to the Middle." A Friday Reuters dispatch was headlined, "CBO Report:
Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich." Reporter Vicki Allen began: "One-third of
President Bush's tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans, shifting more burden to middle-income taxpayers, congressional
analysts said on Friday."
PBS's Jim Lehrer went with the liberal spin on the August 13 NewsHour:
"President Bush's tax cuts have shifted part of the federal income tax
burden from the rich to the middle class. That's the conclusion of a study
released today by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. The analysis said
tax rates declined for all income levels, but translated into more savings
for the wealthy than for the middle class. The CBO is a non-partisan agency.
The tax calculations had been requested by Democrats in Congress. Senator
Kerry used the CBO findings on the campaign today in Portland, Oregon. He
told a rally the report 'documented' what he's been saying all year about
the Bush tax cuts. It was Kerry's last stop on a two-week cross-country
tour. Across town, Mr. Bush defended his tax policy at a terminal near the
city's main port. He told small business owners the economy was getting
stronger because of his 'well-timed' tax cuts."
The Post's Jonathan Weisman outlined the tax burden numbers: "The CBO
study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose
incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop
from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year.
The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1
percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. Over that same period, taxpayers
with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of
federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their
tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent."
Only FNC smelled a rat, as anchor Jim Angle introduced a story on
Special Report with Brit Hume: "After long accusing President Bush of
favoring the rich at the expense of the middle class, Democrats now say they
have the headlines to prove it. But those headlines don't tell the whole
story about taxes, the wealthy, or the middle class."
FNC's Major Garrett alerted viewers to how "the report fails to show
that the Bush tax cuts removed 14 million poor taxpayers from the income tax
rolls entirely. But it does show that the Bush tax cuts mean that on a
percentage basis, the wealthiest households now pay a larger share of
federal income taxes under Bush than they did under Clinton."
How does that correlate with the rest of the media's claim the CBO
found a reduced burden on the wealthy and an increased burden on the middle
class? As Garrett explained, one CBO calculation "measured all federal tax
burdens, not just the income taxes affected by the Bush tax cuts. The CBO
also counted payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, which the
poor and middle class pay in higher percentages of income than the wealthy."
Indeed, the Washington Post's Weisman, who led his August 13 story,
"since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments
from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the
Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the
presidential election campaign," acknowledged in his 11th paragraph that "if
Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich
are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have
paid with no tax changes, the CBO found." For Weisman's story in full:
www.washingtonpost.com
At least Weisman informed Post readers of that fact, a reality ignored
by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Reuters. New York Times
reporter Edmund Andrews opened his dispatch with what Brokaw lifted for his
lead:
"Fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years
have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an
average of $1.2 million annually, according to a report by the non-partisan
Congressional Budget Office to be published Friday. The report calculated
that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average
tax cut of $78,460 this year, while households in the middle 20 percent of
earnings -- averaging about $57,000 a year -- were getting an average cut of
only $1,090."
For the August 13 New York Times article in full: www.nytimes.com
In Friday's Wall Street Journal, reporter Jackie Calmes led with a
sentence that could have been written by the Kerry press office: "President
Bush's three tax cut laws will reduce this year's income taxes for the
richest 1% of taxpayers by an average of $78,460, more than 70 times the
average benefit for the middle 20% of taxpayers, congressional analysts
found." Calmes soon added that the report "confirms" Democratic claims: "The
report, made at the Democrats' request, confirms what the Democrats and
their presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have
charged -- that the wealthy disproportionately benefit."
But the wealthy bear a disproportionate share of the income tax burden,
a fact Calmes skipped over.
Thank the hurricane for less bias. The distorted take on the CBO
report, favorable to John Kerry, would have received much more media
attention Friday if not for Hurricane Charley. ABC's World News Tonight,
which spent about ten minutes on the hurricane, did not even air a campaign
story. The CBS Evening News made room for a pre-publicized look at how the
Bush team bars non-supporters from events, but aired nothing else
campaign-related. Charley bumped Inside Politics and Crossfire off of CNN
and became the focus of nearly all cable news Friday evening.
On Sunday's Meet the Press, however, fill-in host Andrea Mitchell
raised the CBO report during a roundtable segment. Naturally, she relayed
the liberal spin: "Well, let's talk about some of the other areas of
vulnerability that the Republicans fear and that the Kerry campaign is
clearly trying to exploit. Tax fairness. This week, the Congressional Budget
Office, which is non-partisan, reported this week that there really is a
disparity -- no big surprise here -- between the effects of the tax cut.
Let's take a look at this chart. The wealthiest Americans, those whose
incomes average $182,000, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4
percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year while
middle-income taxpayers saw their share of federal tax payments increase.
John Howard, clearly this is also because the richest people pay more taxes,
but how will this resonate?"
Harwood, a Wall Street Journal reporter, contended the numbers will
help Kerry: "Well, George W. Bush's tax cuts have never been all that
popular with the public. Everybody likes getting a few dollars in their
pocket. But if you poll on this issue, the American public is very, very
ambivalent about these tax cuts and this gives John Kerry another piece of
ammunition to say to all those voters who are worried about their economic
futures, worried about outsourcing jobs going overseas, look, George Bush is
not helping you. He's helping other people."
Now, a full rundown of the Friday, August 13 NBC and FNC stories,
followed by links to Heritage Foundation and Tax Foundation postings on
Friday which dissected the CBO's numbers and how the media distorted them.
-- NBC Nightly News. Tom Brokaw announced from an indoor set in Athens:
"Back home on the campaign trail today, the topic was the economy and tax
cuts in the wake of a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget
Office. The study shows the average tax cut for the top earners, with an
average income of $1.2 million, was $78,460. The tax cut for those in the
middle, with an average income of $57,000, was $1,090. Both candidates today
were just miles apart in Oregon, and NBC's Carl Quintanilla has the back and
forth of the day."
On screen, as Quintanilla began, NBC placed a graphic of the cover of
the CBO report, with a very dry title of "Effective Federal Tax Rates Under
Current Law, 2001 to 2014," overlaid by NBC News with:
RICHEST ONE PERCENT
RECEIVED 1/3 OF THE
PRESIDENT's TAX CUT
NBC put "1/3" huge in red. (See the posted version of this CyberAlert
for the NBC graphic.)
Quintanilla began, as checked by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth against the
closed-captioning: "John Kerry's campaign still believes it's the economy,
stupid. And today's report that the richest one percent of Americans
received a third of President Bush's tax cut, in their view, came
practically gift-wrapped."
John Kerry, at a closed "neighborhood" campaign event in Springfield,
Oregon, as he walked amongst the invited guests sitting in chairs set up on
a street: "The burden of taxes has shifted from the wealthy to the middle
class. The middle class is paying more taxes."
As Quintanilla proceeded to note how "at first glance, the headlines
seemed to favor Kerry," NBC displayed a graphic with headlines from three
newspapers: New York Times: "Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the
Wealthy" Wall Street Journal: "Budget Office Says Biggest Tax Cuts Go to
Richest 1%" Washington Post: "Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle"
Quintanilla picked up: "He's hitched his campaign to economic issues.
But the President, just miles from Kerry's rally in Portland today, spins it
this way: Nearly everyone's taxes fell last year by some degree, and those
so-called wealthy Americans are often small business owners that create
jobs. But do middle class voters care how much the rich benefit so long as
they pocket extra cash themselves?"
Pamela Olson, Bush campaign tax expert: "I think what's important to
people is that they got some tax relief themselves. And in the case of the
Bush tax cuts, that's exactly what happened. There was relief provided
across the board."
Unidentified man outside, but with a Kerry sign behind him though he
made a very un-Kerry-like point: "I'd be pleased to see this top one percent
get a break because they pay a higher percentage than anybody."
Quintanilla: "Kerry used today's report to blunt yesterday's criticism
that he wants to wage a, quote, 'sensitive war on terror.'"
John Kerry: "I don't think it's very sensitive, except to the wealthy,
to shift the tax burden to the average American."
Quintanilla: "Kerry routinely says he'll roll back tax cuts for the
wealthy. Today's report doesn't say how much revenue that might bring in."
Stephen Hess, political analyst: "And consequently, how much money is
available then for doing all of these other things that John Kerry says he
would do if he had the money?"
Quintanilla concluded: "Kerry believes that question will now be easier
to answer after today's numbers. Carl Quintanilla, NBC News, Portland."
-- FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume. Friday anchor Jim Angle
asserted: "After long accusing President Bush of favoring the rich at the
expense of the middle class, Democrats now say they have the headlines to
prove it. But those headlines don't tell the whole story about taxes, the
wealthy, or the middle class. Fox News correspondent Major Garrett has this
analysis."
Garrett began, over a series of separate shots of the headlines in the
Washington Post, New York Tikes and Wall Street Journal: "Morning headlines
in Washington and New York blared the news the Bush tax cuts helped the rich
and hurt the middle class. To team Kerry, it all spelled vindication and a
ripe campaign issue."
Gene Sperling, Kerry economic advisor: "They show that the top one
percent got a tax cut 70 times larger than the typical middle income
family."
Garrett: "The proof, Kerry's team says, can be found in a Congressional
Budget Office report that shows that the wealthiest households, those
earning roughly $182,000, saw their total federal tax burden decline since
the Bush tax cuts took effect, while households earning roughly $75,000 saw
their share of that tax burden increase. The report's methods matter. First,
it measured all federal tax burdens, not just the income taxes affected by
the Bush tax cuts. The CBO also counted payroll taxes that fund Social
Security and Medicare, which the poor and middle class pay in higher
percentages of income than the wealthy. Also, the report counts all
household income, not just income filed on tax returns. That creates a
larger pool of wealthy Americans. Even so, the report still shows that the
Bush tax cuts reduced income tax rates for the wealthy and the middle
class."
On screen:
TOTAL FEDERAL TAX RATE
$182,700, 2001: 26.8% 2004: 23.4%
$75,00, 2001: 19.3% 2004: 18.15%
Pam Olson, Bush-Cheney advisor: "The tax cuts were clearly designed to
provide benefits to income tax payers across the board. When you look at
them on a percentage basis, what you find is that the tax cuts percentage
benefit was greater at the lower end than it was at the higher end."
Garrett, over video of May 2003 signing ceremony: "The report fails to
show that the Bush tax cuts removed 14 million poor taxpayers from the
income tax rolls entirely. But it does show that the Bush tax cuts mean that
on a percentage basis, the wealthiest households now pay a larger share of
federal income taxes under Bush than they did under Clinton."
On screen:
SHARE OF INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX
$182,700, 2000: 78.4% 2004: 82.1%
Olson: "The higher income across the board are going to pay a greater
share of the tax burden, income tax burden."
Garrett: "Kerry's campaign still argues the rich, on a dollar for
dollar basis, reaped far more than the middle class."
Sperling: "There is no question this White House did pick winners and
losers. The top one percent, who get a 77 times larger tax cut than the
middle class, were certainly winners."
Garrett: "The Bush campaign says all Americans deserve tax cuts, and
the wealthy, who pay the most in taxes, necessarily benefitted more."
Olson: "Tax cuts were clearly designed to provide benefits to income
tax payers across the board."
Garrett concluded: "This tussle over tax numbers, of course, is part of
a larger debate about the President's stewardship of the economy. Kerry
argues his tax cuts were both unfair and ineffective. The President says the
tax cuts were basically helpful to all Americans and shielded the country
from a deep recession."
The media's distortions so upset the Heritage Foundation that on Friday
afternoon they posted a biting item, "The CBO Tax Report: Proof that
Reporters Cannot Read." A reprint of the un-bylined report:
Reuters goes gaga over a new report from the CBO. Reuters' lead:
"President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the
richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them
benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a
government report cited in newspapers on Friday."
Let's take a look at how the 'transfer' is going.
The Richest Americans
According to the CBO report, the top 20 percent of income earners would have
paid 64.0 percent of federal taxes in 2004 without the Bush tax cuts. As it
is, with the Bush cuts, they will pay 'only' 63.5 percent. And what happens
in 2005? The top earners would have paid 64.0 percent of federal taxes but
now, because of this egregious 'transfer,' will pay only 64.3 percent (no
sic!), which to our reading looks like an increase in tax burden.
The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the top 20 percent of
earners is higher under the Bush tax cuts from 2005 through 2010, according
to the CBO report that Reuters purportedly cites. From 2011 through 2014, as
far into the future as the report projects, the top 20 percent of earners
will pay, under the Bush tax cuts, the same proportion of federal taxes that
they would have without the Bush tax cuts.
Middle Class Families
Now let's look at the middle 20 percent of earners. In 2004, they would have
paid 10.4 percent of federal taxes without the Bush cuts. With the cuts,
they will pay 10.5 percent of federal taxes. Note, however, that because of
the cuts, the federal tax burden for the middle 20 percent of earners
dropped from 16.5 percent to 14.6 percent. In other words, these earners are
paying a slight bit more of federal taxes, but a lot less in federal taxes.
In other words, their taxes were cut.
The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the middle 20 percent
of earners is slightly higher (one-tenth of a percent) in 2004 and 2006. The
proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the middle 20 percent of
earners is lower in 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2012. It is unchanged in the other
years through 2014, as far into the future as the CBO report projects.
To Summarize
From 2005 to 2010, the tax cuts that Reuters reports have "transferred the
federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families"
raise the comparative tax burden for the richest Americans and lower the
burden, a bit, for middle-class families. Throughout the time period, the
actual tax burden on both groups is reduced.
And it's not just Reuters. The Post, for example, headlines "Tax Burden
Shifts to Middle," which is a good headline, if false
Don't believe us?
You don't have to. Click here (PDF link) for the CBO report and look at
'Table 4' on page 13.
END of Reprint
For the CBO's report: www.cbo.gov
The Heritage item is posted at: www.heritage.org
For the Reuters dispatch ridiculed by Heritage: story.news.yahoo.com
The Tax Foundation on Friday posted two articles by Scott Hodge related
to the CBO findings. For, "New CBO Study Confirms Wealthiest Americans Bear
Income Tax Burden," see: www.taxfoundation.org
Hodge also detailed some of the parameters CBO used which generated the
numbers the media embraced, such as using "household" data instead of "tax
filer" data as is normally done. For, "Cautionary Notes for Comparing CBO's
Household Data to Standard Tax Data," see: www.taxfoundation.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Report ShowsMedia Spin & Lies |
17 Aug 2004 06:46:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:36:28 -0400, "Frenchurian Candidate John $$
BILLIONAIRE$$ Kerry" <I love Jockstrap Chirac@France.gov> wrote:
Media Push Kerry Spin on How Tax Cuts
Help Rich the Most
A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study released on Friday documented
that without the Bush tax cuts the top 20 percent of taxpayers would have
paid 78.4 percent of all income taxes collected, but thanks to the tax cuts
their burden rose to 82.1 percent of income taxes collected while the share
borne by the middle 20 percent, which would have been 6.4 percent, fell to
5.4 percent. So how did the media treat this ongoing trend in which the tax
burden is continuing to shift toward the wealthiest?
Query how much of this slice of the paid pie story is due to the fact
we have 8 million unemployed and another 1.5 million underemployed and
discouraged workers?
If they've stopped working, they've stopped paying taxes, and so the
wealthy's slice would get larger.
- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Report ShowsMedia Spin & Lies |
17 Aug 2004 06:52:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:36:28 -0400, "Frenchurian Candidate John $$
BILLIONAIRE$$ Kerry" <I love Jockstrap Chirac@France.gov> wrote:
Olson: "The higher income across the board are going to pay a greater
share of the tax burden, income tax burden."
Garrett: "Kerry's campaign still argues the rich, on a dollar for
dollar basis, reaped far more than the middle class."
Sperling: "There is no question this White House did pick winners and
losers. The top one percent, who get a 77 times larger tax cut than the
middle class, were certainly winners."
Do you read your articles?
- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gen" |
|
| Title: Re: Report Shows How Bush Is Squeezing Middle Class |
17 Aug 2004 03:33:38 PM |
|
|
Wow what that a long article. I signed up for the daily report from
http://daily.misleader.org
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:04:06 +1200, "Jasmine"
<jasminerblie@hotmail.com> wrote:
Report Shows How Bush Is Squeezing Middle Class
President Bush is now barnstorming the country claiming his record shows
that he cares about America's middle class. On everything from taxes to
health care to workers wages, the President says he has fought for average
Americans. But a new comprehensive report shows that in almost every key
economic area, he has actually gone to bat for his wealthiest contributors,
at everyone else's expense.
According to a cover story in this month's American Prospect, Bush has
pushed policies that benefit the major special interests funding his
campaign, while rejecting commonsense, bipartisan proposals that would help
the middle class. On taxes, for instance, Bush has claimed, "If you're
struggling to get into middle class and you feel like you're paying plenty
of taxes, take a look at my agenda."[1] Yet, as the Prospect report points
out, Bush's tax policies have actually shifted more of the tax burden off of
the wealthy, and onto the middle class.[2] His policies have also raised
federal fees on the middle class, and forced state and local governments to
raise middle class taxes to deal with the record federal deficits.
On health care, Bush has said he is working "to help more American families
get health insurance."[3] Yet, as the Prospect report shows, the only major
initiative Bush has offered is an industry-backed proposal that experts say
could further raise health insurance premiums and deductibles for average
Americans. Similarly, Bush has refused to support real legislation to lower
the price of prescription drugs in America.
On wages, Bush has said he wants to help Americans earn better paychecks -
but as the Prospect report shows, he has simultaneously refused to support a
minimum wage increase while pushing to eliminate overtime pay protections
for millions of workers.
Read the full American Prospect report online here,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1203578&l=50799.
Sources:
1. "President Emphasizes Minority Entrepreneurship at Urban League," The
White House, 7/23/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1203578&l=50800.
2. "CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich," Yahoo!News, 08/13/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1203578&l=50801.
3. "Remarks by the President at Traverse City, Michigan Rally," The White
House, 07/23/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1203578&l=50802.
Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration disotortion.»
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
