Here come the reviews from the lamestreamers. "It's risky!" "How will we PAY for it?" "Americans don't want a tax cut." And my favorite, "It does nothing to help people who don't pay taxes!!!"
***Media Research Center CyberAlert***
Thursday December 2, 1999 (Vol. Four; No. 182)
> 1) How to "pay" for George W. Bush's tax cut idea and does
it help everyone, or as CNN argued, did Bush ignore "millions of
Americans at the bottom"?
Violence in the streets of Seattle and the WTO meeting led all
the network evening shows Wednesday night, but all also ran pieces
assessing George W. Bush's tax cut plan. ABC and NBC assumed all
the money in America belongs to the government and so a way will
have to be found to "pay" for any tax cut. ABC anchor Jack Ford
referred to "paying for the cut," while NBC's David Bloom warned
"Bush's plan is even more expensive than the Republican tax cut
President Clinton vetoed last summer" and suggested Bush not only
has raised a lot of money, he's trying to show he has the "best
ideas about how to spend it."
CBS's Bob Schieffer described Bush's plan as more reasonable
than what his opponents are pushing, asserting: "Bush's plan
follows fairly mainstream Republican thinking and avoids the more
exotic flat tax plans." CNN The World Today anchor Wolf Blitzer
offered the oddest introduction of the night: "The Republican race
for the White House turned nasty in Iowa today."
While NBC's David Bloom declared the Bush cuts are "targeted
especially at middle and lower income families," CNN's Brooks
Jackson pushed class warfare by implying the tax cut is unfair
since it doesn't cut income taxes for those who don't pay income
taxes: "What Governor Bush doesn't mention is that his cut would
give no relief at all for millions at the bottom."
(Bush's plan would reduce the rate paid by those now in the
39.6 and 36 percent brackets to 33 percent, move those now paying
31 or 28 percent to 25 percent and have those now at 15 percent
only pay at a 10 percent rate. Plus, he'd phase out the
inheritance tax and double the child credit to $1,000.)
Here's a rundown of how the three broadcast networks, CNN and
MSNBC handled the Bush tax cut proposal on Wednesday night,
December 1:
-- ABC's World News Tonight. Anchor Jack Ford announced:
"Republican candidates are always trying to make tax cuts a
core issue. In political circles Governor Bush's sweeping plan is
seen as an attempt to shore up his conservative credentials while
also appealing to Democrats. Paying for the cut, and getting
voters to buy it, are another matter altogether."
Dean Reynolds noted that Bush "unveiled a plan that gives a
tax break to virtually everybody." Reynolds ran through the basics
of Bush's plan, including reducing the income tax rates to three
at 10, 25 and 33 percent, as well as phasing out the inheritance
tax and doubling the child credit. Reynolds then offered reaction
from Steve Forbes. Over video of Bush and Forbes meeting each
other at a gathering in Iowa, Reynolds reported:
"This morning, after he'd shaken Bush's hand, GOP rival Steve
Forbes was eager to pounce."
Steve Forbes: "I think it's a small tax cut designed to get
through the election, it's more political expediency and I'm very
surprised that his tutors couldn't have come up with something
better than this."
Reynolds concluded: "And the Democrats say Bush's plan to use
the U.S. budget surplus to pay for his tax cuts is way too risky.
But if Bush's bothered by all this criticism, he isn't showing it
so far."
Jack Ford then added: "Speaking in Iowa today, Vice President
Gore responded to Governor Bush's tax plan. He said it's
astonishing that Governor Bush can't keep himself from using up
the budget surplus."
-- CBS Evening News. Dan Rather stressed divisiveness in the
ranks instead of what Bush proposed:
"The politics of election year tax cuts erupted today inside
the ranks of Republicans seeking the presidential nomination. The
flashpoint: A huge tax cut trial balloon being floated by George
W. Bush the younger. Some of his rivals shoved back hard."
Bob Schieffer began by claiming "It's starting to get tense
among the Republicans." After explaining how Forbes has produced
an ad attacking Bush for thinking about raising the Social
Security retirement age and that Bush's tax cut would be bigger
than the one vetoed by Clinton this year, Schieffer went through
the basics of the proposal.
CBS viewers then heard Bush proclaim: "There are only two
things that can be done with the surplus. It can be used by
government as the President proposes or it can be used by
Americans to save and build and invest."
Schieffer picked up: "Although Democrats denounced the plan as
irresponsible, Bush's plan follows fairly mainstream Republican
thinking and avoids the more exotic flat tax plans advocated by
Forbes and some of the other candidates, whose reaction ranged
from tepid to dubious."
John McCain: "I want to make sure that it doesn't take from
the Social Security trust fund."
Forbes: "I'm very surprised that his tutors couldn't have come
up with something better than this."
Schieffer concluded: "So, the Republican candidates have
plenty to chew on as they head for the debate in New Hampshire
tomorrow night where they'll all be on the same stage for the
first time. And this puts the focus on domestic issues where
frontrunner Bush especially seems most comfortable."
-- CNN's The World Today. Anchor Wolf Blitzer intoned:
"The Republican race for the White House turned nasty in Iowa
today when George W. Bush outlined $483 billion in tax cuts.
Conservative rival Steve Forbes attacked Bush's five year plan as
being in his words, 'something only the timid could love.' The
Texas Governor shot back: 'I think he likes to campaign by tearing
down other people.'"
CNN then ran two stories: Bruce Morton summarized the plan and
the usually better than this Brooks Jackson offered a slanted
story assessing its impact on income groups. Jackson began from
the left:
"What Governor Bush doesn't mention is that his cut would give
no relief at all for millions at the bottom. Working families, who
earn too little to pay any income taxes now, but who do pay
payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which the Bush
plan doesn't touch. No help for roughly 20 million working
families -- about one in every five. But above the lowest income
levels, Bush would help everybody."
If you don't pay income taxes why would you get an income tax
cut? And if all "people at the bottom" are paying is the FICA tax
then in a sense they've already gotten a 100 percent income tax
cut.
Jackson moved on to note that Bush contended his plan would
cut to zero the income tax for 6 million families: "A family of
four now starts paying income taxes on income above $24,900 a
year. Bush says under his plan, taxes would start at $36,500."
Jackson correctly noted that "the rich would get a smaller
percentage cut in tax rates," but then returned to liberal class
warfare to make the insipid point that those who pay more in taxes
would get a bigger tax cut. Without labeling Citizens for Tax
Justice (CTJ) as liberal, he relayed their rhetoric about the
rich:
"In dollar terms they pay more now and would get more from
Bush's plan. An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice shows
taxpayers averaging about $30,000 a year would get an average cut
of $501 when fully phased in. But those making an average of
$837,000 a year, would get an average cut of more than $50,000 a
year."
Jackson concluded by assuming someone must "pay" for tax cuts:
"Would there be money to pay for such huge cuts? Bush's plan
assumes the economy will grow 2.7 percent per year, which is not
unreasonable. The Congressional Budget Office predicts 2.5 percent
growth and the economy actually grew at a rate of 5.5 percent
growth in the last quarter. So the Bush tax plan is based on
mainstream economics, but such a massive cut would delay paying
down the national debt, and, by design, leave little or no room
for other new spending."
-- NBC Nightly News. Plugging the upcoming story, anchor Tom
Brokaw uniquely reminded viewers of how George H.W. Bush broke his
tax pledge: "And when we come back here, NBC News In Depth
tonight: Read his lips. George W. Bush outlines his economic plan,
including a huge package of tax cuts."
David Bloom opened the subsequent story: "Saying the times
demand a substantial tax cut, and preaching what he calls the
economics of inclusion, Governor Bush today offered as the
centerpiece of his economic plan a more than one trillion dollar
tax cut, targeted especially at middle and lower income families."
Bloom never explained how he got to a "more than one trillion
dollar tax cut" when other stories referred to it as $483 billion
one over five years, so Bloom was probably making it sound bigger
by going out ten years.
After mentioning the tax rate reductions, Bloom got to its
"expense," explaining: "Bush would double the child tax credit to
$1,000, meaning a typical family of four, making $50,000 a year,
would see their federal taxes cut in half. But Bush's plan is even
more expensive than the Republican tax cut President Clinton
vetoed last summer. And Vice President Gore calls it risky, quote
'reckless tax scheme that would immediately put our country back
into deficits.' Bush counters that the budget surplus should be
returned to taxpayers, not spent by the government."
Bush: "What is risky is when politicians are given charge of a
surplus. There's a strong temptation to spend it and in Washington
that temptation is overwhelming."
Bloom, indirectly labeling the CTJ, relayed static analysis
assumptions, as if a tax cut would not generate any additional
economic activity that would create more tax revenue:
"But liberal critics say the numbers don't add up. Why not?
Because the Congressional Budget Office projects total surpluses
of only $463 billion over the first five years of Bush's plan. But
his tax cut alone would cost $483 billion, leaving no money for
higher defense or education spending."
Robert McIntyre, Citizens for Tax Justice: "You'd need to
either raid the Social Security Trust Fund or you'd have to have
gigantic cuts in everything else the government does."
Bloom concluded: "But Bush, using rosier economic numbers,
projects there'd be $100 billion left for extra spending, a debate
he relishes, hoping to prove he's not just the candidate with the
most money but the one with the best ideas about how to spend it."
MSNBC's The News with Brian Williams also carried Bloom's
piece, followed by some standard liberal analysis from Chris
Matthews. While Matthews may have been tough on Clinton during the
Lewinsky scandal, Wednesday night he showed he hasn't yet grown
out of the redistributionist beliefs espoused by his former boss,
the late Tip O'Neill. Matthews told Brian Williams:
"It does help the middle class, but this is a very good tax
for well off people. It means that in your top bracket people are
going to drop seven points. That means you're going to get, if you
make a million dollars you're going to get $70,000 more back from
the government at the end of the year. It also means that you're
not going to pay any estate tax at all when you pass away, which
is very good for wealthy people like the Bush family."
Three comments: First, going from 15 to 10 percent is a far
greater percentage reduction in tax rate than going from 39.6 to
33 percent. Second, since when did the government create the
wealth to give to the rich at the end of the year? Third, dead
people don't pay any inheritance tax now because it's hard to pay
taxes when you're dead.
|
