From Media Matters for America -- October 31, 2011:
Trick Or Treat! Obama Derangement Syndrome Is At The Door
In the latest round of Obama Derangement Syndrome, right-wing media attacked the Obamas for handing out fruit along with candy to trick-or-treaters at the White House. Previously, right-wing media have attacked the president over Hurricane Irene, the East Coast earthquake, healthy eating, the White House Easter Egg Roll, and the death of Osama bin Laden.
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Halloween Candy Edition
Fox Nation: "TRICK: Obamas Hand Out Dried Fruit At WH Halloween." An October 30 Fox Nation post rewrote the headline of an Associated Press (AP) article to say: "TRICK: Obamas Hand Out Dried Fruit at WH Halloween." The original AP headline stated, "Things get seasonal at the White House; Obamas hand out Halloween treats." [Fox Nation, 10/30/11, via Media Matters; AP, 10/29/11, via The Washington Post]
Hoft: "Obama Goes Trick-Or-Treating ... They Handed Out Fruit." In a Gateway Pundit post titled, "288,000 Lose Power in Earliest Snowstorm in a Century... Obama Goes Trick-or-Treating," blogger Jim Hoft wrote:
An historic early season snow hit the New England area today knocking out power to at least 288,000 homes. It is the earliest snow in New York City since the Civil War.
Meanwhile... Obama went trick-or-treating.
They handed out fruit. [Gateway Pundit, 10/29/11, emphasis in original]
Drudge: "Treat Or Trick: Obamas Pass Out Halloween -- 'Fruit'?..." An October 30 post to the Drudge Report read:
And This Is Just The Latest Edition Of Obama Derangement Syndrome
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Earthquake Edition. Following an earthquake that struck the East Coast on August 23, right-wing media attacked Obama for being on a golf course during a family vacation when the earthquake struck. [Media Matters, 8/24/11]
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Michelle Obama Uses An iPod. Right-wing media figures highlighted a photograph of first lady Michelle Obama using headphones while in her husband's presence, writing that this signified that she "doesn't seem all that happy with the man she married 19 years ago." [Media Matters, 8/22/11; The Washington Times, via Media Matters, 8/29/11]
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Happy Meals. Following McDonald's decision to offer "more nutritionally-balanced" Happy Meals and Michelle Obama's praise of its move, the right-wing media jumped to attack McDonald's for supposedly bending to the will of the "fat police" and making Happy Meals "less happy." [Media Matters, 7/27/11]
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Dijon Mustard. In May 2009, conservative media attacked Obama as an elitist because he ordered a hamburger with Dijon mustard. [Media Matters, 5/7/09]
Obama Derangement Syndrome: The Color Purple. In March 2010, conservative blogger Pamela Geller incited outrage over Obama "Flying The Gangsta Colors At The White House: SEIU, The Color Purple." Geller went on to criticize Obama's purple tie color choice, despite the fact that Obama's tie appeared to be blue, not purple. [Media Matters, 3/26/10]
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Wal-Mart Healthy Foods Initiative. In January, right-wing media accused the Obama administration of threatening or "bullying" Wal-Mart when the company announced a healthy food initiative that would make "thousands of the packaged food items that it sells more healthful and affordable by 2015," according to The Washington Post. [Media Matters, 1/21/11]
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Latin America Jobs Trip. In March, the right-wing media attacked Obama's long-planned jobs trip to Latin America as a "vacation," even though the trip was focused on economic opportunities for the U.S. and trade relationships with Latin American nations. [Media Matters, 3/18/11]
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Children's Easter Egg Roll. Also in March, Fox & Friends attacked the White House Easter Egg Roll, a family event, for making the souvenir eggs more environmentally friendly and encouraging children to exercise. [Media Matters, 3/30/11]
Obama Derangement Syndrome: Osama Bin Laden's Death. In May, The Washington Times attacked Obama following the successful raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, complaining that he golfed before the mission took place and that he "snub[bed] Bush" in his speech following bin Laden's death. [Media Matters, 5/3/11]
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Death Throes of the Republican Party
From The Washington Post -- October 30, 2011:
Paul Ryan’s frown should make Democrats smile
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
We may be reaching an inflection point, the moment when the terms of the political argument change decisively. Three indicators: an important speech last week by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the increasingly sharp tone of President Obama’s rhetoric and the success of Occupy Wall Street in resisting attempts to marginalize the movement.
The most telling was Ryan’s address at the Heritage Foundation. House Republicans regard Ryan as their prophet, their intellectual and their resident wonk. Usually, he carefully lays out the numbers and issues visionary promises of how cutting government (and taxes on the wealthy) will lead us down a blissful path to prosperity.
He’s sunny when everyone else is grumpy.
So it was jarring to see Ryan used as the principal counter-attacker against the president, who has been making the injuries of class inequality clear and pointing to the costs of the Republicans’ just-say-no strategy in Congress.
Ryan spoke of his “disappointment” that “the politics of division are making a big comeback.” He accused Obama of using “divisive rhetoric” and of “going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments.”
“Instead of working with us on . . . common-sense reforms,” Ryan declared, “the president is barnstorming swing states, pushing a divisive message that pits one group of Americans against another on the basis of class.”
Now it takes some temerity for a Republican to charge Obama with divisiveness, given the GOP’s willingness to promote or countenance assaults on the president as “a socialist,” as someone not even born in the United States, as a supporter of “death panels,” and on and on. Republicans calling Obama divisive is the equivalent of those of us who are Red Sox fans criticizing another team for folding under pressure.
But what’s most instructive is that Ryan would not have given this speech if the Republican Party were not so worried that it is losing control of the political narrative. In particular, growing inequalities of wealth and income — which should have been a central issue in American politics for at least a decade — are now finally at the heart of our discourse. We are, at last, discussing the social and economic costs of concentrating ever more resources in the hands of the top sliver of our society.
Ryan offered the classic defense of inequality, arguing that what really matters is upward mobility, and that the United States has more of it than those horrible welfare states in Europe. “Class is not a fixed designation in this country,” he declared. “We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups.”
The only problem is that upward mobility has declined as inequality has grown, and social mobility is now higher in Europe than it is in the United States. That’s shameful. And don’t believe me on this: Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum brought this up at a recent debate, backed by a study from the Economic Mobility Project.
It’s hard to justify more tax cuts for the wealthy in a country that is becoming more rigidly stratified by class. And if it is class warfare simply to acknowledge the facts, does this make Santorum a class warrior?
All of this explains why efforts to taint Occupy Wall Street as nothing more than a bunch of latter-day hippie radicals haven’t worked. It’s also why Obama, by sharpening his arguments about what’s fair and what’s unfair, has finally stopped his slide in the polls.
A recent survey by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center showed Occupy Wall Street to be more popular now than the Tea Party, which keeps losing ground. The poll also showed that these two movements are quite distinct — they are not part of some generalized protest. Only 10 percent of those surveyed supported both Occupy Wall Street and the tea party. And, as my colleague Greg Sargent has documented tirelessly, on many of Occupy’s core issues (favoring higher taxes on millionaires and believing in a more even distribution of income and wealth), public opinion strongly supports the anti-Wall Streeters.
Obama’s aides have a habit of congratulating themselves too much when things start going well. The president has a long way to go, and he is pursuing a strategy now that he resisted for a long time. But it ought to encourage him that Paul Ryan is terribly upset. Telling the truth about inequality is politically wise, and morally necessary.
Paul Ryan’s frown should make Democrats smile
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
We may be reaching an inflection point, the moment when the terms of the political argument change decisively. Three indicators: an important speech last week by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the increasingly sharp tone of President Obama’s rhetoric and the success of Occupy Wall Street in resisting attempts to marginalize the movement.
The most telling was Ryan’s address at the Heritage Foundation. House Republicans regard Ryan as their prophet, their intellectual and their resident wonk. Usually, he carefully lays out the numbers and issues visionary promises of how cutting government (and taxes on the wealthy) will lead us down a blissful path to prosperity.
He’s sunny when everyone else is grumpy.
So it was jarring to see Ryan used as the principal counter-attacker against the president, who has been making the injuries of class inequality clear and pointing to the costs of the Republicans’ just-say-no strategy in Congress.
Ryan spoke of his “disappointment” that “the politics of division are making a big comeback.” He accused Obama of using “divisive rhetoric” and of “going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments.”
“Instead of working with us on . . . common-sense reforms,” Ryan declared, “the president is barnstorming swing states, pushing a divisive message that pits one group of Americans against another on the basis of class.”
Now it takes some temerity for a Republican to charge Obama with divisiveness, given the GOP’s willingness to promote or countenance assaults on the president as “a socialist,” as someone not even born in the United States, as a supporter of “death panels,” and on and on. Republicans calling Obama divisive is the equivalent of those of us who are Red Sox fans criticizing another team for folding under pressure.
But what’s most instructive is that Ryan would not have given this speech if the Republican Party were not so worried that it is losing control of the political narrative. In particular, growing inequalities of wealth and income — which should have been a central issue in American politics for at least a decade — are now finally at the heart of our discourse. We are, at last, discussing the social and economic costs of concentrating ever more resources in the hands of the top sliver of our society.
Ryan offered the classic defense of inequality, arguing that what really matters is upward mobility, and that the United States has more of it than those horrible welfare states in Europe. “Class is not a fixed designation in this country,” he declared. “We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups.”
The only problem is that upward mobility has declined as inequality has grown, and social mobility is now higher in Europe than it is in the United States. That’s shameful. And don’t believe me on this: Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum brought this up at a recent debate, backed by a study from the Economic Mobility Project.
It’s hard to justify more tax cuts for the wealthy in a country that is becoming more rigidly stratified by class. And if it is class warfare simply to acknowledge the facts, does this make Santorum a class warrior?
All of this explains why efforts to taint Occupy Wall Street as nothing more than a bunch of latter-day hippie radicals haven’t worked. It’s also why Obama, by sharpening his arguments about what’s fair and what’s unfair, has finally stopped his slide in the polls.
A recent survey by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center showed Occupy Wall Street to be more popular now than the Tea Party, which keeps losing ground. The poll also showed that these two movements are quite distinct — they are not part of some generalized protest. Only 10 percent of those surveyed supported both Occupy Wall Street and the tea party. And, as my colleague Greg Sargent has documented tirelessly, on many of Occupy’s core issues (favoring higher taxes on millionaires and believing in a more even distribution of income and wealth), public opinion strongly supports the anti-Wall Streeters.
Obama’s aides have a habit of congratulating themselves too much when things start going well. The president has a long way to go, and he is pursuing a strategy now that he resisted for a long time. But it ought to encourage him that Paul Ryan is terribly upset. Telling the truth about inequality is politically wise, and morally necessary.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Fascist Fox News' Smear Queen, Bill O'Reilly, Uses Lies and Myths to Attack Planned Parenthood
From Media Matters for America -- October 29, 2011:
O'Reilly Pushes Dubious Charges Against Planned Parenthood Made By Ethically-Challenged Attorney Phill Kline
Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly suggested that Planned Parenthood conspired with the state of Kansas to shred evidence implicating Planned Parenthood in covering up statutory rapes. But the charges are based on accusations by attorney Phill Kline who has been found to have engaged in "dishonest conduct" during his crusade to prove that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are violating Kansas law.
O'Reilly And Kelly Hyped Allegations Kansas Officials Destroyed Evidence Of Wrongdoing By Planned Parenthood
O'Reilly And Megyn Kelly Suggest Planned Parenthood And Kansas Officials Conspired To Cover Up Wrongdoing. On the October 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Fox "straight news" anchor Megyn Kelly to discuss charges leveled against Planned Parenthood by ex-attorney general Phill Kline. From The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, State of Kansas and Planned Parenthood. Kansas is ground zero for the late-term abortion debate in this country. And Planned Parenthood is up to that to its neck. So they wanted to get some records from Planned Parenthood. Referrals. Abortion referrals to see how late they were, what the situation was. And Kansas destroyed the records.
KELLY: What happened was, you know, Planned Parenthood needs to keep records if it performs abortions in particular if you've got young girls going in there under the age of 14
O'REILLY: Because of statutory rape.
KELLY: That's right. And when they perform an abortion like that, they have to keep a record to let the state know. And the prosecutor at the time the attorney general Phill Kline, who the viewers may know by this point, says that he had proof that there was up to 166 abortions performed, and they only had a record of one from Planned Parenthood.
O'REILLY: And the reason that Kline alleges that Planned Parenthood didn't turn that over to him when he asked for it is because they were statutory rape cases which are mandated to be reported to the authorities in Kansas.
KELLY: Right. So he is saying where are the other records?
O'REILLY: Where are the 165?
O'REILLY: Does the state of Kansas routinely shred documents after a certain amount of time?
KELLY: They do, but, but the question here is whether you would ever do that when you knew --
O'REILLY: There's a criminal activity going on -- investigation.
KELLY: Yeah that there was a criminal investigation going on? That's highly unusual, there are rules.
O'REILLY: So you, Megyn Kelly, think something may be wrong.
KELLY: I think something stinks.
O'REILLY: Do you really?
KELLY: Something stinks here. I don't know who's got their fingerprints on it, but I think one of the things I find most highly suspicious is that why didn't the Department of Health go to the DA -- he's been litigating over those documents for, you know, months and years now -- and say, "don't argue over those. We destroyed them in 2005." Why did they wait?
O'REILLY: Because they were afraid that this whole investigation was going to blow up.
KELLY: Yeah, you tell me. [Fox New, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/28/11]
Case Is Based On Allegations Made By Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline
Kline Alleged That Planned Parenthood Had Falsified Documents About Abortion. From the Kansas City Star:
The destroyed records were critical in establishing the authenticity of records from 2003 that Kline obtained when he investigated Planned Parenthood as attorney general. Planned Parenthood also provided copies of the records, but Kline contended that those did not match the ones he had in his possession.
In 2007, after he became Johnson County prosecutor, Kline filed a 107-count complaint against the abortion provider.
In addition to the 23 felonies, the complaint also charged Planned Parenthood with multiple misdemeanor counts of failing to maintain the pregnancy termination reports, failing to perform viability tests on fetuses and unlawful late-term abortions.
Prosecutors contended that Planned Parenthood had not kept the documents five years as required by law and falsified copies to cover it up.
The current Johnson County district attorney, Steve Howe, picked up the case after he defeated Kline in the 2008 Republican primary and went on to win the general election.
Howe declined to comment on the case Friday. It was unclear when he discovered that the records were destroyed. He subpoenaed them last month, according to a response filed Friday by Planned Parenthood.
The records in question deal with reports that Planned Parenthood must file under state law for each abortion it performs. One copy is kept by Planned Parenthood in the patient files, and another is sent to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Prosecutors wanted to prove the records obtained by Kline were the same as those filed with the state and different from alleged copies provided later by Planned Parenthood.[Kansas City Star, 10/21/2011]
Kansas Authorities Have Rebuked Kline For "Dishonest Conduct"
Kansas Disciplinary Panel Recommended Kline Be Indefinitely Suspended Because Of "Dishonest Conduct" Related To His Investigations Of Clinics That Perform Abortion. At no point during the segment did Kelly or O'Reilly question the credibility of Kline's allegations. However, on October 12, the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys unanimously recommended that Kline should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law based on Kline's violations of Kansas attorney ethics rules during his investigations of clinics that performed abortions. The Kansas Supreme Court will make the final determination on whether Kline violated ethics rules and, if so, what his punishment should be. In coming to its recommendation, the board stated:
The Hearing Panel concluded that the Respondent has repeatedly violated many of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, including the most serious of the rules, the rules that prohibit engaging in false or dishonest conduct
Part of an attorney's oath in Kansas is:
You do solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Kansas; . . . that you will neither do, nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court; and that you will discharge your duties as an attorney and counselor of the Supreme Court and all other courts of the State of Kansas with fidelity both to the Court and to your cause, and to the best of your knowledge and ability. So help you God.
(Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 720). In addition to the rule violations, as mentioned by the Review Committee in ruling on the Respondent's motion for reconsideration, it also appears that the Respondent violated the oath of attorneys by consenting to the commission of numerous falsehoods. [Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, 10/12/11, via WatchdogMedia.org]
KS Supreme Court Sanctioned Kline For "Inexcusable" Behavior During Investigation Of Clinics That Perform Abortions. From a Kansas Supreme Court decision in Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood, in which the court ruled that Kline had improperly retained some Planned Parenthood documents after losing his bid to be reelected as Kansas attorney general:
An obvious and sorry pattern emerges from the foregoing examples and from Kline's performance at oral argument before us. Kline exhibits little, if any, respect for the authority of this court or for his responsibility to it and to the rule of law it husbands. His attitude and behavior are inexcusable, particularly for someone who purports to be a professional prosecutor. It is plain that he is interested in the pursuit of justice only as he chooses to define it. As already noted in Alpha, he has consistently disregarded the clear import of this court's directions, instead doing what he chose because "he knew best how he should behave, regardless of what this court had ordered, and [believed] that his priorities should trump whatever priorities this court had set."
In light of all of the foregoing and because Kline and his subordinates have, during their time in Johnson County, capitalized on what they learned while Kline was Attorney General, we hereby order the following sanction:
Kline shall produce and hand deliver to the Attorney General's office no later than 5 p.m. on December 12, 2008, a full and complete and understandable set of any and all materials gathered or generated by Kline and/or his subordinates in their abortion-related investigation and/or prosecution since Kline was sworn in as Johnson County District Attorney. Neither Kline nor any of his subordinates or lawyers may make any exceptions whatsoever for any reason or on any rationale to the foregoing order. "Full, complete, and understandable" means exactly what it says. This set of materials shall be organized and labeled exactly as organized and labeled in the files or repositories maintained by and/or for Kline and his subordinates in the discharge of their duties on behalf of the Johnson County District Attorney's office. The cost of the production and delivery of the set of materials described in this paragraph shall be borne by the Johnson County District Attorney's office.
We also hereby order as an additional sanction that Kline, Rucker, Maxwell, Williams, Reed and any other employee of the Johnson County District Attorney's office requested by the Attorney General shall meet with the Attorney General and/or his designee(s) on whatever date(s) and at whatever time(s) designated by the Attorney General up to and including noon on January 10, 2009, and at whatever place(s) designated by the Attorney General for the purpose of explaining all of the materials turned over by 5 p.m. on December 12, 2008, pursuant to the relief and sanction orders contained in this decision by this court. [Supreme Court of Kansas, 12/5/08]
KS Supreme Court Previously Criticized Kline For "Troubling," "Defiant" Answers To The Court. In a 2006 case also involving Kline's investigation of a clinic that provided abortions, Alpha Medical Clinic v. Anderson, the Kansas Supreme Court stated:
Kline's initial responses were troubling. He admitted that he attached sealed court records to a brief he knew would be unsealed; that he did so knowingly because, in his sole estimation, he believed it to be necessary to further his arguments; that he held a press conference on this criminal matter merely because he determined that petitioners had painted his previous actions in an unflattering light; and that he later permitted his staff to provide electronic copies of the sealed transcript to anyone who requested them. In essence, Kline has told this court that he did what he did simply because he believed that he knew best how he should behave, regardless of what this court had ordered, and that his priorities should trump whatever priorities this court had set. Furthermore, although there is conflict between the parties on exactly what was said in the press conference, i.e. whether the actual content of the sealed documents was discussed, Kline's stated reason for holding the conference-to combat what he saw as unflattering earlier press coverage-does not appear to be among the permissible reasons for an attorney in his position to engage in extrajudicial statements under Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 473). This too is troubling. [Supreme Court of Kansas, 2/3/06]
Kansas Supreme Court Later Said That In This Case, Kline "Narrowly Escaped A Contempt Citation." In Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood, the court stated that Kline had "persisted in his attitude and behavior despite the fact Alpha made clear that he had already narrowly escaped a contempt citation." [Supreme Court of Kansas, 12/5/08]
Officials Say They Shredded Planned Parenthood Records As Part Of Their Routine Policies On Document Destruction
Kansas Officials Said Planned Parenthood Document Destruction Was Routine. From the Kansas City Star:
Johnson County prosecutors asked a judge to delay a Monday hearing to decide if there's enough evidence to try Planned Parenthood on 23 felony counts of falsifying pregnancy termination reports.
Prosecutors say the records, which are central to making their case, were shredded sometime in 2005, roughly two years before charges were brought against Planned Parenthood by former Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment shredded the records as a "routine" destruction of state documents, court files said. [Kansas City Star, 10/12/2011]
O'Reilly Has A Long History Of Smears And Falsehoods Regarding Abortion:
O'Reilly Falsely Claimed That A Pregnant Woman's Life Could "Never" Be "In Danger" From Pregnancy Complications. [Media Matters, 10/16/06]
O'Reilly Claimed "Women's Privacy" Is "The New Mantra" Which Allows For "Infanticide." [Media Matters, 10/30/08]
O'Reilly Said Sebelius Is "Pro-Abortion, She Wants The Babies Done For." [Media Matters, 10/11/09]
O'Reilly On Kansas Abortion Provider Tiller: "[I]F I Could Get My Hands On Tiller -- Well, You Know. Can't Be Vigilantes. Can't Do That. It's Just A Figure Of Speech." [Media Matters, 6/1/09]
O'Reilly Asked Anti-Choice Activist If She "Believes That Planned Parenthood Is An Abortion Mill." [Media Matters, 11/11/09]
O'Reilly Promoted Myth That Planned Parenthood Is "Aiding And Abetting Child Sex Rings." [Media Matters, 4/19/11]
O'Reilly Pushes Dubious Charges Against Planned Parenthood Made By Ethically-Challenged Attorney Phill Kline
Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly suggested that Planned Parenthood conspired with the state of Kansas to shred evidence implicating Planned Parenthood in covering up statutory rapes. But the charges are based on accusations by attorney Phill Kline who has been found to have engaged in "dishonest conduct" during his crusade to prove that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are violating Kansas law.
O'Reilly And Kelly Hyped Allegations Kansas Officials Destroyed Evidence Of Wrongdoing By Planned Parenthood
O'Reilly And Megyn Kelly Suggest Planned Parenthood And Kansas Officials Conspired To Cover Up Wrongdoing. On the October 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Fox "straight news" anchor Megyn Kelly to discuss charges leveled against Planned Parenthood by ex-attorney general Phill Kline. From The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, State of Kansas and Planned Parenthood. Kansas is ground zero for the late-term abortion debate in this country. And Planned Parenthood is up to that to its neck. So they wanted to get some records from Planned Parenthood. Referrals. Abortion referrals to see how late they were, what the situation was. And Kansas destroyed the records.
KELLY: What happened was, you know, Planned Parenthood needs to keep records if it performs abortions in particular if you've got young girls going in there under the age of 14
O'REILLY: Because of statutory rape.
KELLY: That's right. And when they perform an abortion like that, they have to keep a record to let the state know. And the prosecutor at the time the attorney general Phill Kline, who the viewers may know by this point, says that he had proof that there was up to 166 abortions performed, and they only had a record of one from Planned Parenthood.
O'REILLY: And the reason that Kline alleges that Planned Parenthood didn't turn that over to him when he asked for it is because they were statutory rape cases which are mandated to be reported to the authorities in Kansas.
KELLY: Right. So he is saying where are the other records?
O'REILLY: Where are the 165?
O'REILLY: Does the state of Kansas routinely shred documents after a certain amount of time?
KELLY: They do, but, but the question here is whether you would ever do that when you knew --
O'REILLY: There's a criminal activity going on -- investigation.
KELLY: Yeah that there was a criminal investigation going on? That's highly unusual, there are rules.
O'REILLY: So you, Megyn Kelly, think something may be wrong.
KELLY: I think something stinks.
O'REILLY: Do you really?
KELLY: Something stinks here. I don't know who's got their fingerprints on it, but I think one of the things I find most highly suspicious is that why didn't the Department of Health go to the DA -- he's been litigating over those documents for, you know, months and years now -- and say, "don't argue over those. We destroyed them in 2005." Why did they wait?
O'REILLY: Because they were afraid that this whole investigation was going to blow up.
KELLY: Yeah, you tell me. [Fox New, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/28/11]
Case Is Based On Allegations Made By Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline
Kline Alleged That Planned Parenthood Had Falsified Documents About Abortion. From the Kansas City Star:
The destroyed records were critical in establishing the authenticity of records from 2003 that Kline obtained when he investigated Planned Parenthood as attorney general. Planned Parenthood also provided copies of the records, but Kline contended that those did not match the ones he had in his possession.
In 2007, after he became Johnson County prosecutor, Kline filed a 107-count complaint against the abortion provider.
In addition to the 23 felonies, the complaint also charged Planned Parenthood with multiple misdemeanor counts of failing to maintain the pregnancy termination reports, failing to perform viability tests on fetuses and unlawful late-term abortions.
Prosecutors contended that Planned Parenthood had not kept the documents five years as required by law and falsified copies to cover it up.
The current Johnson County district attorney, Steve Howe, picked up the case after he defeated Kline in the 2008 Republican primary and went on to win the general election.
Howe declined to comment on the case Friday. It was unclear when he discovered that the records were destroyed. He subpoenaed them last month, according to a response filed Friday by Planned Parenthood.
The records in question deal with reports that Planned Parenthood must file under state law for each abortion it performs. One copy is kept by Planned Parenthood in the patient files, and another is sent to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Prosecutors wanted to prove the records obtained by Kline were the same as those filed with the state and different from alleged copies provided later by Planned Parenthood.[Kansas City Star, 10/21/2011]
Kansas Authorities Have Rebuked Kline For "Dishonest Conduct"
Kansas Disciplinary Panel Recommended Kline Be Indefinitely Suspended Because Of "Dishonest Conduct" Related To His Investigations Of Clinics That Perform Abortion. At no point during the segment did Kelly or O'Reilly question the credibility of Kline's allegations. However, on October 12, the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys unanimously recommended that Kline should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law based on Kline's violations of Kansas attorney ethics rules during his investigations of clinics that performed abortions. The Kansas Supreme Court will make the final determination on whether Kline violated ethics rules and, if so, what his punishment should be. In coming to its recommendation, the board stated:
The Hearing Panel concluded that the Respondent has repeatedly violated many of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, including the most serious of the rules, the rules that prohibit engaging in false or dishonest conduct
Part of an attorney's oath in Kansas is:
You do solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Kansas; . . . that you will neither do, nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court; and that you will discharge your duties as an attorney and counselor of the Supreme Court and all other courts of the State of Kansas with fidelity both to the Court and to your cause, and to the best of your knowledge and ability. So help you God.
(Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 720). In addition to the rule violations, as mentioned by the Review Committee in ruling on the Respondent's motion for reconsideration, it also appears that the Respondent violated the oath of attorneys by consenting to the commission of numerous falsehoods. [Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, 10/12/11, via WatchdogMedia.org]
KS Supreme Court Sanctioned Kline For "Inexcusable" Behavior During Investigation Of Clinics That Perform Abortions. From a Kansas Supreme Court decision in Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood, in which the court ruled that Kline had improperly retained some Planned Parenthood documents after losing his bid to be reelected as Kansas attorney general:
An obvious and sorry pattern emerges from the foregoing examples and from Kline's performance at oral argument before us. Kline exhibits little, if any, respect for the authority of this court or for his responsibility to it and to the rule of law it husbands. His attitude and behavior are inexcusable, particularly for someone who purports to be a professional prosecutor. It is plain that he is interested in the pursuit of justice only as he chooses to define it. As already noted in Alpha, he has consistently disregarded the clear import of this court's directions, instead doing what he chose because "he knew best how he should behave, regardless of what this court had ordered, and [believed] that his priorities should trump whatever priorities this court had set."
In light of all of the foregoing and because Kline and his subordinates have, during their time in Johnson County, capitalized on what they learned while Kline was Attorney General, we hereby order the following sanction:
Kline shall produce and hand deliver to the Attorney General's office no later than 5 p.m. on December 12, 2008, a full and complete and understandable set of any and all materials gathered or generated by Kline and/or his subordinates in their abortion-related investigation and/or prosecution since Kline was sworn in as Johnson County District Attorney. Neither Kline nor any of his subordinates or lawyers may make any exceptions whatsoever for any reason or on any rationale to the foregoing order. "Full, complete, and understandable" means exactly what it says. This set of materials shall be organized and labeled exactly as organized and labeled in the files or repositories maintained by and/or for Kline and his subordinates in the discharge of their duties on behalf of the Johnson County District Attorney's office. The cost of the production and delivery of the set of materials described in this paragraph shall be borne by the Johnson County District Attorney's office.
We also hereby order as an additional sanction that Kline, Rucker, Maxwell, Williams, Reed and any other employee of the Johnson County District Attorney's office requested by the Attorney General shall meet with the Attorney General and/or his designee(s) on whatever date(s) and at whatever time(s) designated by the Attorney General up to and including noon on January 10, 2009, and at whatever place(s) designated by the Attorney General for the purpose of explaining all of the materials turned over by 5 p.m. on December 12, 2008, pursuant to the relief and sanction orders contained in this decision by this court. [Supreme Court of Kansas, 12/5/08]
KS Supreme Court Previously Criticized Kline For "Troubling," "Defiant" Answers To The Court. In a 2006 case also involving Kline's investigation of a clinic that provided abortions, Alpha Medical Clinic v. Anderson, the Kansas Supreme Court stated:
Kline's initial responses were troubling. He admitted that he attached sealed court records to a brief he knew would be unsealed; that he did so knowingly because, in his sole estimation, he believed it to be necessary to further his arguments; that he held a press conference on this criminal matter merely because he determined that petitioners had painted his previous actions in an unflattering light; and that he later permitted his staff to provide electronic copies of the sealed transcript to anyone who requested them. In essence, Kline has told this court that he did what he did simply because he believed that he knew best how he should behave, regardless of what this court had ordered, and that his priorities should trump whatever priorities this court had set. Furthermore, although there is conflict between the parties on exactly what was said in the press conference, i.e. whether the actual content of the sealed documents was discussed, Kline's stated reason for holding the conference-to combat what he saw as unflattering earlier press coverage-does not appear to be among the permissible reasons for an attorney in his position to engage in extrajudicial statements under Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 473). This too is troubling. [Supreme Court of Kansas, 2/3/06]
Kansas Supreme Court Later Said That In This Case, Kline "Narrowly Escaped A Contempt Citation." In Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood, the court stated that Kline had "persisted in his attitude and behavior despite the fact Alpha made clear that he had already narrowly escaped a contempt citation." [Supreme Court of Kansas, 12/5/08]
Officials Say They Shredded Planned Parenthood Records As Part Of Their Routine Policies On Document Destruction
Kansas Officials Said Planned Parenthood Document Destruction Was Routine. From the Kansas City Star:
Johnson County prosecutors asked a judge to delay a Monday hearing to decide if there's enough evidence to try Planned Parenthood on 23 felony counts of falsifying pregnancy termination reports.
Prosecutors say the records, which are central to making their case, were shredded sometime in 2005, roughly two years before charges were brought against Planned Parenthood by former Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment shredded the records as a "routine" destruction of state documents, court files said. [Kansas City Star, 10/12/2011]
O'Reilly Has A Long History Of Smears And Falsehoods Regarding Abortion:
O'Reilly Falsely Claimed That A Pregnant Woman's Life Could "Never" Be "In Danger" From Pregnancy Complications. [Media Matters, 10/16/06]
O'Reilly Claimed "Women's Privacy" Is "The New Mantra" Which Allows For "Infanticide." [Media Matters, 10/30/08]
O'Reilly Said Sebelius Is "Pro-Abortion, She Wants The Babies Done For." [Media Matters, 10/11/09]
O'Reilly On Kansas Abortion Provider Tiller: "[I]F I Could Get My Hands On Tiller -- Well, You Know. Can't Be Vigilantes. Can't Do That. It's Just A Figure Of Speech." [Media Matters, 6/1/09]
O'Reilly Asked Anti-Choice Activist If She "Believes That Planned Parenthood Is An Abortion Mill." [Media Matters, 11/11/09]
O'Reilly Promoted Myth That Planned Parenthood Is "Aiding And Abetting Child Sex Rings." [Media Matters, 4/19/11]
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The GOP Has Turned Itself into the Garbage Offal Party -- It's the Offal Tower and -- A National Disgrace
From Media Matters for America -- october 27, 2011:
Right-Wing Media Go On Attack Against Student Debt Relief
Fox News and the right-wing media are attacking President Obama's student loan relief plan as a "campaign speech" and an attempt to "buy votes." Obama's plan is designed to help ease the burden of student loans for millions of people by lowering interest rates, consolidating outstanding student loans, and providing debt relief to students after they spend 20 years paying off their loans.
Obama Announces Student Loan Relief Plan
AP: "Obama Announces Help For Student Loan Borrowers." From an October 26 Associated Press article:
President Barack Obama recalled his struggles with student loan debt as he unveiled a plan Wednesday that could give millions of young people some relief on their payments.
Obama's plan will accelerate a measure passed by Congress that reduces the maximum required payment on student loans from 15 percent of discretionary income annually to 10 percent. He will put it into effect in 2012, instead of 2014. In addition, the White House says the remaining debt would be forgiven after 20 years, instead of 25. About 1.6 million borrowers could be affected.
He will also allow borrowers who have a loan from the Federal Family Education Loan Program and a direct loan from the government to consolidate them into one. The consolidated loan would carry an interest rate of up to a half percentage point less than before. This could affect 5.8 million borrowers.
Student loans are the No. 2 source of household debt. The president's announcement came on the same day as a new report on tuition costs from the College Board. It showed that average in-state tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose $631 this fall, or 8.3 percent, compared with a year ago. Nationally, the cost of a full credit load has passed $8,000, an all-time high.
White House: "Obama Administration To Lower Student Loan Payments For Millions Of Borrowers." In an October 25 press release, the White House outlined the Obama administration's plan to help Americans "manage student loan debt." The press release stated that the plan will "offer recent graduates an opportunity to consolidate loans and reduce interest rates." From the press release:
Today, the Obama Administration announced it is taking steps to increase college affordability by making it easier to manage student loan debt. The announcement is part of a series of executive actions to put Americans back to work and strengthen the economy because we can't wait for Congressional Republicans to act.
The Administration is moving forward with a new "Pay As You Earn" proposal that will reduce monthly payments for more than one and a half million current college students and borrowers. Starting in 2014, borrowers will be able to reduce their monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of their discretionary income. But President Obama realizes that many students need relief sooner than that. The new "Pay As You Earn" proposal will allow about 1.6 million students the ability to cap their loan payments at 10 percent starting next year, and the plan will forgive the balance of their debt after 20 years of payments. Additionally, starting this January an estimated 6 million students and recent college graduates will be able to consolidate their loans and reduce their interest rates.
Conservatives Attack Student Loan Relief Plan
Guilfoyle: Obama's Student Loan Relief Plan Is "Campaigning, It's Politics .... He Wants To Buy Some Votes Of The Youth." During the October 26 edition of Fox News' The Five, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested Obama's plan to provide some relief to people with student loans was actually an attempt to "buy some votes of the youth." From Fox News' The Five:
GREG GUTFELD (co-host): Kimberly, I want to ask you, though. The real problem here is tuition. It's not the loans. If the tuitions were lower you wouldn't have this problem with the loans. But because you have the loans, the tuition goes up.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: Right, but where's the incentive then to lower the tuition? Some people in colleges and institutions, they like their money. But what this is about is campaigning, it's politics, it's 2012. He wants to buy some votes of the youth. It makes sense.
GUTFELD: Yeah.
GUILFOYLE: These are the people who were very popular, came out for him, supported his presidency. He needs them again. Even more so this time. So this a way to rally them kind of speak to the people that are protesting and the college students. [Fox News, The Five, 10/26/11]
Bolling: Obama's Plan To Help Americans With Student Loan Debt Is An Attempt To "Buy The Young Vote." During the October 25 edition of The Five, co-host Eric Bolling attacked Obama's plan to help Americans consolidate and lower their payments on student loans after college before it was even announced. Bolling proclaimed the administration was attempting to "buy the young vote" and asserted that it "should be illegal." [Fox News, The Five, 10/25/11]
Lou Dobbs Claimed Obama's Plan Offering Relief To Student Loan Recipients Is About "Getting Re-Elected." In an October 26 Facebook post about Obama's new student loan relief plan, Fox's Lou Dobbs wrote, "this is more about getting re-elected than it is spurring economic growth." [Facebook, 10/26/11]
Perino Called Obama's Announcement Of Student Loan Relief Plan A "Campaign Speech." In an October 26 Twitter post, co-host for Fox News' The Five Dana Perino wrote:
Hoft: "Obama's Plan To Bailout Student Loan Recipients Is His Latest Attempt To Buy Votes At The Expense Of The American Taxpayer." From an October 26 blog post on Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit blog:
Obama's plan to bailout student loan recipients is his latest attempt to buy votes at the expense of the American taxpayer. It also happens to be the latest move in his Cloward Piven strategy to destroy the US economy.
Free Obama Money for ... special interest groups.
Obama announced a new plan today that will add billions to his record debt and erode the US economy by giving free money to students who borrowed their way through college.[Gateway Pundit, 10/26/11]
Student Loan Debt Is A Growing Burden
Data Shows Average Debt For Students Graduating From College Is Rising At A Staggering Rate. Data analysis by The Project on Student Debt found that the average debt for graduating seniors at public universities is "$22,200 -- 20% higher than in 2004." The average debt for graduating seniors at private for-profit universities was "$33,050 - 23% higher than in 2004." From the January 2010 study titled Quick Facts about Student Debt:
Average debt levels for graduating seniors with student loans rose to $23,200 in 2008 -- a 24% increase from $18,650 in 2004.
In 2008:
• At public universities, average debt was $20,200 -- 20% higher than in 2004, when the average was $16,850.
• At private nonprofit universities, average debt was $27,650 -- 29% higher than in 2004, when the average was $21,500.
• At private for-profit universities, average debt was $33,050 -- 23% higher than in 2004, when the average was $26,850. [The Project On Student Debt, Quick Facts about Student Debt, January 2010]
U.S. Department Of Education: Student Loan Default Rate At 8.8 Percent -- The Highest It Has Been In More Than A Decade. The U.S. Department of Education announced in September that the latest national student loan cohort default rate is at "8.8 percent." This is an increase from the 7.0 percent rate from the previous fiscal year, and is the highest rate in more than a decade. The cohort default rate is defined as "the percentage of borrowers who enter repayment in a fiscal year and default by the end of the next fiscal year." From the announcement:
The U.S. Department of Education today released the official FY 2009 national student loan cohort default rate, which has risen to 8.8 percent, up from 7.0 percent in FY 2008. The cohort default rates increased for all sectors: from 6.0 percent to 7.2 percent for public institutions, from 4.0 percent to 4.6 percent for private institutions, and from 11.6 percent to 15 percent at for-profit schools.
The rates announced today represent a snapshot in time, with the FY 2009 cohort consisting of borrowers whose first loan repayments came due between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009, and who defaulted before Sept. 30, 2010. More than 3.6 million borrowers from 5,900 schools entered repayment during this window of time, and more than 320,000 defaulted. Those borrowers who defaulted after the two-year period are not counted as defaulters in this data set.
Right-Wing Media Go On Attack Against Student Debt Relief
Fox News and the right-wing media are attacking President Obama's student loan relief plan as a "campaign speech" and an attempt to "buy votes." Obama's plan is designed to help ease the burden of student loans for millions of people by lowering interest rates, consolidating outstanding student loans, and providing debt relief to students after they spend 20 years paying off their loans.
Obama Announces Student Loan Relief Plan
AP: "Obama Announces Help For Student Loan Borrowers." From an October 26 Associated Press article:
President Barack Obama recalled his struggles with student loan debt as he unveiled a plan Wednesday that could give millions of young people some relief on their payments.
Obama's plan will accelerate a measure passed by Congress that reduces the maximum required payment on student loans from 15 percent of discretionary income annually to 10 percent. He will put it into effect in 2012, instead of 2014. In addition, the White House says the remaining debt would be forgiven after 20 years, instead of 25. About 1.6 million borrowers could be affected.
He will also allow borrowers who have a loan from the Federal Family Education Loan Program and a direct loan from the government to consolidate them into one. The consolidated loan would carry an interest rate of up to a half percentage point less than before. This could affect 5.8 million borrowers.
Student loans are the No. 2 source of household debt. The president's announcement came on the same day as a new report on tuition costs from the College Board. It showed that average in-state tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose $631 this fall, or 8.3 percent, compared with a year ago. Nationally, the cost of a full credit load has passed $8,000, an all-time high.
White House: "Obama Administration To Lower Student Loan Payments For Millions Of Borrowers." In an October 25 press release, the White House outlined the Obama administration's plan to help Americans "manage student loan debt." The press release stated that the plan will "offer recent graduates an opportunity to consolidate loans and reduce interest rates." From the press release:
Today, the Obama Administration announced it is taking steps to increase college affordability by making it easier to manage student loan debt. The announcement is part of a series of executive actions to put Americans back to work and strengthen the economy because we can't wait for Congressional Republicans to act.
The Administration is moving forward with a new "Pay As You Earn" proposal that will reduce monthly payments for more than one and a half million current college students and borrowers. Starting in 2014, borrowers will be able to reduce their monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of their discretionary income. But President Obama realizes that many students need relief sooner than that. The new "Pay As You Earn" proposal will allow about 1.6 million students the ability to cap their loan payments at 10 percent starting next year, and the plan will forgive the balance of their debt after 20 years of payments. Additionally, starting this January an estimated 6 million students and recent college graduates will be able to consolidate their loans and reduce their interest rates.
Conservatives Attack Student Loan Relief Plan
Guilfoyle: Obama's Student Loan Relief Plan Is "Campaigning, It's Politics .... He Wants To Buy Some Votes Of The Youth." During the October 26 edition of Fox News' The Five, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested Obama's plan to provide some relief to people with student loans was actually an attempt to "buy some votes of the youth." From Fox News' The Five:
GREG GUTFELD (co-host): Kimberly, I want to ask you, though. The real problem here is tuition. It's not the loans. If the tuitions were lower you wouldn't have this problem with the loans. But because you have the loans, the tuition goes up.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: Right, but where's the incentive then to lower the tuition? Some people in colleges and institutions, they like their money. But what this is about is campaigning, it's politics, it's 2012. He wants to buy some votes of the youth. It makes sense.
GUTFELD: Yeah.
GUILFOYLE: These are the people who were very popular, came out for him, supported his presidency. He needs them again. Even more so this time. So this a way to rally them kind of speak to the people that are protesting and the college students. [Fox News, The Five, 10/26/11]
Bolling: Obama's Plan To Help Americans With Student Loan Debt Is An Attempt To "Buy The Young Vote." During the October 25 edition of The Five, co-host Eric Bolling attacked Obama's plan to help Americans consolidate and lower their payments on student loans after college before it was even announced. Bolling proclaimed the administration was attempting to "buy the young vote" and asserted that it "should be illegal." [Fox News, The Five, 10/25/11]
Lou Dobbs Claimed Obama's Plan Offering Relief To Student Loan Recipients Is About "Getting Re-Elected." In an October 26 Facebook post about Obama's new student loan relief plan, Fox's Lou Dobbs wrote, "this is more about getting re-elected than it is spurring economic growth." [Facebook, 10/26/11]
Perino Called Obama's Announcement Of Student Loan Relief Plan A "Campaign Speech." In an October 26 Twitter post, co-host for Fox News' The Five Dana Perino wrote:
Hoft: "Obama's Plan To Bailout Student Loan Recipients Is His Latest Attempt To Buy Votes At The Expense Of The American Taxpayer." From an October 26 blog post on Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit blog:
Obama's plan to bailout student loan recipients is his latest attempt to buy votes at the expense of the American taxpayer. It also happens to be the latest move in his Cloward Piven strategy to destroy the US economy.
Free Obama Money for ... special interest groups.
Obama announced a new plan today that will add billions to his record debt and erode the US economy by giving free money to students who borrowed their way through college.[Gateway Pundit, 10/26/11]
Student Loan Debt Is A Growing Burden
Data Shows Average Debt For Students Graduating From College Is Rising At A Staggering Rate. Data analysis by The Project on Student Debt found that the average debt for graduating seniors at public universities is "$22,200 -- 20% higher than in 2004." The average debt for graduating seniors at private for-profit universities was "$33,050 - 23% higher than in 2004." From the January 2010 study titled Quick Facts about Student Debt:
Average debt levels for graduating seniors with student loans rose to $23,200 in 2008 -- a 24% increase from $18,650 in 2004.
In 2008:
• At public universities, average debt was $20,200 -- 20% higher than in 2004, when the average was $16,850.
• At private nonprofit universities, average debt was $27,650 -- 29% higher than in 2004, when the average was $21,500.
• At private for-profit universities, average debt was $33,050 -- 23% higher than in 2004, when the average was $26,850. [The Project On Student Debt, Quick Facts about Student Debt, January 2010]
U.S. Department Of Education: Student Loan Default Rate At 8.8 Percent -- The Highest It Has Been In More Than A Decade. The U.S. Department of Education announced in September that the latest national student loan cohort default rate is at "8.8 percent." This is an increase from the 7.0 percent rate from the previous fiscal year, and is the highest rate in more than a decade. The cohort default rate is defined as "the percentage of borrowers who enter repayment in a fiscal year and default by the end of the next fiscal year." From the announcement:
The U.S. Department of Education today released the official FY 2009 national student loan cohort default rate, which has risen to 8.8 percent, up from 7.0 percent in FY 2008. The cohort default rates increased for all sectors: from 6.0 percent to 7.2 percent for public institutions, from 4.0 percent to 4.6 percent for private institutions, and from 11.6 percent to 15 percent at for-profit schools.
The rates announced today represent a snapshot in time, with the FY 2009 cohort consisting of borrowers whose first loan repayments came due between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009, and who defaulted before Sept. 30, 2010. More than 3.6 million borrowers from 5,900 schools entered repayment during this window of time, and more than 320,000 defaulted. Those borrowers who defaulted after the two-year period are not counted as defaulters in this data set.
The Republican Party Has Turned Itself into a Piece of Crap and a National Disgrace
From The Progress Report -- October 27, 2011
Survey Says: The Public Supports the 99% Movement
The Verdict Is In
As the Occupy Wall Street protest and growing 99 Percent Movement enters its second month, poll after poll shows public support for the movement.
Here’s the Rundown.
82… percent of New York State voters think it’s OK for the Occupy Wall Street protesters to protest.
70… percent of Americans have heard “a lot” or “some” about the 99 Percent Movement.
67… percent of Americans think it would be a “bad idea” to lower taxes on large corporations.
66 …percent of Americans think the distribution of money and wealth in this country should be “more evenly distributed among more people.”
65 …percent of Americans think taxes should be raised on millionaires.
66 …percent of New York State voters support a millionaire’s tax.
58 …percent of New York State voters agree with the views of the Wall Street protesters.
46 …percent of Americans think the 99 Percent Movement “reflect[s] the views of most Americans,” compared to just 34 percent who say it does not.
43 …percent of Americans agree with the views of protesters, compared to just 27 percent who disagree.
The 1% Wants Higher Taxes on Millionaires Too
68 …percent of millionaire investors support raising taxes on millionaires.
61 …percent of investors with a net worth of more than $5 million support raising taxes on millionaires.
Americans Understand the GOP is Only Looking Out for the 1%
69 …percent of Americans think that the policies of the Republicans in Congress “favor the rich.”
9 …percent of Americans think that the policies of the Republicans in Congress “favor the middle class.”
2 …percent of Americans (who apparently don’t get out much) think that the policies of the Republicans in Congress “favor the poor.”
Survey Says: The Public Supports the 99% Movement
The Verdict Is In
As the Occupy Wall Street protest and growing 99 Percent Movement enters its second month, poll after poll shows public support for the movement.
Here’s the Rundown.
82… percent of New York State voters think it’s OK for the Occupy Wall Street protesters to protest.
70… percent of Americans have heard “a lot” or “some” about the 99 Percent Movement.
67… percent of Americans think it would be a “bad idea” to lower taxes on large corporations.
66 …percent of Americans think the distribution of money and wealth in this country should be “more evenly distributed among more people.”
65 …percent of Americans think taxes should be raised on millionaires.
66 …percent of New York State voters support a millionaire’s tax.
58 …percent of New York State voters agree with the views of the Wall Street protesters.
46 …percent of Americans think the 99 Percent Movement “reflect[s] the views of most Americans,” compared to just 34 percent who say it does not.
43 …percent of Americans agree with the views of protesters, compared to just 27 percent who disagree.
The 1% Wants Higher Taxes on Millionaires Too
68 …percent of millionaire investors support raising taxes on millionaires.
61 …percent of investors with a net worth of more than $5 million support raising taxes on millionaires.
Americans Understand the GOP is Only Looking Out for the 1%
69 …percent of Americans think that the policies of the Republicans in Congress “favor the rich.”
9 …percent of Americans think that the policies of the Republicans in Congress “favor the middle class.”
2 …percent of Americans (who apparently don’t get out much) think that the policies of the Republicans in Congress “favor the poor.”
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Fascist FOX News Tries to Convince Americans That We Are All As Fascist as FOX is -- Tell It to Mussolini
From Media Matters for America -- October 26, 2011:
Fox Revives Myth That "America Is A Center-Right Country"
This year, Fox has continued to push the right-wing talking point that "America is a center-right country." In fact, on issue after issue, polls are clear that Americans favor progressive policies.
Fox Again Claims America Is "Center-Right"
Doug Schoen: "America Is A Center-Right Country." On the October 19 edition of America Live, Fox News contributor Doug Schoen said:
SCHOEN: America is a center-right country, Megyn. Forty percent of America are conservatives, 36 are moderates, 20 percent are liberals, and if the Democrats throw in so closely with a group whose values are inimical to those of swing voters, I think that they will be dangerously out of step with the broad base of American opinion, which, after all, the congressional elections rebutted and refuted the Obama policies and endorsed small government. [Fox News, America Live, 10/19/11]
Brit Hume: Obama Advisers Were Wrong To Declare That America "Was No Longer A Center-Right Country." On Fox News' Special Report, senior political analyst Brit Hume stated:
HUME: For an incumbent president seeking re-election to say publicly that people are not better off than they were before he took off is to say the least unorthodox. Voters are not in the habit of returning to office president who admit that things got worse on their watch.
But one begins to suspect that the president and his political advisers are not the wizards they've once seen, recalled right after Mr. Obama's election, David Plouffe, his senior political strategist then and now declared that America was no longer a center right country but had turned center left. You might think that he and the president would have changed their minds after the historic repudiation they and their party received in the midterm election. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 10/4/11, via Nexis]
Bernie Goldberg: "America Is A Center-Right Country." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing why Fox News is "now dominating the information flow in America," Fox News media analyst Bernie Goldberg said to host Bill O'Reilly:
GOLDBERG: Well, it's -- let me tell you -- let me -- this is my take on it. America is a center-right country. Fox tilts to the right. Every single person, if not literally 99.9 percent of the people watching us right now, used to, before Fox, watch the evening news at CBS, NBC, or ABC. They came over to Fox. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/27/11]
Fox Hosted Andrew Breitbart To Claim That "We're A Center-Right Nation." On Fox Business, David Asman hosted right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart to claim that the United States has a "2-1 ratio of conservatives to liberals." From the broadcast:
ASMAN: There was a narrative you don't remember, but I do. I was there in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running for president, and the narrative back then from the entire media was that if Reagan is elected, we'll be at war with the Soviets in a couple of months. The economy, as bad as it was back then, is going to be much worse. And this was with no Fox News, no Rush, no Internet, no Breitbart. And yet, the American public didn't buy it.
All of the media and all of the -- the conservative media and the fair and balanced media didn't exist back then. But despite that, the American people went against the mainstream media. So how do you account for that?
BREITBART: Well, look -- well, first of all, we're a center-right nation that's -- and the media's controlled by the people on the elite coasts. So they -- the way that the minority in this country -- and according to Gallup, we're still a 2-to-1 ratio of conservatives to liberals. Yet, we have these squeakers every election cycle. They're squeakers and it's 50-50, it's so close, because of the media being able to frame who the good guys and who the bad guys are. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 8/24/11]
Laura Ingraham Suggested "Most Of The Country Is A Little Bit More Conservative" Than The Media. From the August 15 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
INGRAHAM: [W]hat politician out there today would pass your litmus test on your point. That's a legitimate point that you just made. You know, speak the same way to every person.
GOLDBERG: Not many.
INGRAHAM: Who in the Republican field would pass that litmus test?
GOLDBERG: Not many. I acknowledge that.
INGRAHAM: The point is, the questions always go one way, right, the media they are not going to ask questions from another point of view when, you know, when probably most of the country is a little bit more conservative on some of these social issues than the media. But they are not going to ask the questions the other way around, right.
They are always going to put -- try to put the conservative in the box by asking them these questions, oh, you are a hateful person. You are not a nice person or whatever. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 8/15/11, via Nexis]
Fox Panelist Charles Krauthammer: America "Has Remained" Center-Right "For Over Four Decades." On his show, O'Reilly argued that the media "will all be trying to get President Obama re-elected." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer replied:
KRAUTHAMMER: You've got to remember this: The left, the Democrats always have the press on their side. They've had it for 40 years. Nonetheless, the Republicans have won the presidency seven out of the last 11 elections. And that's because what Republicans have, what conservatives have is the country, which is a center-right country, has remained so almost unchangingly for four decades.
So what the media bias does is it slightly -- it gives an advantage. It's a major advantage, but it's undoing the deficit that Democrats and liberals already have, because it's a country that is not essentially conducive to a liberal message. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/24/11]
Bill O'Reilly: "We Are A Center-Right Nation." Claiming that The New York Times "is crushed" and is "lamenting, wailing their guy is not doing the liberal thing," O'Reilly asserted: "If Obamacare is thrown out, the left will have pretty much lost everything. The why behind all of this is that President Obama badly underestimated the American public. We are a center-right nation." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 4/5/11]
The Majority Of Americans Are Progressive On Issues Ranging From The Economy...
Major National Polls Show That Americans Believe We Need To Raise Taxes. In a September 19 post on the Capital Gains And Games blog, Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett wrote:
I have previously posted a table showing that people support raising taxes as part of deficit reduction by a 2-to-1 margin over the Grover Norquist/Club for Growth/Tea Party position that the deficit must be reduced only by spending cuts without a penny of higher taxes. In light of President Obama's new budget plan, which includes higher taxes, I am posting an updated table, including a poll on Friday showing that three-fourths of people support higher taxes and only 21 percent support the doctrinaire right-wing position. [Capital Gains And Games, 9/19/11]
Gallup: 70 Percent Of Americans Want To End Wasteful Tax Giveaways To Corporations. In a recent Gallup poll, 70 percent of respondents favored "increasing taxes on some corporations by eliminating certain tax deductions." [Gallup, 9/20/11]
Three Out of Four Voters Support Tax Increases On Oil And Gas Companies, Private Jet Owners, And The Wealthy. In a July CNN poll, 73 percent of those questioned, supported "increasing the taxes paid by oil and gas companies" and "people who make more than $250,000/yr." Seventy-six percent supported increasing taxes "paid by businesses that own private jets." [CNN, 7/21/11]
Nearly Three-Fourths Of Americans Disapprove Of GOP's Handling Of Default Crisis. Following this summer's debt crisis, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 72 percent of Americans disapproved of congressional Republicans' handling of the issue. [CBS News/The New York Times, 8/4/11]
Time: Americans Agree With Occupy Wall Street Movement. A Time poll from this month found that among Americans familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement, 79 percent agree that "the gap between the rich and poor in the U.S. has grown too large," and 86 percent agree that "Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington." [Time, 10/13/11]
To Education...
Committee for Education Funding: Polls Show Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Education Cuts. In March, the Committee For Education Funding reported: "Results from nine different public opinion polls since January make clear that the American public strongly opposes cutting federal spending for education programs for both K12 and higher education." From Bloomberg News:
A March 2011 Bloomberg National News poll found that by an almost four to one margin (77-21 percent) the public opposes proposals to "significantly cut education programs, including No Child Left Behind, Head Start, and subsidies for college loans". [Committee for Education Funding, 3/11]
To Public Workers And Labor Issues...
CNN: Three Out Of Four Americans Support Using Federal Funds To Hire More Public Workers. In a September CNN Poll, 74 percent of respondents said they favored "providing federal money to state governments to allow them to hire teachers and first responders." [CNN, 9/14/11]
Gallup: A Majority Of The Public Supports Unions And Public Employees. From Gallup:
Wash. Post On Wisconsin Labor Dispute: "The Verdict Is Clear: Americans Support Public Employees In This Standoff." In a March 2 post, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported on the public's consistent support of public employee bargaining rights:
Indeed, the verdict is clear: Americans support public employees in this standoff. Whether that will impact the outcome of the fight, of course, remains to be seen. But the bigger story here -- one that will ripple far beyond what happens in Wisconsin -- is that public employees are not proving the easy scapegoat many predicted they would be, and when faced with the question of whether their fundamental union rights should be taken away, Americans have stepped up and answered with a firm No. [Washington Post, 3/2/11]
To Social Benefits...
CNN: Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Cuts To Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid. Eighty-seven percent of Americans don't want the government to make cuts to Medicare and 84 percent oppose cuts to Social Security in order to reduce the deficit. [CNN, 7/21/11]
Pew: Three Out Of Five Americans Feel The Government Needs To Honor Medicare Benefits. Pew found that 62 percent of Americans feel that "the government needs to keep its promises to older people" by maintaining their Medicare benefits, "even for those who are well-off." [Pew Research Center, 6/11]
CNN: Nearly Three Out Of Four Americans Don't Believe Social Security Is A Failure. From the CNN/ORC poll released on September 13:
The Social Security system has been described as a "monstrous lie" and as a failure. Do you think those phrases are an accurate description of the Social Security system, or don't you think so?
Accurate 27%
Not accurate 72%
No opinion 1% [CNN, 9/13/11]
Pew: 87 Percent Of Americans Say Social Security Has Been Good For Our Country. From the poll:
[Pew Research Center, 7/7/11]
Pew: Americans Also Oppose "Allowing States To Limit Medicaid Eligibility." From the same Pew article:
The public also opposes making Medicare recipients more responsible for their health care costs and allowing states to limit Medicaid eligibility. About six-in-ten (61%) say people on Medicare already pay enough of their own health care costs, while only 31% think recipients need to be responsible for more of the costs of their health care in order to make the system financially secure. [Pew Research Center, 7/7/11]
To Environmental Issues...
Sixty-Nine Percent Of Americans Support Stricter Limits On Air Pollution. According to a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll, 69 percent of respondents favored the EPA "updating standards with stricter limits on air pollution." [Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 2/11]
Only 18 Percent Of Americans Agree With GOP Attempts To Block The EPA From Keeping Corporate Polluters In Check. From an ORC International polling memo:
Americans do not want Congress to kill the EPA's anti-pollution updates. Only 18 percent of Americans -- including fewer than a third of Republicans (32 percent) -- believe that "Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards," after being told: "Some members of Congress are proposing to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating safeguards to protect our health from dangerous air pollution, saying they will cost businesses too much money." More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) -- including 61 percent of Republicans -- say "Congress (should) let the EPA do its job." [ORC International, 2/2/11]
The Hill: "Even The Most Hardened Conservatives" Support Investing In Solar. A series of polls conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates testing the impact of the Solyndra scandal reportedly found that "even the most hardened conservatives" showed overall support for the solar industry. From The Hill:
In addition to the Ohio survey, FM3 conducted focus groups in California on behalf of the Sierra Club, finding that awareness of the Solyndra issue was higher there.
The memo states that male GOP swing voters in California voiced "strong faith" about the solar industry's viability.
"These voters were quick to condemn the federal government for failing to do its due diligence in evaluating Solyndra's business prospects, and for squandering taxpayer dollars on what they saw as a bad bet. But even the most hardened conservatives in that group strongly agreed that the solar industry is strong, growing, and worthy of future investment," it states. [The Hill, 9/28/11]
Sixty-One Percent Of Americans Agree That Government Regulations Keep Businesses Ethical. From the Public Religion Research Institute:
Overall most (61%) Americans disagree that most businesses would act ethically on their own without regulation from the government. Less than 4-in-10 (37%) believe that they would. This holds true across political and religious lines, with the lone exception of those who identify with the Tea Party movement (53% agree). [Public Religion Research Institute, 4/20/11]
...And Social Issues
Gallup: "A Majority Of Americans (53%) Believe Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Recognized By The Law As Valid." From the May 20 Gallup memo:
For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change. [Gallup, 5/20/11]
CNN Poll Found That 78 Percent Of Americans Favored Repealing DADT. From The Hill article:
More than three-fourths of Americans favor repealing "Don't ask, don't tell," according to a new CNN poll.
A full 78 percent of respondents said that "people who are openly gay or homosexual" should be able to serve in the armed forces. The results are similar to what CNN found in December of 2008 (81 percent) and May of 2007 (79 percent). [The Hill, 5/25/10]
Gallup: A "Record-High" Number Of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana. From the October 17 article:
A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal. [Gallup, 10/17/11]
CNN: Three Out Of Four Americans Support A Woman's Right To Choose In "Any Or Some Circumstances." In a September CNN poll, 25 percent of respondents agreed that abortion should be legal under "any circumstances" and an additional 53 percent said it should be legal under "some circumstances." [CNN Poll, 9/15/11]
Media Figures Attempted To Push The Same "Center-Right" Claim In 2008
Newsweek's Jonathan Darman insisted America is a "center-right country." [Newsweek, 9/19/08]
Newsweek's Jon Meacham: "America remains a center-right nation -- a fact that a President would forget at his peril." [Newsweek, 10/17/08]
On CNN Newsroom, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan said, "No question this country is center-right." [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 11/6/08, via Media Matters]
During the November 5, 2008, edition of America's Election HQ, Fox News contributor Karl Rove said: "Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized that." [Fox News, America's Election HQ, 11/5/08, via Media Matters]
Fox Revives Myth That "America Is A Center-Right Country"
This year, Fox has continued to push the right-wing talking point that "America is a center-right country." In fact, on issue after issue, polls are clear that Americans favor progressive policies.
Fox Again Claims America Is "Center-Right"
Doug Schoen: "America Is A Center-Right Country." On the October 19 edition of America Live, Fox News contributor Doug Schoen said:
SCHOEN: America is a center-right country, Megyn. Forty percent of America are conservatives, 36 are moderates, 20 percent are liberals, and if the Democrats throw in so closely with a group whose values are inimical to those of swing voters, I think that they will be dangerously out of step with the broad base of American opinion, which, after all, the congressional elections rebutted and refuted the Obama policies and endorsed small government. [Fox News, America Live, 10/19/11]
Brit Hume: Obama Advisers Were Wrong To Declare That America "Was No Longer A Center-Right Country." On Fox News' Special Report, senior political analyst Brit Hume stated:
HUME: For an incumbent president seeking re-election to say publicly that people are not better off than they were before he took off is to say the least unorthodox. Voters are not in the habit of returning to office president who admit that things got worse on their watch.
But one begins to suspect that the president and his political advisers are not the wizards they've once seen, recalled right after Mr. Obama's election, David Plouffe, his senior political strategist then and now declared that America was no longer a center right country but had turned center left. You might think that he and the president would have changed their minds after the historic repudiation they and their party received in the midterm election. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 10/4/11, via Nexis]
Bernie Goldberg: "America Is A Center-Right Country." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing why Fox News is "now dominating the information flow in America," Fox News media analyst Bernie Goldberg said to host Bill O'Reilly:
GOLDBERG: Well, it's -- let me tell you -- let me -- this is my take on it. America is a center-right country. Fox tilts to the right. Every single person, if not literally 99.9 percent of the people watching us right now, used to, before Fox, watch the evening news at CBS, NBC, or ABC. They came over to Fox. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/27/11]
Fox Hosted Andrew Breitbart To Claim That "We're A Center-Right Nation." On Fox Business, David Asman hosted right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart to claim that the United States has a "2-1 ratio of conservatives to liberals." From the broadcast:
ASMAN: There was a narrative you don't remember, but I do. I was there in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running for president, and the narrative back then from the entire media was that if Reagan is elected, we'll be at war with the Soviets in a couple of months. The economy, as bad as it was back then, is going to be much worse. And this was with no Fox News, no Rush, no Internet, no Breitbart. And yet, the American public didn't buy it.
All of the media and all of the -- the conservative media and the fair and balanced media didn't exist back then. But despite that, the American people went against the mainstream media. So how do you account for that?
BREITBART: Well, look -- well, first of all, we're a center-right nation that's -- and the media's controlled by the people on the elite coasts. So they -- the way that the minority in this country -- and according to Gallup, we're still a 2-to-1 ratio of conservatives to liberals. Yet, we have these squeakers every election cycle. They're squeakers and it's 50-50, it's so close, because of the media being able to frame who the good guys and who the bad guys are. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 8/24/11]
Laura Ingraham Suggested "Most Of The Country Is A Little Bit More Conservative" Than The Media. From the August 15 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
INGRAHAM: [W]hat politician out there today would pass your litmus test on your point. That's a legitimate point that you just made. You know, speak the same way to every person.
GOLDBERG: Not many.
INGRAHAM: Who in the Republican field would pass that litmus test?
GOLDBERG: Not many. I acknowledge that.
INGRAHAM: The point is, the questions always go one way, right, the media they are not going to ask questions from another point of view when, you know, when probably most of the country is a little bit more conservative on some of these social issues than the media. But they are not going to ask the questions the other way around, right.
They are always going to put -- try to put the conservative in the box by asking them these questions, oh, you are a hateful person. You are not a nice person or whatever. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 8/15/11, via Nexis]
Fox Panelist Charles Krauthammer: America "Has Remained" Center-Right "For Over Four Decades." On his show, O'Reilly argued that the media "will all be trying to get President Obama re-elected." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer replied:
KRAUTHAMMER: You've got to remember this: The left, the Democrats always have the press on their side. They've had it for 40 years. Nonetheless, the Republicans have won the presidency seven out of the last 11 elections. And that's because what Republicans have, what conservatives have is the country, which is a center-right country, has remained so almost unchangingly for four decades.
So what the media bias does is it slightly -- it gives an advantage. It's a major advantage, but it's undoing the deficit that Democrats and liberals already have, because it's a country that is not essentially conducive to a liberal message. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/24/11]
Bill O'Reilly: "We Are A Center-Right Nation." Claiming that The New York Times "is crushed" and is "lamenting, wailing their guy is not doing the liberal thing," O'Reilly asserted: "If Obamacare is thrown out, the left will have pretty much lost everything. The why behind all of this is that President Obama badly underestimated the American public. We are a center-right nation." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 4/5/11]
The Majority Of Americans Are Progressive On Issues Ranging From The Economy...
Major National Polls Show That Americans Believe We Need To Raise Taxes. In a September 19 post on the Capital Gains And Games blog, Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett wrote:
I have previously posted a table showing that people support raising taxes as part of deficit reduction by a 2-to-1 margin over the Grover Norquist/Club for Growth/Tea Party position that the deficit must be reduced only by spending cuts without a penny of higher taxes. In light of President Obama's new budget plan, which includes higher taxes, I am posting an updated table, including a poll on Friday showing that three-fourths of people support higher taxes and only 21 percent support the doctrinaire right-wing position. [Capital Gains And Games, 9/19/11]
Gallup: 70 Percent Of Americans Want To End Wasteful Tax Giveaways To Corporations. In a recent Gallup poll, 70 percent of respondents favored "increasing taxes on some corporations by eliminating certain tax deductions." [Gallup, 9/20/11]
Three Out of Four Voters Support Tax Increases On Oil And Gas Companies, Private Jet Owners, And The Wealthy. In a July CNN poll, 73 percent of those questioned, supported "increasing the taxes paid by oil and gas companies" and "people who make more than $250,000/yr." Seventy-six percent supported increasing taxes "paid by businesses that own private jets." [CNN, 7/21/11]
Nearly Three-Fourths Of Americans Disapprove Of GOP's Handling Of Default Crisis. Following this summer's debt crisis, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 72 percent of Americans disapproved of congressional Republicans' handling of the issue. [CBS News/The New York Times, 8/4/11]
Time: Americans Agree With Occupy Wall Street Movement. A Time poll from this month found that among Americans familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement, 79 percent agree that "the gap between the rich and poor in the U.S. has grown too large," and 86 percent agree that "Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington." [Time, 10/13/11]
To Education...
Committee for Education Funding: Polls Show Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Education Cuts. In March, the Committee For Education Funding reported: "Results from nine different public opinion polls since January make clear that the American public strongly opposes cutting federal spending for education programs for both K12 and higher education." From Bloomberg News:
A March 2011 Bloomberg National News poll found that by an almost four to one margin (77-21 percent) the public opposes proposals to "significantly cut education programs, including No Child Left Behind, Head Start, and subsidies for college loans". [Committee for Education Funding, 3/11]
To Public Workers And Labor Issues...
CNN: Three Out Of Four Americans Support Using Federal Funds To Hire More Public Workers. In a September CNN Poll, 74 percent of respondents said they favored "providing federal money to state governments to allow them to hire teachers and first responders." [CNN, 9/14/11]
Gallup: A Majority Of The Public Supports Unions And Public Employees. From Gallup:
Wash. Post On Wisconsin Labor Dispute: "The Verdict Is Clear: Americans Support Public Employees In This Standoff." In a March 2 post, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported on the public's consistent support of public employee bargaining rights:
Indeed, the verdict is clear: Americans support public employees in this standoff. Whether that will impact the outcome of the fight, of course, remains to be seen. But the bigger story here -- one that will ripple far beyond what happens in Wisconsin -- is that public employees are not proving the easy scapegoat many predicted they would be, and when faced with the question of whether their fundamental union rights should be taken away, Americans have stepped up and answered with a firm No. [Washington Post, 3/2/11]
To Social Benefits...
CNN: Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Cuts To Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid. Eighty-seven percent of Americans don't want the government to make cuts to Medicare and 84 percent oppose cuts to Social Security in order to reduce the deficit. [CNN, 7/21/11]
Pew: Three Out Of Five Americans Feel The Government Needs To Honor Medicare Benefits. Pew found that 62 percent of Americans feel that "the government needs to keep its promises to older people" by maintaining their Medicare benefits, "even for those who are well-off." [Pew Research Center, 6/11]
CNN: Nearly Three Out Of Four Americans Don't Believe Social Security Is A Failure. From the CNN/ORC poll released on September 13:
The Social Security system has been described as a "monstrous lie" and as a failure. Do you think those phrases are an accurate description of the Social Security system, or don't you think so?
Accurate 27%
Not accurate 72%
No opinion 1% [CNN, 9/13/11]
Pew: 87 Percent Of Americans Say Social Security Has Been Good For Our Country. From the poll:
[Pew Research Center, 7/7/11]
Pew: Americans Also Oppose "Allowing States To Limit Medicaid Eligibility." From the same Pew article:
The public also opposes making Medicare recipients more responsible for their health care costs and allowing states to limit Medicaid eligibility. About six-in-ten (61%) say people on Medicare already pay enough of their own health care costs, while only 31% think recipients need to be responsible for more of the costs of their health care in order to make the system financially secure. [Pew Research Center, 7/7/11]
To Environmental Issues...
Sixty-Nine Percent Of Americans Support Stricter Limits On Air Pollution. According to a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll, 69 percent of respondents favored the EPA "updating standards with stricter limits on air pollution." [Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 2/11]
Only 18 Percent Of Americans Agree With GOP Attempts To Block The EPA From Keeping Corporate Polluters In Check. From an ORC International polling memo:
Americans do not want Congress to kill the EPA's anti-pollution updates. Only 18 percent of Americans -- including fewer than a third of Republicans (32 percent) -- believe that "Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards," after being told: "Some members of Congress are proposing to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating safeguards to protect our health from dangerous air pollution, saying they will cost businesses too much money." More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) -- including 61 percent of Republicans -- say "Congress (should) let the EPA do its job." [ORC International, 2/2/11]
The Hill: "Even The Most Hardened Conservatives" Support Investing In Solar. A series of polls conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates testing the impact of the Solyndra scandal reportedly found that "even the most hardened conservatives" showed overall support for the solar industry. From The Hill:
In addition to the Ohio survey, FM3 conducted focus groups in California on behalf of the Sierra Club, finding that awareness of the Solyndra issue was higher there.
The memo states that male GOP swing voters in California voiced "strong faith" about the solar industry's viability.
"These voters were quick to condemn the federal government for failing to do its due diligence in evaluating Solyndra's business prospects, and for squandering taxpayer dollars on what they saw as a bad bet. But even the most hardened conservatives in that group strongly agreed that the solar industry is strong, growing, and worthy of future investment," it states. [The Hill, 9/28/11]
Sixty-One Percent Of Americans Agree That Government Regulations Keep Businesses Ethical. From the Public Religion Research Institute:
Overall most (61%) Americans disagree that most businesses would act ethically on their own without regulation from the government. Less than 4-in-10 (37%) believe that they would. This holds true across political and religious lines, with the lone exception of those who identify with the Tea Party movement (53% agree). [Public Religion Research Institute, 4/20/11]
...And Social Issues
Gallup: "A Majority Of Americans (53%) Believe Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Recognized By The Law As Valid." From the May 20 Gallup memo:
For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change. [Gallup, 5/20/11]
CNN Poll Found That 78 Percent Of Americans Favored Repealing DADT. From The Hill article:
More than three-fourths of Americans favor repealing "Don't ask, don't tell," according to a new CNN poll.
A full 78 percent of respondents said that "people who are openly gay or homosexual" should be able to serve in the armed forces. The results are similar to what CNN found in December of 2008 (81 percent) and May of 2007 (79 percent). [The Hill, 5/25/10]
Gallup: A "Record-High" Number Of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana. From the October 17 article:
A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal. [Gallup, 10/17/11]
CNN: Three Out Of Four Americans Support A Woman's Right To Choose In "Any Or Some Circumstances." In a September CNN poll, 25 percent of respondents agreed that abortion should be legal under "any circumstances" and an additional 53 percent said it should be legal under "some circumstances." [CNN Poll, 9/15/11]
Media Figures Attempted To Push The Same "Center-Right" Claim In 2008
Newsweek's Jonathan Darman insisted America is a "center-right country." [Newsweek, 9/19/08]
Newsweek's Jon Meacham: "America remains a center-right nation -- a fact that a President would forget at his peril." [Newsweek, 10/17/08]
On CNN Newsroom, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan said, "No question this country is center-right." [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 11/6/08, via Media Matters]
During the November 5, 2008, edition of America's Election HQ, Fox News contributor Karl Rove said: "Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized that." [Fox News, America's Election HQ, 11/5/08, via Media Matters]
Republicans Are Showing Al Quaida How to Destroy America
From Media Matters for America -- October 26, 2011:
"The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan's": Right-Wing Media Tout Perry's Flat Tax
Following the release of Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's (TX) tax plan, conservative media have hyped the plan, claiming it is "exciting" and a "radical improvement" over the current system. However, economists from across the spectrum have criticized Perry's plan, noting that it will lead to "substantial" revenue loss and "draconian cuts" while "undermin[ing]" the need to make the tax code simpler.
Conservative Media Hype Rick Perry's Tax Plan As "A Radical Improvement"
Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes: Perry's Plan Is "Very Strong" And "Has A Lot Of Very Appealing Pro-Growth Aspects To It." From the October 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: OK, Steve, thoughts on this plan and the rollout?
HAYES: Very strong. I like the plan a lot. I think it has a lot of very appealing pro-growth aspects to it. I particularly like the 20 percent tax. There have been already complaints that this is too complicated, that the phase-in or the opt-in and opt-out will make things too complicated. I think that's nonsense. You have basically the option for people to choose whether they want to pay higher taxes. Who's going to choose whether to pay higher taxes? [Fox News, Special Report, 10/25/11]
Steve Forbes: Perry's Tax Reform Proposal Is "The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan's." An October 20 Yahoo News article reported that Steve Forbes stated that he "helped devise Perry's plan" and heaped lavish praise on that plan. From the article:
Steve Forbes, whose flat tax plan helped make him an unlikely contender for the Republican presidential nomination 15 years ago, is praising a new version of the idea from Rick Perry. And Forbes, who says he helped devise Perry's plan, left little doubt that he'll formally back the Texas governor before long.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Forbes called Perry's proposal, announced in a speech Wednesday, "the most exciting tax plan since Reagan's," in 1980.
Asked whether that included his own 1996 plan, Forbes said it did, because unlike him in 1996, when he fell short of upsetting front-runner Bob Dole, Perry "is going to win."
Forbes, the chief executive of his family's eponymous publishing empire, said the Perry camp reached out to him for help in crafting their plan. "We got into discussions of basic principles--how the thing might be shaped," he said. "The candidate concluded it ought be a simple rate. Make it as simple and bold as possible."
Asked whether the Perry plan would immediately raise as much tax revenue as the current system, Forbes did not answer directly. But he said that in the long-run, it would increase revenue, by spurring economic growth.
Many on the left argue that a flat tax would increase the tax burden on the poor, while easing the load on wealthier Americans. Forbes dismissed those concerns.
"It's gonna be good for all taxpayers," he said.
Forbes Reiterated His Support On Fox: The Flat Tax Is "A Tax Cut For Most People, Not A Tax Increase."
Big Government's Dan Mitchell: Perry's Plan Has "Some Missing Homework, But [Is] A Solid B+" And "A Radical Improvement Compared To The Current Tax System." In an October 25 post on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com headlined "Grading Perry's Flat Tax: Some Missing Homework, But A Solid B+," contributor and Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell wrote:
As a long-time advocate of a pure flat tax, I'm not happy that Perry has deviated from the ideal approach. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the very good. If implemented, his plan would dramatically boost economic performance and improve competitiveness.
Depending on the answers to these questions, the grade for Perry's flat tax could be as high as A- or as low as B. Regardless, it will be a radical improvement compared to the current tax system, which gets a D- (and that's a very kind grade). [Big Government, 10/25/11]
Hoft Hypes Perry's Tax Plan. From an October 24 post on Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit blog:
Governor Rick Perry unveiled his 20% flat tax and spending plan tonight. The plan will give individuals the option of paying a 20% flat-rate income tax. It will also cap federal spending at 18% of GDP. Another selling point - the simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs.
Sounds good.
Steve Forbes was impressed. He endorsed the plan on Monday. [Gateway Pundit, 10/24/11, emphasis original]
However, Experts Describe The Plan As "Delusional" And Claim It Will Lead To "Draconian Cuts" And "Substantial" Revenue Loss
Syracuse University Economics Professor: Perry's Plan Is "Delusional Policy" And "The Race To The Bottom On Tax Policy Is Getting Scary." In an October 25 post on Forbes magazine's website titled "Perry Optional Alternative Flat Tax -- Good Politics, Delusional Policy," Len Burman, Professor of Practice, Public Administration and Economics at Syracuse University, wrote:
Here's a quick note on Perry's actual plan, as outlined in his Wall Street Journal op ed today. Yesterday, I noted that a flat tax would be regressive and potentially raise taxes on low- and middle-income people. I was assuming, erroneously as it turns out, that Perry's plan would be designed to raise at least as much revenue as current law. But it would actually amount to a giant tax cut.
Here's what he said in the WSJ:
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
The plan is optional, meaning that low- and middle-income families that benefit from refundable credits will stay in the current system. High-income taxpayers will jump at the chance to avoid paying tax on interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, royalties, and other capital income. That is a large share of their income, and it would be exempt under Perry's plan. And the 20% rate is much lower than the current top rate of 35%. And, moderately well off people get to keep the most popular deductions.
The idea of an optional alternative tax system is not new. John McCain proposed one in 2008 and it would have added $7 trillion to the debt over a decade. It's virtually always true that if you offer taxpayers a choice, it will cost the Treasury money.
I have no idea how big a tax cut Perry's plan is, but there's no way this plan will come close to raising 18% of GDP (Perry's spending target) unless there are hidden revenue raisers that I missed. The idea of adding to our enormous deficits to provide giant tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires just blows my mind.
And, by the way, an optional alternative tax system is not simple. Millions of middle-income taxpayers will have to figure their taxes two ways to figure out which plan is better for them. Will it be called the Alternative Maximum Tax?
The race to the bottom on tax policy is getting scary.
CBPP: Perry's Plan Would Require "A Dismantling Of Federal Programs" And "Draconian Cuts In Virtually Every Kind Of Spending." From a New York Times article headlined "Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal 'Bold Reform' ":
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas unveiled a plan on Tuesday to scrap the graduated income tax and replace it with a 20 percent flat rate. By throwing out rates as high as 35 percent and eliminating estate and investment taxes, the plan would grant a major tax cut for the wealthy.
The plan also proposes reducing the scope of the federal government by requiring drastically austere federal budgets -- compared with what exists now -- that spend no more than 18 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, which analysts said would most likely force big cuts in government spending at almost every level. That would equate to a cut of one-quarter of the budget from 2011 expected levels, and it would mark the lowest level of spending relative to G.D.P. since the mid-1960s, though rising tax receipts during the roaring economy of a dozen years ago temporarily brought the level close to 18 percent.
To address the projected long-term financial shortfall within Social Security, Mr. Perry suggested raising the retirement age and potentially changing the age eligibility for Medicare and using a sliding scale to limit benefits based on income -- two proposals that could face significant opposition in Congress. Mr. Perry, who said his plan would balance the budget by 2020, also proposed letting younger workers divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts, a longtime goal of economic conservatives.
Analysts said it would take time to examine the effects of the Perry plan. But Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said: "There are two things we can say with certainty: It will lower revenue and be a great benefit to the wealthy."
He said the poor who have children would most likely do better under the current system, because refundable tax credits provide some with net payments from the government. But Mr. Williams said it was unclear how many among the middle class would benefit -- though families with more children or bigger mortgages would be more likely to opt for his proposal.
Mr. Perry pledged to not cut any benefits of current Social Security retirees or those about to tap into the system. But to do that, and cut the budget to 18 percent of G.D.P., would require cutting at least one-third of the remaining federal budget, said James R. Horney, the vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group in Washington. It would require "a dismantling of federal programs," Mr. Horney said, and "draconian cuts in virtually every kind of spending." [The New York Times, 10/25/11]
Brookings Senior Fellow: Perry's Plan "Undermines" The Idea That The Tax Code Should Be Made Simpler While Leading To A " 'Substantial' Decrease In Revenues." From a CBSNews.com article:
Perry is offering taxpayers two choices -- either stick with the current tax system or opt into a new system in which they pay a 20 percent flat income tax. That incentivizes those who would pay less under the current system to stick with it, and those who would pay less under the flat tax plan -- largely Americans on the upper end of the income scale - to opt for the new plan.
That would add up to a "substantial" decrease in revenues, says Ted Gayer, the co-director of the Economic Studies program and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Perry has yet to lay out all the specifics of the plan, which makes it difficult to estimate its full impact. But "it's clearly going to be a reduction in revenues, I think fairly substantial," said Gayer. Many conservative Republicans want to reduce the role of government in society in part by starving it of funds.
What Perry's plan boils down to is a tax cut for the highest-income Americans, who currently pay a top marginal income tax rate of 35 percent, and no tax change for those who don't opt for the new system.
Perry argues that his plan simplifies the tax code, saying Tuesday that taxpayers will simply need to fill out a postcard to file their taxes. But since they will need to decide between the old system and the new one, it won't be quite so simple for many Americans.
"It kind of undermines the whole we're making your taxes simpler argument, because you still have to go through both systems to see which one is best for you," said Gayer.
Perry vowed to balance the budget by 2020 and cap on federal spending at no more than 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Under current policy forecasts, the United States will be spending 26 percent of GDP in 2020 and 34 percent of GDP by 2035. Perry would need to dramatically slash federal spending to meet his 18 percent goal. [CBSNews.com, 10/25/11]
Even Conservative Economists Have Called Perry's Plan "Fiscally Irresponsible" And "A Disaster"
Economist Peter Morici: "Rick Perry's Tax Plan Would Be A Disaster For America." In a post on FoxNews.com, Peter Morici, Professor of Logistics, Business and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, wrote:
Seeking to jump start his flagging presidential campaign and establish his pro-growth and fiscal responsibility credentials, Governor Rick Perry is unveiling a tax plan that will not jump start the economy and is fiscally irresponsible.
In a nutshell, Mr. Perry would give taxpayers a choice between filing under the current income tax system -- with all its flaws -- and an alternative flat tax 20 percent system. Under the latter, families could maintain their mortgage deductions if they earn less than $500,000, which is about 99 percent of taxpayers, and could declare exemptions of $12,500 for each family member.
It seems appealing -- a simplified tax system, fewer IRS agents, and so forth. But the plan falls short in two important respects -- it won't encourage many better investment decisions and foster growth, and it will spin the federal deficit permanently into the stratosphere.
The whole purpose of a flat tax is to encourage individuals and corporations to invest more in sound business opportunities, instead of prospecting for tax breaks by buying homes bigger than they need or spending on government hobby horse projects like solar panels. By giving tax payers the option of filing under the old system, however, the Perry plan will encourage the wealthy and near-wealthy to continue prospecting for loopholes and credit. Most of those folks don't pay 20 percent now, so don't count on them to volunteer for Mr. Perry's plan.
With less revenue in hand, Gov. Perry proposes slashing government spending to 18 percent of GDP--that would require $900 billion in annual spending cuts, when the Congress is having trouble agreeing on an additional $100 billion.
Such cuts are possible by increasing the retirement age to 70 and slashing Medicare and Medicare spending and gutting the defense budget.
If Gov. Perry wants to slash taxes that's fine but let's go to a real flat tax. Let Gov. Perry tell Americans how he is going to tame the monster that ate Washington--created through escalating health care spending--and rationalize social security and defense spending. [FoxNews.com, 10/25/11]
Former Chief Economist For House Committee: "Perry's Plan Would Preserve Crony Capitalist Tax Code." In an October 25 blog post titled "Perry's plan would preserve crony capitalist tax code," Alex Brill, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former chief economist for the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote:
Governor Perry's new proposal for an optional pro-growth tax code will do little for our economy while increasing the complexity of the tax code. A flat rate income tax would lead to positive economic growth, but making it optional as Governor Perry has proposed preserves the opportunities for "crony capitalism" and other existing distortions in the code.
This is because an optional flat tax is only appealing to those taxpayers who see it as a tax cut. Taxpayers who can reduce their tax liability by exploiting an existing tax break will do just that. In other words, an optional flat tax is appealing only to those who can't get a good break elsewhere in the code.
In one sense, an optional flat tax is the polar opposite of the AMT: a mandatory, parallel tax system that hits those taxpayers who are "too effective" at lowering their tax burden. But in another sense, it's quite similar: yet another tax code. [American Enterprise Institute, The Enterprise Blog, 10/25/11]
AEI "Resident Scholar": Perry's "Optional Tax Code Worse Than A Gimmick." In an October 25 blog post titled "Optional tax code worse than a gimmick," Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote:
Jim Pethokoukis points out what he calls a "gimmick" in Governor Rick Perry's proposed flat tax plan: taxpayers would get the choice to file under the current tax code or under the new flat tax plan. While I agree that this is a bit silly from a policy point of view, the problems go deeper than that. Why? Well, the flat tax is supposed to do three things: raise sufficient revenue, reduce compliance costs, and reduce economic distortions.
But if you can choose which tax code to file under then, to a first approximation, people will choose whichever costs them the least. In theory at least, to raise the same revenue in a static analysis the flat tax would have to be set such that no one could pay lower taxes than under current law, since if they could pay lower taxes they will pay lower taxes. It's easy to respond that people would choose the flat tax for its simplicity even if it costs them more, but they can already have a simple tax code under current law: just don't bother hunting down all your deductions.
The same goes for compliance costs: to know which tax code to file under you need to do your taxes under both, undermining the simplicity of the flat tax. One of the reasons compliance costs are so high today is that there can be such a reward for figuring out strategies to minimize your taxes; it's not clear that Perry's flat tax fixes this problem. And finally, if people have the option of filing under the current tax code then all the economic distortions embedded in it will remain, at least for that significant portion of the population who would do better under current law than the flat tax. A person may say to himself, "I can pay lower taxes than under the flat tax plan so long as I [insert governmentally imposed distortion here]." Marginal tax rates for high earners would be lower, reducing economic distortions, but it's unclear where you'll make up the revenue if low and middle earners get to file under current law where they pay next to nothing.
AEI's Director Of Economic Policy Studies: Under Perry's Plan Government Would Have To Drastically Slash Spending. From the Associated Press:
By design, Perry's plan "must lose revenue" for the government, said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. To avoid higher deficits, Hassett said, the government would have to slash spending in ways not seen since the steep military drawdown after World War II.
"The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan's": Right-Wing Media Tout Perry's Flat Tax
Following the release of Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's (TX) tax plan, conservative media have hyped the plan, claiming it is "exciting" and a "radical improvement" over the current system. However, economists from across the spectrum have criticized Perry's plan, noting that it will lead to "substantial" revenue loss and "draconian cuts" while "undermin[ing]" the need to make the tax code simpler.
Conservative Media Hype Rick Perry's Tax Plan As "A Radical Improvement"
Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes: Perry's Plan Is "Very Strong" And "Has A Lot Of Very Appealing Pro-Growth Aspects To It." From the October 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: OK, Steve, thoughts on this plan and the rollout?
HAYES: Very strong. I like the plan a lot. I think it has a lot of very appealing pro-growth aspects to it. I particularly like the 20 percent tax. There have been already complaints that this is too complicated, that the phase-in or the opt-in and opt-out will make things too complicated. I think that's nonsense. You have basically the option for people to choose whether they want to pay higher taxes. Who's going to choose whether to pay higher taxes? [Fox News, Special Report, 10/25/11]
Steve Forbes: Perry's Tax Reform Proposal Is "The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan's." An October 20 Yahoo News article reported that Steve Forbes stated that he "helped devise Perry's plan" and heaped lavish praise on that plan. From the article:
Steve Forbes, whose flat tax plan helped make him an unlikely contender for the Republican presidential nomination 15 years ago, is praising a new version of the idea from Rick Perry. And Forbes, who says he helped devise Perry's plan, left little doubt that he'll formally back the Texas governor before long.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Forbes called Perry's proposal, announced in a speech Wednesday, "the most exciting tax plan since Reagan's," in 1980.
Asked whether that included his own 1996 plan, Forbes said it did, because unlike him in 1996, when he fell short of upsetting front-runner Bob Dole, Perry "is going to win."
Forbes, the chief executive of his family's eponymous publishing empire, said the Perry camp reached out to him for help in crafting their plan. "We got into discussions of basic principles--how the thing might be shaped," he said. "The candidate concluded it ought be a simple rate. Make it as simple and bold as possible."
Asked whether the Perry plan would immediately raise as much tax revenue as the current system, Forbes did not answer directly. But he said that in the long-run, it would increase revenue, by spurring economic growth.
Many on the left argue that a flat tax would increase the tax burden on the poor, while easing the load on wealthier Americans. Forbes dismissed those concerns.
"It's gonna be good for all taxpayers," he said.
Forbes Reiterated His Support On Fox: The Flat Tax Is "A Tax Cut For Most People, Not A Tax Increase."
Big Government's Dan Mitchell: Perry's Plan Has "Some Missing Homework, But [Is] A Solid B+" And "A Radical Improvement Compared To The Current Tax System." In an October 25 post on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com headlined "Grading Perry's Flat Tax: Some Missing Homework, But A Solid B+," contributor and Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell wrote:
As a long-time advocate of a pure flat tax, I'm not happy that Perry has deviated from the ideal approach. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the very good. If implemented, his plan would dramatically boost economic performance and improve competitiveness.
Depending on the answers to these questions, the grade for Perry's flat tax could be as high as A- or as low as B. Regardless, it will be a radical improvement compared to the current tax system, which gets a D- (and that's a very kind grade). [Big Government, 10/25/11]
Hoft Hypes Perry's Tax Plan. From an October 24 post on Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit blog:
Governor Rick Perry unveiled his 20% flat tax and spending plan tonight. The plan will give individuals the option of paying a 20% flat-rate income tax. It will also cap federal spending at 18% of GDP. Another selling point - the simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs.
Sounds good.
Steve Forbes was impressed. He endorsed the plan on Monday. [Gateway Pundit, 10/24/11, emphasis original]
However, Experts Describe The Plan As "Delusional" And Claim It Will Lead To "Draconian Cuts" And "Substantial" Revenue Loss
Syracuse University Economics Professor: Perry's Plan Is "Delusional Policy" And "The Race To The Bottom On Tax Policy Is Getting Scary." In an October 25 post on Forbes magazine's website titled "Perry Optional Alternative Flat Tax -- Good Politics, Delusional Policy," Len Burman, Professor of Practice, Public Administration and Economics at Syracuse University, wrote:
Here's a quick note on Perry's actual plan, as outlined in his Wall Street Journal op ed today. Yesterday, I noted that a flat tax would be regressive and potentially raise taxes on low- and middle-income people. I was assuming, erroneously as it turns out, that Perry's plan would be designed to raise at least as much revenue as current law. But it would actually amount to a giant tax cut.
Here's what he said in the WSJ:
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
The plan is optional, meaning that low- and middle-income families that benefit from refundable credits will stay in the current system. High-income taxpayers will jump at the chance to avoid paying tax on interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, royalties, and other capital income. That is a large share of their income, and it would be exempt under Perry's plan. And the 20% rate is much lower than the current top rate of 35%. And, moderately well off people get to keep the most popular deductions.
The idea of an optional alternative tax system is not new. John McCain proposed one in 2008 and it would have added $7 trillion to the debt over a decade. It's virtually always true that if you offer taxpayers a choice, it will cost the Treasury money.
I have no idea how big a tax cut Perry's plan is, but there's no way this plan will come close to raising 18% of GDP (Perry's spending target) unless there are hidden revenue raisers that I missed. The idea of adding to our enormous deficits to provide giant tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires just blows my mind.
And, by the way, an optional alternative tax system is not simple. Millions of middle-income taxpayers will have to figure their taxes two ways to figure out which plan is better for them. Will it be called the Alternative Maximum Tax?
The race to the bottom on tax policy is getting scary.
CBPP: Perry's Plan Would Require "A Dismantling Of Federal Programs" And "Draconian Cuts In Virtually Every Kind Of Spending." From a New York Times article headlined "Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal 'Bold Reform' ":
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas unveiled a plan on Tuesday to scrap the graduated income tax and replace it with a 20 percent flat rate. By throwing out rates as high as 35 percent and eliminating estate and investment taxes, the plan would grant a major tax cut for the wealthy.
The plan also proposes reducing the scope of the federal government by requiring drastically austere federal budgets -- compared with what exists now -- that spend no more than 18 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, which analysts said would most likely force big cuts in government spending at almost every level. That would equate to a cut of one-quarter of the budget from 2011 expected levels, and it would mark the lowest level of spending relative to G.D.P. since the mid-1960s, though rising tax receipts during the roaring economy of a dozen years ago temporarily brought the level close to 18 percent.
To address the projected long-term financial shortfall within Social Security, Mr. Perry suggested raising the retirement age and potentially changing the age eligibility for Medicare and using a sliding scale to limit benefits based on income -- two proposals that could face significant opposition in Congress. Mr. Perry, who said his plan would balance the budget by 2020, also proposed letting younger workers divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts, a longtime goal of economic conservatives.
Analysts said it would take time to examine the effects of the Perry plan. But Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said: "There are two things we can say with certainty: It will lower revenue and be a great benefit to the wealthy."
He said the poor who have children would most likely do better under the current system, because refundable tax credits provide some with net payments from the government. But Mr. Williams said it was unclear how many among the middle class would benefit -- though families with more children or bigger mortgages would be more likely to opt for his proposal.
Mr. Perry pledged to not cut any benefits of current Social Security retirees or those about to tap into the system. But to do that, and cut the budget to 18 percent of G.D.P., would require cutting at least one-third of the remaining federal budget, said James R. Horney, the vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group in Washington. It would require "a dismantling of federal programs," Mr. Horney said, and "draconian cuts in virtually every kind of spending." [The New York Times, 10/25/11]
Brookings Senior Fellow: Perry's Plan "Undermines" The Idea That The Tax Code Should Be Made Simpler While Leading To A " 'Substantial' Decrease In Revenues." From a CBSNews.com article:
Perry is offering taxpayers two choices -- either stick with the current tax system or opt into a new system in which they pay a 20 percent flat income tax. That incentivizes those who would pay less under the current system to stick with it, and those who would pay less under the flat tax plan -- largely Americans on the upper end of the income scale - to opt for the new plan.
That would add up to a "substantial" decrease in revenues, says Ted Gayer, the co-director of the Economic Studies program and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Perry has yet to lay out all the specifics of the plan, which makes it difficult to estimate its full impact. But "it's clearly going to be a reduction in revenues, I think fairly substantial," said Gayer. Many conservative Republicans want to reduce the role of government in society in part by starving it of funds.
What Perry's plan boils down to is a tax cut for the highest-income Americans, who currently pay a top marginal income tax rate of 35 percent, and no tax change for those who don't opt for the new system.
Perry argues that his plan simplifies the tax code, saying Tuesday that taxpayers will simply need to fill out a postcard to file their taxes. But since they will need to decide between the old system and the new one, it won't be quite so simple for many Americans.
"It kind of undermines the whole we're making your taxes simpler argument, because you still have to go through both systems to see which one is best for you," said Gayer.
Perry vowed to balance the budget by 2020 and cap on federal spending at no more than 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Under current policy forecasts, the United States will be spending 26 percent of GDP in 2020 and 34 percent of GDP by 2035. Perry would need to dramatically slash federal spending to meet his 18 percent goal. [CBSNews.com, 10/25/11]
Even Conservative Economists Have Called Perry's Plan "Fiscally Irresponsible" And "A Disaster"
Economist Peter Morici: "Rick Perry's Tax Plan Would Be A Disaster For America." In a post on FoxNews.com, Peter Morici, Professor of Logistics, Business and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, wrote:
Seeking to jump start his flagging presidential campaign and establish his pro-growth and fiscal responsibility credentials, Governor Rick Perry is unveiling a tax plan that will not jump start the economy and is fiscally irresponsible.
In a nutshell, Mr. Perry would give taxpayers a choice between filing under the current income tax system -- with all its flaws -- and an alternative flat tax 20 percent system. Under the latter, families could maintain their mortgage deductions if they earn less than $500,000, which is about 99 percent of taxpayers, and could declare exemptions of $12,500 for each family member.
It seems appealing -- a simplified tax system, fewer IRS agents, and so forth. But the plan falls short in two important respects -- it won't encourage many better investment decisions and foster growth, and it will spin the federal deficit permanently into the stratosphere.
The whole purpose of a flat tax is to encourage individuals and corporations to invest more in sound business opportunities, instead of prospecting for tax breaks by buying homes bigger than they need or spending on government hobby horse projects like solar panels. By giving tax payers the option of filing under the old system, however, the Perry plan will encourage the wealthy and near-wealthy to continue prospecting for loopholes and credit. Most of those folks don't pay 20 percent now, so don't count on them to volunteer for Mr. Perry's plan.
With less revenue in hand, Gov. Perry proposes slashing government spending to 18 percent of GDP--that would require $900 billion in annual spending cuts, when the Congress is having trouble agreeing on an additional $100 billion.
Such cuts are possible by increasing the retirement age to 70 and slashing Medicare and Medicare spending and gutting the defense budget.
If Gov. Perry wants to slash taxes that's fine but let's go to a real flat tax. Let Gov. Perry tell Americans how he is going to tame the monster that ate Washington--created through escalating health care spending--and rationalize social security and defense spending. [FoxNews.com, 10/25/11]
Former Chief Economist For House Committee: "Perry's Plan Would Preserve Crony Capitalist Tax Code." In an October 25 blog post titled "Perry's plan would preserve crony capitalist tax code," Alex Brill, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former chief economist for the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote:
Governor Perry's new proposal for an optional pro-growth tax code will do little for our economy while increasing the complexity of the tax code. A flat rate income tax would lead to positive economic growth, but making it optional as Governor Perry has proposed preserves the opportunities for "crony capitalism" and other existing distortions in the code.
This is because an optional flat tax is only appealing to those taxpayers who see it as a tax cut. Taxpayers who can reduce their tax liability by exploiting an existing tax break will do just that. In other words, an optional flat tax is appealing only to those who can't get a good break elsewhere in the code.
In one sense, an optional flat tax is the polar opposite of the AMT: a mandatory, parallel tax system that hits those taxpayers who are "too effective" at lowering their tax burden. But in another sense, it's quite similar: yet another tax code. [American Enterprise Institute, The Enterprise Blog, 10/25/11]
AEI "Resident Scholar": Perry's "Optional Tax Code Worse Than A Gimmick." In an October 25 blog post titled "Optional tax code worse than a gimmick," Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote:
Jim Pethokoukis points out what he calls a "gimmick" in Governor Rick Perry's proposed flat tax plan: taxpayers would get the choice to file under the current tax code or under the new flat tax plan. While I agree that this is a bit silly from a policy point of view, the problems go deeper than that. Why? Well, the flat tax is supposed to do three things: raise sufficient revenue, reduce compliance costs, and reduce economic distortions.
But if you can choose which tax code to file under then, to a first approximation, people will choose whichever costs them the least. In theory at least, to raise the same revenue in a static analysis the flat tax would have to be set such that no one could pay lower taxes than under current law, since if they could pay lower taxes they will pay lower taxes. It's easy to respond that people would choose the flat tax for its simplicity even if it costs them more, but they can already have a simple tax code under current law: just don't bother hunting down all your deductions.
The same goes for compliance costs: to know which tax code to file under you need to do your taxes under both, undermining the simplicity of the flat tax. One of the reasons compliance costs are so high today is that there can be such a reward for figuring out strategies to minimize your taxes; it's not clear that Perry's flat tax fixes this problem. And finally, if people have the option of filing under the current tax code then all the economic distortions embedded in it will remain, at least for that significant portion of the population who would do better under current law than the flat tax. A person may say to himself, "I can pay lower taxes than under the flat tax plan so long as I [insert governmentally imposed distortion here]." Marginal tax rates for high earners would be lower, reducing economic distortions, but it's unclear where you'll make up the revenue if low and middle earners get to file under current law where they pay next to nothing.
AEI's Director Of Economic Policy Studies: Under Perry's Plan Government Would Have To Drastically Slash Spending. From the Associated Press:
By design, Perry's plan "must lose revenue" for the government, said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. To avoid higher deficits, Hassett said, the government would have to slash spending in ways not seen since the steep military drawdown after World War II.
Is Rick Perry Dumb or a Liar? He Can't Even Count Pages Correctly -- Three Pinnochios for Rick
From The Washington Post -- October 26, 2011:
Reported by Glenn Kessler, the Fact Checker “truth squads” statements by political figures regarding issues of great importance, be they national, international. As the 2012 campaign heats up, Glenn will increasingly focus on statements made by the candidates.
Rick Perry’s flat tax plan, built on misleading statistics
By Glenn Kessler
“Central to my plan is giving every American the option of throwing out that 3 million words of the current tax code and, I might, add, the cost of complying with all of that code in order to pay a 20 percent flat tax on their income. You know, the size of the current code is more than 72,000 pages. That's represented by this pallet right over here and the reams of paper. That's what the current tax code looks like.”
— Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Oct. 25, 2011
Rick Perry, trying to relaunch his sagging campaign, on Tuesday announced that he would push for an optional 20-percent flat tax. We will leave the merits of such a system to other analysts, but the key to his argument is that such a system would be so simple that taxpayers could file their return on a post card.
So we were struck by his use of two figures — 72,000 pages and the 3 million words of the tax code — as a way to illustrate the complexity of the current system. He even pointed to 72,000 pages of paper before holding up a post card he had stuffed in his jacket pocket.
We are always suspicious when politicians mention page numbers. Are these numbers correct?
The Facts:
Anyone with basic math skills would instantly notice there is a disconnect between those numbers. If you divide 3 million words by 72,000 pages, that would mean 42 words per page. That’s rather big type.
It turns out that Perry is talking about two different things — and one of them is wrong. The 72,000-page figure comes from the number of pages for something called the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, a 25-volume set of binders with loose-leaf pages.
The Tax Reporter includes the tax code but also regulations, court rulings and analysis by CCH editors discussing the impact of those laws and regulations. Court rulings still in effect from 1913 would be there, as would any new case law. Every year, new pages are added as new court cases and statutes affect the current tax law.
“It is much more than the code,” said Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst at CCH.
CCH, the company that publishes the Tax Reporter, does publish a chart showing that the “tax law keeps piling up.” But, again, that’s not the tax code.
The “tax code” is Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the codification of federal laws. There are various organizations, including CCH, that publish the code, often in small type with double columns. The CCH version is 5,280 pages, another version by RIA is 4,052 pages. The number of pages really depends on the size of the type and the pages.
According to an on-line version of Title 26, it totals about 3.4 million words.
We sought a comment from the Perry campaign but did not receive one.
The Pinocchio Test
We’re always suspicious when politicians start talking about how many pages are in a law. It’s really pretty meaningless, and dependent on so many factors. And, let’s face it, the United States is a big country and is likely to have a complex tax code. It certainly can be made simpler, but a word count and page count is not an indication of complexity.
In this case, Perry also managed to mix up his facts, taking a word count for the tax code and page count for something completely different. The overall effect is pretty misleading. Even a relaunched campaign needs better staff work than that.
Three Pinocchios
Reported by Glenn Kessler, the Fact Checker “truth squads” statements by political figures regarding issues of great importance, be they national, international. As the 2012 campaign heats up, Glenn will increasingly focus on statements made by the candidates.
Rick Perry’s flat tax plan, built on misleading statistics
By Glenn Kessler
“Central to my plan is giving every American the option of throwing out that 3 million words of the current tax code and, I might, add, the cost of complying with all of that code in order to pay a 20 percent flat tax on their income. You know, the size of the current code is more than 72,000 pages. That's represented by this pallet right over here and the reams of paper. That's what the current tax code looks like.”
— Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Oct. 25, 2011
Rick Perry, trying to relaunch his sagging campaign, on Tuesday announced that he would push for an optional 20-percent flat tax. We will leave the merits of such a system to other analysts, but the key to his argument is that such a system would be so simple that taxpayers could file their return on a post card.
So we were struck by his use of two figures — 72,000 pages and the 3 million words of the tax code — as a way to illustrate the complexity of the current system. He even pointed to 72,000 pages of paper before holding up a post card he had stuffed in his jacket pocket.
We are always suspicious when politicians mention page numbers. Are these numbers correct?
The Facts:
Anyone with basic math skills would instantly notice there is a disconnect between those numbers. If you divide 3 million words by 72,000 pages, that would mean 42 words per page. That’s rather big type.
It turns out that Perry is talking about two different things — and one of them is wrong. The 72,000-page figure comes from the number of pages for something called the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, a 25-volume set of binders with loose-leaf pages.
The Tax Reporter includes the tax code but also regulations, court rulings and analysis by CCH editors discussing the impact of those laws and regulations. Court rulings still in effect from 1913 would be there, as would any new case law. Every year, new pages are added as new court cases and statutes affect the current tax law.
“It is much more than the code,” said Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst at CCH.
CCH, the company that publishes the Tax Reporter, does publish a chart showing that the “tax law keeps piling up.” But, again, that’s not the tax code.
The “tax code” is Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the codification of federal laws. There are various organizations, including CCH, that publish the code, often in small type with double columns. The CCH version is 5,280 pages, another version by RIA is 4,052 pages. The number of pages really depends on the size of the type and the pages.
According to an on-line version of Title 26, it totals about 3.4 million words.
We sought a comment from the Perry campaign but did not receive one.
The Pinocchio Test
We’re always suspicious when politicians start talking about how many pages are in a law. It’s really pretty meaningless, and dependent on so many factors. And, let’s face it, the United States is a big country and is likely to have a complex tax code. It certainly can be made simpler, but a word count and page count is not an indication of complexity.
In this case, Perry also managed to mix up his facts, taking a word count for the tax code and page count for something completely different. The overall effect is pretty misleading. Even a relaunched campaign needs better staff work than that.
Three Pinocchios
The Right-Wing's Phony Anti-Semitism Smears
From The Daily Beast -- October 25, 2011:
The Right's Failed Protest Smear
Right-wing figures like Bill Kristol are pushing the idea that Occupy Wall Street is anti-Semitic to scare Jews and embarrass politicians like Obama, but the tactic is not gaining traction.
When your cries of anti-Semitism fail to rile the Anti-Defamation League, you might be on the wrong track.
That, however, has not stopped various right-wing figures from pushing the idea that Occupy Wall Street is a hotbed of Jew hatred. A group called the Emergency Committee for Israel, co-founded by Bill Kristol, is running television ads designed to scare Jews about the movement and embarrass politicians who’ve been sympathetic to the protesters. They feature footage of three men saying hateful things about Jews, before a voiceover asks: “Why are our leaders turning a blind eye to anti-Semitic, anti-Israel attacks? Tell President Obama and Leader Pelosi to stand up to the mob.” Since then, other conservatives have ceaselessly amplified the message, while complaining that the rest of the media is ignoring rampant bigotry on the left.
But the Anti-Defamation League, which no one can accuse of ignoring anti-Semitism, has been less than alarmed. In a statement, ADL head Abraham H. Foxman expressed concern about a few anti-Semites who’ve showed up at the protests, but said, “There is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants.” Indeed, when Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen went to the demonstrations searching for bigots, he failed to find any. “This was my second visit to the Occupy Wall Street site and the second time my keen reporter’s eye has failed to detect even a hint of the anti-Semitism that had been trumpeted by certain right-wing websites and bloggers, most prominently Bill Kristol,” he wrote.
This is not to say that there is no one at Occupy Wall Street, or its many national offshoots, expressing despicable views. Protests always attract fringe characters, particularly when they provide free food and warm clothes to all comers. The footage that the Emergency Committee for Israel used is real, though somewhat disingenuous. For example, one of the ad’s anti-Semites, a guy holding a sign saying “Google: Zionists Control Wall Street,” has since been identified as a homeless man known to picket the area with such placards before the protests even began. Occupy Wall Street has tried desperately to get rid of him, but the police have (correctly) refused to eject him, citing his free-speech rights. “This guy with the Google Zionist banker sign, nobody wants him there,” says Daniel Sieradski, a Jewish activist who organized an open-air Yom Kippur service at Occupy Wall Street, attended by almost 1,000 people. “Everybody is harassing him, screaming at him, totally flipping out on him. Everybody wants him gone, and the police say if you have a right to freedom of assembly so does he.”
This is not the first time that the Emergency Committee for Israel, which Kristol co-founded with the evangelical leader Gary Bauer, has run a misleading ad. In 2010, it put out a commercial accusing Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak of raising money for “an anti-Israel organization the FBI called a ‘front-group for Hamas.'” It was a reference to a speech Sestak gave to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country’s largest Muslim civil-rights group, an organization anodyne enough that George W. Bush met with its leaders after the 9/11 attacks.
In September, even as the Obama administration announced its determination to veto the Palestinian statehood initiative in the U.N. Security Council, the Emergency Committee for Israel took out a full-page ad in The New York Times attacking the president. “Over the past two and a half years, President Obama has built a record that is not pro-Israel,” it said. “He tells Jews they cannot build in Jerusalem; he has criticized Israel at the U.N.; he has pressured Israel to apologize to terrorists; he seeks the division of Jerusalem.” The American Jewish Committee, a nonpartisan, fiercely Zionist organization, denounced the ad as “highly objectionable, indeed counterproductive, to its stated aim of supporting Israel… [it] makes us wonder what are the true goals of the sponsoring group."
Nevertheless, the uproar over the Emergency Committee for Israel’s latest bit of propaganda has succeeded in drawing attention to one dangerous hatemonger—Rachel Decter Abrams, one of the Emergency Committee’s three board members. On October 18, as the Emergency Committee was warning of “Hate at Occupy Wall Street,” Abrams, wife of former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, published a rant on her blog that seemed to call for the mass murder of Palestinians. Coupled with her group’s attacks on Occupy Wall Street, it tells us something about who the real extremists are.
The Right's Failed Protest Smear
Right-wing figures like Bill Kristol are pushing the idea that Occupy Wall Street is anti-Semitic to scare Jews and embarrass politicians like Obama, but the tactic is not gaining traction.
When your cries of anti-Semitism fail to rile the Anti-Defamation League, you might be on the wrong track.
That, however, has not stopped various right-wing figures from pushing the idea that Occupy Wall Street is a hotbed of Jew hatred. A group called the Emergency Committee for Israel, co-founded by Bill Kristol, is running television ads designed to scare Jews about the movement and embarrass politicians who’ve been sympathetic to the protesters. They feature footage of three men saying hateful things about Jews, before a voiceover asks: “Why are our leaders turning a blind eye to anti-Semitic, anti-Israel attacks? Tell President Obama and Leader Pelosi to stand up to the mob.” Since then, other conservatives have ceaselessly amplified the message, while complaining that the rest of the media is ignoring rampant bigotry on the left.
But the Anti-Defamation League, which no one can accuse of ignoring anti-Semitism, has been less than alarmed. In a statement, ADL head Abraham H. Foxman expressed concern about a few anti-Semites who’ve showed up at the protests, but said, “There is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants.” Indeed, when Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen went to the demonstrations searching for bigots, he failed to find any. “This was my second visit to the Occupy Wall Street site and the second time my keen reporter’s eye has failed to detect even a hint of the anti-Semitism that had been trumpeted by certain right-wing websites and bloggers, most prominently Bill Kristol,” he wrote.
This is not to say that there is no one at Occupy Wall Street, or its many national offshoots, expressing despicable views. Protests always attract fringe characters, particularly when they provide free food and warm clothes to all comers. The footage that the Emergency Committee for Israel used is real, though somewhat disingenuous. For example, one of the ad’s anti-Semites, a guy holding a sign saying “Google: Zionists Control Wall Street,” has since been identified as a homeless man known to picket the area with such placards before the protests even began. Occupy Wall Street has tried desperately to get rid of him, but the police have (correctly) refused to eject him, citing his free-speech rights. “This guy with the Google Zionist banker sign, nobody wants him there,” says Daniel Sieradski, a Jewish activist who organized an open-air Yom Kippur service at Occupy Wall Street, attended by almost 1,000 people. “Everybody is harassing him, screaming at him, totally flipping out on him. Everybody wants him gone, and the police say if you have a right to freedom of assembly so does he.”
This is not the first time that the Emergency Committee for Israel, which Kristol co-founded with the evangelical leader Gary Bauer, has run a misleading ad. In 2010, it put out a commercial accusing Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak of raising money for “an anti-Israel organization the FBI called a ‘front-group for Hamas.'” It was a reference to a speech Sestak gave to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country’s largest Muslim civil-rights group, an organization anodyne enough that George W. Bush met with its leaders after the 9/11 attacks.
In September, even as the Obama administration announced its determination to veto the Palestinian statehood initiative in the U.N. Security Council, the Emergency Committee for Israel took out a full-page ad in The New York Times attacking the president. “Over the past two and a half years, President Obama has built a record that is not pro-Israel,” it said. “He tells Jews they cannot build in Jerusalem; he has criticized Israel at the U.N.; he has pressured Israel to apologize to terrorists; he seeks the division of Jerusalem.” The American Jewish Committee, a nonpartisan, fiercely Zionist organization, denounced the ad as “highly objectionable, indeed counterproductive, to its stated aim of supporting Israel… [it] makes us wonder what are the true goals of the sponsoring group."
Nevertheless, the uproar over the Emergency Committee for Israel’s latest bit of propaganda has succeeded in drawing attention to one dangerous hatemonger—Rachel Decter Abrams, one of the Emergency Committee’s three board members. On October 18, as the Emergency Committee was warning of “Hate at Occupy Wall Street,” Abrams, wife of former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, published a rant on her blog that seemed to call for the mass murder of Palestinians. Coupled with her group’s attacks on Occupy Wall Street, it tells us something about who the real extremists are.
Right-Wing Media Love Rick Perry's New Tax Plan Since It Lowers Taxes on Billionaires and Destroys Everyone Else
From Media Matters for America -- October 26, 2011:
"The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan's": Right-Wing Media Tout Perry's Flat Tax
Following the release of Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's (R-TX) tax plan, conservative media have hyped the plan, claiming it is "exciting" and a "radical improvement" over the current system. However, economists from across the spectrum have criticized Perry's plan, noting that it will lead to "substantial" revenue loss and "draconian cuts" while "undermin[ing]" the need to make the tax code simpler.
Conservative Media Hype Rick Perry's Tax Plan As "A Radical Improvement"
Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes: Perry's Plan Is "Very Strong" And "Has A Lot Of Very Appealing Pro-Growth Aspects To It." From the October 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: OK, Steve, thoughts on this plan and the rollout?
HAYES: Very strong. I like the plan a lot. I think it has a lot of very appealing pro-growth aspects to it. I particularly like the 20 percent tax. There have been already complaints that this is too complicated, that the phase-in or the opt-in and opt-out will make things too complicated. I think that's nonsense. You have basically the option for people to choose whether they want to pay higher taxes. Who's going to choose whether to pay higher taxes? [Fox News, Special Report, 10/25/11]
Steve Forbes: Perry's Tax Reform Proposal Is "The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan's." An October 20 Yahoo News article reported that Steve Forbes stated that he "helped devise Perry's plan" and heaped lavish praise on that plan. From the article:
Steve Forbes, whose flat tax plan helped make him an unlikely contender for the Republican presidential nomination 15 years ago, is praising a new version of the idea from Rick Perry. And Forbes, who says he helped devise Perry's plan, left little doubt that he'll formally back the Texas governor before long.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Forbes called Perry's proposal, announced in a speech Wednesday, "the most exciting tax plan since Reagan's," in 1980.
Asked whether that included his own 1996 plan, Forbes said it did, because unlike him in 1996, when he fell short of upsetting front-runner Bob Dole, Perry "is going to win."
Forbes, the chief executive of his family's eponymous publishing empire, said the Perry camp reached out to him for help in crafting their plan. "We got into discussions of basic principles--how the thing might be shaped," he said. "The candidate concluded it ought be a simple rate. Make it as simple and bold as possible."
Asked whether the Perry plan would immediately raise as much tax revenue as the current system, Forbes did not answer directly. But he said that in the long-run, it would increase revenue, by spurring economic growth.
Many on the left argue that a flat tax would increase the tax burden on the poor, while easing the load on wealthier Americans. Forbes dismissed those concerns.
"It's gonna be good for all taxpayers," he said. [Yahoo News, 10/20/11]
Forbes Reiterated His Support On Fox: The Flat Tax Is "A Tax Cut For Most People, Not A Tax Increase." [Fox News, America Live, 10/25/11, via Media Matters]
Big Government's Dan Mitchell: Perry's Plan Has "Some Missing Homework, But [Is] A Solid B+" And "A Radical Improvement Compared To The Current Tax System." In an October 25 post on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com headlined "Grading Perry's Flat Tax: Some Missing Homework, But A Solid B+," contributor and Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell wrote:
As a long-time advocate of a pure flat tax, I'm not happy that Perry has deviated from the ideal approach. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the very good. If implemented, his plan would dramatically boost economic performance and improve competitiveness.
Depending on the answers to these questions, the grade for Perry's flat tax could be as high as A- or as low as B. Regardless, it will be a radical improvement compared to the current tax system, which gets a D- (and that's a very kind grade). [Big Government, 10/25/11]
Hoft Hypes Perry's Tax Plan. From an October 24 post on Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit blog:
Governor Rick Perry unveiled his 20% flat tax and spending plan tonight. The plan will give individuals the option of paying a 20% flat-rate income tax. It will also cap federal spending at 18% of GDP. Another selling point - the simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs.
Sounds good.
Steve Forbes was impressed. He endorsed the plan on Monday. [Gateway Pundit, 10/24/11, emphasis original]
However, Experts Describe The Plan As "Delusional" And Claim It Will Lead To "Draconian Cuts" And "Substantial" Revenue Loss
Syracuse University Economics Professor: Perry's Plan Is "Delusional Policy" And "The Race To The Bottom On Tax Policy Is Getting Scary." In an October 25 post on Forbes magazine's website titled "Perry Optional Alternative Flat Tax -- Good Politics, Delusional Policy," Len Burman, Professor of Practice, Public Administration and Economics at Syracuse University, wrote:
Here's a quick note on Perry's actual plan, as outlined in his Wall Street Journal op ed today. Yesterday, I noted that a flat tax would be regressive and potentially raise taxes on low- and middle-income people. I was assuming, erroneously as it turns out, that Perry's plan would be designed to raise at least as much revenue as current law. But it would actually amount to a giant tax cut.
Here's what he said in the WSJ:
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
The plan is optional, meaning that low- and middle-income families that benefit from refundable credits will stay in the current system. High-income taxpayers will jump at the chance to avoid paying tax on interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, royalties, and other capital income. That is a large share of their income, and it would be exempt under Perry's plan. And the 20% rate is much lower than the current top rate of 35%. And, moderately well off people get to keep the most popular deductions.
The idea of an optional alternative tax system is not new. John McCain proposed one in 2008 and it would have added $7 trillion to the debt over a decade. It's virtually always true that if you offer taxpayers a choice, it will cost the Treasury money.
I have no idea how big a tax cut Perry's plan is, but there's no way this plan will come close to raising 18% of GDP (Perry's spending target) unless there are hidden revenue raisers that I missed. The idea of adding to our enormous deficits to provide giant tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires just blows my mind.
And, by the way, an optional alternative tax system is not simple. Millions of middle-income taxpayers will have to figure their taxes two ways to figure out which plan is better for them. Will it be called the Alternative Maximum Tax?
The race to the bottom on tax policy is getting scary. [Forbes.com, 10/25/11]
CBPP: Perry's Plan Would Require "A Dismantling Of Federal Programs" And "Draconian Cuts In Virtually Every Kind Of Spending." From a New York Times article headlined "Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal 'Bold Reform' ":
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas unveiled a plan on Tuesday to scrap the graduated income tax and replace it with a 20 percent flat rate. By throwing out rates as high as 35 percent and eliminating estate and investment taxes, the plan would grant a major tax cut for the wealthy.
The plan also proposes reducing the scope of the federal government by requiring drastically austere federal budgets -- compared with what exists now -- that spend no more than 18 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, which analysts said would most likely force big cuts in government spending at almost every level. That would equate to a cut of one-quarter of the budget from 2011 expected levels, and it would mark the lowest level of spending relative to G.D.P. since the mid-1960s, though rising tax receipts during the roaring economy of a dozen years ago temporarily brought the level close to 18 percent.
To address the projected long-term financial shortfall within Social Security, Mr. Perry suggested raising the retirement age and potentially changing the age eligibility for Medicare and using a sliding scale to limit benefits based on income -- two proposals that could face significant opposition in Congress. Mr. Perry, who said his plan would balance the budget by 2020, also proposed letting younger workers divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts, a longtime goal of economic conservatives.
Analysts said it would take time to examine the effects of the Perry plan. But Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said: "There are two things we can say with certainty: It will lower revenue and be a great benefit to the wealthy."
He said the poor who have children would most likely do better under the current system, because refundable tax credits provide some with net payments from the government. But Mr. Williams said it was unclear how many among the middle class would benefit -- though families with more children or bigger mortgages would be more likely to opt for his proposal.
Mr. Perry pledged to not cut any benefits of current Social Security retirees or those about to tap into the system. But to do that, and cut the budget to 18 percent of G.D.P., would require cutting at least one-third of the remaining federal budget, said James R. Horney, the vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group in Washington. It would require "a dismantling of federal programs," Mr. Horney said, and "draconian cuts in virtually every kind of spending." [The New York Times, 10/25/11]
Brookings Senior Fellow: Perry's Plan "Undermines" The Idea That The Tax Code Should Be Made Simpler While Leading To A " 'Substantial' Decrease In Revenues." From a CBSNews.com article:
Perry is offering taxpayers two choices -- either stick with the current tax system or opt into a new system in which they pay a 20 percent flat income tax. That incentivizes those who would pay less under the current system to stick with it, and those who would pay less under the flat tax plan -- largely Americans on the upper end of the income scale - to opt for the new plan.
That would add up to a "substantial" decrease in revenues, says Ted Gayer, the co-director of the Economic Studies program and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Perry has yet to lay out all the specifics of the plan, which makes it difficult to estimate its full impact. But "it's clearly going to be a reduction in revenues, I think fairly substantial," said Gayer. Many conservative Republicans want to reduce the role of government in society in part by starving it of funds.
What Perry's plan boils down to is a tax cut for the highest-income Americans, who currently pay a top marginal income tax rate of 35 percent, and no tax change for those who don't opt for the new system.
Perry argues that his plan simplifies the tax code, saying Tuesday that taxpayers will simply need to fill out a postcard to file their taxes. But since they will need to decide between the old system and the new one, it won't be quite so simple for many Americans.
"It kind of undermines the whole we're making your taxes simpler argument, because you still have to go through both systems to see which one is best for you," said Gayer.
Perry vowed to balance the budget by 2020 and cap on federal spending at no more than 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Under current policy forecasts, the United States will be spending 26 percent of GDP in 2020 and 34 percent of GDP by 2035. Perry would need to dramatically slash federal spending to meet his 18 percent goal. [CBSNews.com, 10/25/11]
Even Conservative Economists Have Called Perry's Plan "Fiscally Irresponsible" And "A Disaster"
Economist Peter Morici: "Rick Perry's Tax Plan Would Be A Disaster For America." In a post on FoxNews.com, Peter Morici, Professor of Logistics, Business and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, wrote:
Seeking to jump start his flagging presidential campaign and establish his pro-growth and fiscal responsibility credentials, Governor Rick Perry is unveiling a tax plan that will not jump start the economy and is fiscally irresponsible.
In a nutshell, Mr. Perry would give taxpayers a choice between filing under the current income tax system -- with all its flaws -- and an alternative flat tax 20 percent system. Under the latter, families could maintain their mortgage deductions if they earn less than $500,000, which is about 99 percent of taxpayers, and could declare exemptions of $12,500 for each family member.
It seems appealing -- a simplified tax system, fewer IRS agents, and so forth. But the plan falls short in two important respects -- it won't encourage many better investment decisions and foster growth, and it will spin the federal deficit permanently into the stratosphere.
The whole purpose of a flat tax is to encourage individuals and corporations to invest more in sound business opportunities, instead of prospecting for tax breaks by buying homes bigger than they need or spending on government hobby horse projects like solar panels. By giving tax payers the option of filing under the old system, however, the Perry plan will encourage the wealthy and near-wealthy to continue prospecting for loopholes and credit. Most of those folks don't pay 20 percent now, so don't count on them to volunteer for Mr. Perry's plan.
With less revenue in hand, Gov. Perry proposes slashing government spending to 18 percent of GDP--that would require $900 billion in annual spending cuts, when the Congress is having trouble agreeing on an additional $100 billion.
Such cuts are possible by increasing the retirement age to 70 and slashing Medicare and Medicare spending and gutting the defense budget.
If Gov. Perry wants to slash taxes that's fine but let's go to a real flat tax. Let Gov. Perry tell Americans how he is going to tame the monster that ate Washington--created through escalating health care spending--and rationalize social security and defense spending. [FoxNews.com, 10/25/11]
Former Chief Economist For House Committee: "Perry's Plan Would Preserve Crony Capitalist Tax Code." In an October 25 blog post titled "Perry's plan would preserve crony capitalist tax code," Alex Brill, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former chief economist for the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote:
Governor Perry's new proposal for an optional pro-growth tax code will do little for our economy while increasing the complexity of the tax code. A flat rate income tax would lead to positive economic growth, but making it optional as Governor Perry has proposed preserves the opportunities for "crony capitalism" and other existing distortions in the code.
This is because an optional flat tax is only appealing to those taxpayers who see it as a tax cut. Taxpayers who can reduce their tax liability by exploiting an existing tax break will do just that. In other words, an optional flat tax is appealing only to those who can't get a good break elsewhere in the code.
In one sense, an optional flat tax is the polar opposite of the AMT: a mandatory, parallel tax system that hits those taxpayers who are "too effective" at lowering their tax burden. But in another sense, it's quite similar: yet another tax code. [American Enterprise Institute, The Enterprise Blog, 10/25/11]
AEI "Resident Scholar": Perry's "Optional Tax Code Worse Than A Gimmick." In an October 25 blog post titled "Optional tax code worse than a gimmick," Andrew Briggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote:
Jim Pethokoukis points out what he calls a "gimmick" in Governor Rick Perry's proposed flat tax plan: taxpayers would get the choice to file under the current tax code or under the new flat tax plan. While I agree that this is a bit silly from a policy point of view, the problems go deeper than that. Why? Well, the flat tax is supposed to do three things: raise sufficient revenue, reduce compliance costs, and reduce economic distortions.
But if you can choose which tax code to file under then, to a first approximation, people will choose whichever costs them the least. In theory at least, to raise the same revenue in a static analysis the flat tax would have to be set such that no one could pay lower taxes than under current law, since if they could pay lower taxes they will pay lower taxes. It's easy to respond that people would choose the flat tax for its simplicity even if it costs them more, but they can already have a simple tax code under current law: just don't bother hunting down all your deductions.
The same goes for compliance costs: to know which tax code to file under you need to do your taxes under both, undermining the simplicity of the flat tax. One of the reasons compliance costs are so high today is that there can be such a reward for figuring out strategies to minimize your taxes; it's not clear that Perry's flat tax fixes this problem. And finally, if people have the option of filing under the current tax code then all the economic distortions embedded in it will remain, at least for that significant portion of the population who would do better under current law than the flat tax. A person may say to himself, "I can pay lower taxes than under the flat tax plan so long as I [insert governmentally imposed distortion here]." Marginal tax rates for high earners would be lower, reducing economic distortions, but it's unclear where you'll make up the revenue if low and middle earners get to file under current law where they pay next to nothing. [American Enterprise Institute, The Enterprise Blog, 10/25/11]
AEI's Director Of Economic Policy Studies: Under Perry's Plan Government Would Have To Drastically Slash Spending. From the Associated Press:
By design, Perry's plan "must lose revenue" for the government, said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. To avoid higher deficits, Hassett said, the government would have to slash spending in ways not seen since the steep military drawdown after World War II. [Associated Press, 10/25/11, via ABCNews.com]
"The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan's": Right-Wing Media Tout Perry's Flat Tax
Following the release of Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's (R-TX) tax plan, conservative media have hyped the plan, claiming it is "exciting" and a "radical improvement" over the current system. However, economists from across the spectrum have criticized Perry's plan, noting that it will lead to "substantial" revenue loss and "draconian cuts" while "undermin[ing]" the need to make the tax code simpler.
Conservative Media Hype Rick Perry's Tax Plan As "A Radical Improvement"
Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes: Perry's Plan Is "Very Strong" And "Has A Lot Of Very Appealing Pro-Growth Aspects To It." From the October 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: OK, Steve, thoughts on this plan and the rollout?
HAYES: Very strong. I like the plan a lot. I think it has a lot of very appealing pro-growth aspects to it. I particularly like the 20 percent tax. There have been already complaints that this is too complicated, that the phase-in or the opt-in and opt-out will make things too complicated. I think that's nonsense. You have basically the option for people to choose whether they want to pay higher taxes. Who's going to choose whether to pay higher taxes? [Fox News, Special Report, 10/25/11]
Steve Forbes: Perry's Tax Reform Proposal Is "The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan's." An October 20 Yahoo News article reported that Steve Forbes stated that he "helped devise Perry's plan" and heaped lavish praise on that plan. From the article:
Steve Forbes, whose flat tax plan helped make him an unlikely contender for the Republican presidential nomination 15 years ago, is praising a new version of the idea from Rick Perry. And Forbes, who says he helped devise Perry's plan, left little doubt that he'll formally back the Texas governor before long.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Forbes called Perry's proposal, announced in a speech Wednesday, "the most exciting tax plan since Reagan's," in 1980.
Asked whether that included his own 1996 plan, Forbes said it did, because unlike him in 1996, when he fell short of upsetting front-runner Bob Dole, Perry "is going to win."
Forbes, the chief executive of his family's eponymous publishing empire, said the Perry camp reached out to him for help in crafting their plan. "We got into discussions of basic principles--how the thing might be shaped," he said. "The candidate concluded it ought be a simple rate. Make it as simple and bold as possible."
Asked whether the Perry plan would immediately raise as much tax revenue as the current system, Forbes did not answer directly. But he said that in the long-run, it would increase revenue, by spurring economic growth.
Many on the left argue that a flat tax would increase the tax burden on the poor, while easing the load on wealthier Americans. Forbes dismissed those concerns.
"It's gonna be good for all taxpayers," he said. [Yahoo News, 10/20/11]
Forbes Reiterated His Support On Fox: The Flat Tax Is "A Tax Cut For Most People, Not A Tax Increase." [Fox News, America Live, 10/25/11, via Media Matters]
Big Government's Dan Mitchell: Perry's Plan Has "Some Missing Homework, But [Is] A Solid B+" And "A Radical Improvement Compared To The Current Tax System." In an October 25 post on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com headlined "Grading Perry's Flat Tax: Some Missing Homework, But A Solid B+," contributor and Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell wrote:
As a long-time advocate of a pure flat tax, I'm not happy that Perry has deviated from the ideal approach. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the very good. If implemented, his plan would dramatically boost economic performance and improve competitiveness.
Depending on the answers to these questions, the grade for Perry's flat tax could be as high as A- or as low as B. Regardless, it will be a radical improvement compared to the current tax system, which gets a D- (and that's a very kind grade). [Big Government, 10/25/11]
Hoft Hypes Perry's Tax Plan. From an October 24 post on Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit blog:
Governor Rick Perry unveiled his 20% flat tax and spending plan tonight. The plan will give individuals the option of paying a 20% flat-rate income tax. It will also cap federal spending at 18% of GDP. Another selling point - the simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs.
Sounds good.
Steve Forbes was impressed. He endorsed the plan on Monday. [Gateway Pundit, 10/24/11, emphasis original]
However, Experts Describe The Plan As "Delusional" And Claim It Will Lead To "Draconian Cuts" And "Substantial" Revenue Loss
Syracuse University Economics Professor: Perry's Plan Is "Delusional Policy" And "The Race To The Bottom On Tax Policy Is Getting Scary." In an October 25 post on Forbes magazine's website titled "Perry Optional Alternative Flat Tax -- Good Politics, Delusional Policy," Len Burman, Professor of Practice, Public Administration and Economics at Syracuse University, wrote:
Here's a quick note on Perry's actual plan, as outlined in his Wall Street Journal op ed today. Yesterday, I noted that a flat tax would be regressive and potentially raise taxes on low- and middle-income people. I was assuming, erroneously as it turns out, that Perry's plan would be designed to raise at least as much revenue as current law. But it would actually amount to a giant tax cut.
Here's what he said in the WSJ:
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
The plan is optional, meaning that low- and middle-income families that benefit from refundable credits will stay in the current system. High-income taxpayers will jump at the chance to avoid paying tax on interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, royalties, and other capital income. That is a large share of their income, and it would be exempt under Perry's plan. And the 20% rate is much lower than the current top rate of 35%. And, moderately well off people get to keep the most popular deductions.
The idea of an optional alternative tax system is not new. John McCain proposed one in 2008 and it would have added $7 trillion to the debt over a decade. It's virtually always true that if you offer taxpayers a choice, it will cost the Treasury money.
I have no idea how big a tax cut Perry's plan is, but there's no way this plan will come close to raising 18% of GDP (Perry's spending target) unless there are hidden revenue raisers that I missed. The idea of adding to our enormous deficits to provide giant tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires just blows my mind.
And, by the way, an optional alternative tax system is not simple. Millions of middle-income taxpayers will have to figure their taxes two ways to figure out which plan is better for them. Will it be called the Alternative Maximum Tax?
The race to the bottom on tax policy is getting scary. [Forbes.com, 10/25/11]
CBPP: Perry's Plan Would Require "A Dismantling Of Federal Programs" And "Draconian Cuts In Virtually Every Kind Of Spending." From a New York Times article headlined "Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal 'Bold Reform' ":
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas unveiled a plan on Tuesday to scrap the graduated income tax and replace it with a 20 percent flat rate. By throwing out rates as high as 35 percent and eliminating estate and investment taxes, the plan would grant a major tax cut for the wealthy.
The plan also proposes reducing the scope of the federal government by requiring drastically austere federal budgets -- compared with what exists now -- that spend no more than 18 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, which analysts said would most likely force big cuts in government spending at almost every level. That would equate to a cut of one-quarter of the budget from 2011 expected levels, and it would mark the lowest level of spending relative to G.D.P. since the mid-1960s, though rising tax receipts during the roaring economy of a dozen years ago temporarily brought the level close to 18 percent.
To address the projected long-term financial shortfall within Social Security, Mr. Perry suggested raising the retirement age and potentially changing the age eligibility for Medicare and using a sliding scale to limit benefits based on income -- two proposals that could face significant opposition in Congress. Mr. Perry, who said his plan would balance the budget by 2020, also proposed letting younger workers divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts, a longtime goal of economic conservatives.
Analysts said it would take time to examine the effects of the Perry plan. But Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said: "There are two things we can say with certainty: It will lower revenue and be a great benefit to the wealthy."
He said the poor who have children would most likely do better under the current system, because refundable tax credits provide some with net payments from the government. But Mr. Williams said it was unclear how many among the middle class would benefit -- though families with more children or bigger mortgages would be more likely to opt for his proposal.
Mr. Perry pledged to not cut any benefits of current Social Security retirees or those about to tap into the system. But to do that, and cut the budget to 18 percent of G.D.P., would require cutting at least one-third of the remaining federal budget, said James R. Horney, the vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group in Washington. It would require "a dismantling of federal programs," Mr. Horney said, and "draconian cuts in virtually every kind of spending." [The New York Times, 10/25/11]
Brookings Senior Fellow: Perry's Plan "Undermines" The Idea That The Tax Code Should Be Made Simpler While Leading To A " 'Substantial' Decrease In Revenues." From a CBSNews.com article:
Perry is offering taxpayers two choices -- either stick with the current tax system or opt into a new system in which they pay a 20 percent flat income tax. That incentivizes those who would pay less under the current system to stick with it, and those who would pay less under the flat tax plan -- largely Americans on the upper end of the income scale - to opt for the new plan.
That would add up to a "substantial" decrease in revenues, says Ted Gayer, the co-director of the Economic Studies program and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Perry has yet to lay out all the specifics of the plan, which makes it difficult to estimate its full impact. But "it's clearly going to be a reduction in revenues, I think fairly substantial," said Gayer. Many conservative Republicans want to reduce the role of government in society in part by starving it of funds.
What Perry's plan boils down to is a tax cut for the highest-income Americans, who currently pay a top marginal income tax rate of 35 percent, and no tax change for those who don't opt for the new system.
Perry argues that his plan simplifies the tax code, saying Tuesday that taxpayers will simply need to fill out a postcard to file their taxes. But since they will need to decide between the old system and the new one, it won't be quite so simple for many Americans.
"It kind of undermines the whole we're making your taxes simpler argument, because you still have to go through both systems to see which one is best for you," said Gayer.
Perry vowed to balance the budget by 2020 and cap on federal spending at no more than 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Under current policy forecasts, the United States will be spending 26 percent of GDP in 2020 and 34 percent of GDP by 2035. Perry would need to dramatically slash federal spending to meet his 18 percent goal. [CBSNews.com, 10/25/11]
Even Conservative Economists Have Called Perry's Plan "Fiscally Irresponsible" And "A Disaster"
Economist Peter Morici: "Rick Perry's Tax Plan Would Be A Disaster For America." In a post on FoxNews.com, Peter Morici, Professor of Logistics, Business and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, wrote:
Seeking to jump start his flagging presidential campaign and establish his pro-growth and fiscal responsibility credentials, Governor Rick Perry is unveiling a tax plan that will not jump start the economy and is fiscally irresponsible.
In a nutshell, Mr. Perry would give taxpayers a choice between filing under the current income tax system -- with all its flaws -- and an alternative flat tax 20 percent system. Under the latter, families could maintain their mortgage deductions if they earn less than $500,000, which is about 99 percent of taxpayers, and could declare exemptions of $12,500 for each family member.
It seems appealing -- a simplified tax system, fewer IRS agents, and so forth. But the plan falls short in two important respects -- it won't encourage many better investment decisions and foster growth, and it will spin the federal deficit permanently into the stratosphere.
The whole purpose of a flat tax is to encourage individuals and corporations to invest more in sound business opportunities, instead of prospecting for tax breaks by buying homes bigger than they need or spending on government hobby horse projects like solar panels. By giving tax payers the option of filing under the old system, however, the Perry plan will encourage the wealthy and near-wealthy to continue prospecting for loopholes and credit. Most of those folks don't pay 20 percent now, so don't count on them to volunteer for Mr. Perry's plan.
With less revenue in hand, Gov. Perry proposes slashing government spending to 18 percent of GDP--that would require $900 billion in annual spending cuts, when the Congress is having trouble agreeing on an additional $100 billion.
Such cuts are possible by increasing the retirement age to 70 and slashing Medicare and Medicare spending and gutting the defense budget.
If Gov. Perry wants to slash taxes that's fine but let's go to a real flat tax. Let Gov. Perry tell Americans how he is going to tame the monster that ate Washington--created through escalating health care spending--and rationalize social security and defense spending. [FoxNews.com, 10/25/11]
Former Chief Economist For House Committee: "Perry's Plan Would Preserve Crony Capitalist Tax Code." In an October 25 blog post titled "Perry's plan would preserve crony capitalist tax code," Alex Brill, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former chief economist for the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote:
Governor Perry's new proposal for an optional pro-growth tax code will do little for our economy while increasing the complexity of the tax code. A flat rate income tax would lead to positive economic growth, but making it optional as Governor Perry has proposed preserves the opportunities for "crony capitalism" and other existing distortions in the code.
This is because an optional flat tax is only appealing to those taxpayers who see it as a tax cut. Taxpayers who can reduce their tax liability by exploiting an existing tax break will do just that. In other words, an optional flat tax is appealing only to those who can't get a good break elsewhere in the code.
In one sense, an optional flat tax is the polar opposite of the AMT: a mandatory, parallel tax system that hits those taxpayers who are "too effective" at lowering their tax burden. But in another sense, it's quite similar: yet another tax code. [American Enterprise Institute, The Enterprise Blog, 10/25/11]
AEI "Resident Scholar": Perry's "Optional Tax Code Worse Than A Gimmick." In an October 25 blog post titled "Optional tax code worse than a gimmick," Andrew Briggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote:
Jim Pethokoukis points out what he calls a "gimmick" in Governor Rick Perry's proposed flat tax plan: taxpayers would get the choice to file under the current tax code or under the new flat tax plan. While I agree that this is a bit silly from a policy point of view, the problems go deeper than that. Why? Well, the flat tax is supposed to do three things: raise sufficient revenue, reduce compliance costs, and reduce economic distortions.
But if you can choose which tax code to file under then, to a first approximation, people will choose whichever costs them the least. In theory at least, to raise the same revenue in a static analysis the flat tax would have to be set such that no one could pay lower taxes than under current law, since if they could pay lower taxes they will pay lower taxes. It's easy to respond that people would choose the flat tax for its simplicity even if it costs them more, but they can already have a simple tax code under current law: just don't bother hunting down all your deductions.
The same goes for compliance costs: to know which tax code to file under you need to do your taxes under both, undermining the simplicity of the flat tax. One of the reasons compliance costs are so high today is that there can be such a reward for figuring out strategies to minimize your taxes; it's not clear that Perry's flat tax fixes this problem. And finally, if people have the option of filing under the current tax code then all the economic distortions embedded in it will remain, at least for that significant portion of the population who would do better under current law than the flat tax. A person may say to himself, "I can pay lower taxes than under the flat tax plan so long as I [insert governmentally imposed distortion here]." Marginal tax rates for high earners would be lower, reducing economic distortions, but it's unclear where you'll make up the revenue if low and middle earners get to file under current law where they pay next to nothing. [American Enterprise Institute, The Enterprise Blog, 10/25/11]
AEI's Director Of Economic Policy Studies: Under Perry's Plan Government Would Have To Drastically Slash Spending. From the Associated Press:
By design, Perry's plan "must lose revenue" for the government, said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. To avoid higher deficits, Hassett said, the government would have to slash spending in ways not seen since the steep military drawdown after World War II. [Associated Press, 10/25/11, via ABCNews.com]
FOX News, The Voice of American Fascism -- Fascist FOX -- Attacks Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan Because It Helps People Instead of Billionaires
From Media Matters for America -- October 25, 2011:
"Bribes" And "Farce": Fox Rushes To Attack Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan
Fox has rushed to attack President Obama's plan to assist homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages as a "re-election ploy," an offer of "bribes," and "purely a political stunt."
AP: "Obama Offered Mortgage Relief On Monday To Hundreds Of Thousands Of Americans." From an October 24 Associated Press (AP) article:
President Barack Obama offered mortgage relief on Monday to hundreds of thousands of Americans, his latest attempt to ease the economic and political fallout of a housing crisis that has bedeviled him as he seeks a second term.
"I'm here to say that we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job," the president declared outside a family home in Las Vegas, the epicenter of foreclosures and joblessness. "Where they won't act, I will."
Making a case for his policies and a new effort to circumvent roadblocks put up by Republican lawmakers, Obama also laid out a theme for his re-election, saying that there's "no excuse for all the games and the gridlock that we've been seeing in Washington."
While the White House tried to avoid predicting how many homeowners would benefit from the revamped refinancing program, the Federal Housing Finance Administration estimated an additional 1 million people would qualify. Moody's Analytics say the figure could be as high as 1.6 million.
Under Obama's proposal, homeowners who are still current on their mortgages would be able to refinance no matter how much their home value has dropped below what they still owe. [AP, 10/24/11, via MSNBC]
"Purely A Political Stunt": Fox Attacks Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan
Tantaros: Obama's Mortgage Plan Is "Purely A Political Stunt." During the October 25 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer asked Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros, "How vulnerable is this president on the issue of housing going into an election year?" Tantaros replied that Obama is "very vulnerable" and later said that "his plan is purely a political stunt."
Morici: Obama's Plan Is "A Re-Election Ploy." On the October 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy interviewed economist and professor Peter Morici about Obama's mortgage relief plan. Doocy said, "You know, the president is trying to not only keep people in their houses, but to try to keep him in the White House as well with this." Morici agreed, saying, "This is really a re-election ploy, because it's going to create new problems down the road."
Krauthammer: "[Obama] Knows That This Is A Farce." On the October 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said of Obama's plan, "But Obama is not here about fixing stuff. This is all about framing the debate. This is an appearance of motion. ... He knows that this is a farce." Fox Nation later hyped Krauthammer's commentary in an October 24 post.
Dobbs: Obama's New Plan To Help Homeowners Is "Offering Up ... Bribes" So He Can "Get Re-Elected." On the October 24 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly discussed Obama's plan with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs. Dobbs attacked Obama's plan, saying it was "one of the most irresponsible initiatives [Obama] could take" and later claiming that Obama is "offering up billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars in bribes" so that he can "get re-elected."
"Bribes" And "Farce": Fox Rushes To Attack Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan
Fox has rushed to attack President Obama's plan to assist homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages as a "re-election ploy," an offer of "bribes," and "purely a political stunt."
AP: "Obama Offered Mortgage Relief On Monday To Hundreds Of Thousands Of Americans." From an October 24 Associated Press (AP) article:
President Barack Obama offered mortgage relief on Monday to hundreds of thousands of Americans, his latest attempt to ease the economic and political fallout of a housing crisis that has bedeviled him as he seeks a second term.
"I'm here to say that we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job," the president declared outside a family home in Las Vegas, the epicenter of foreclosures and joblessness. "Where they won't act, I will."
Making a case for his policies and a new effort to circumvent roadblocks put up by Republican lawmakers, Obama also laid out a theme for his re-election, saying that there's "no excuse for all the games and the gridlock that we've been seeing in Washington."
While the White House tried to avoid predicting how many homeowners would benefit from the revamped refinancing program, the Federal Housing Finance Administration estimated an additional 1 million people would qualify. Moody's Analytics say the figure could be as high as 1.6 million.
Under Obama's proposal, homeowners who are still current on their mortgages would be able to refinance no matter how much their home value has dropped below what they still owe. [AP, 10/24/11, via MSNBC]
"Purely A Political Stunt": Fox Attacks Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan
Tantaros: Obama's Mortgage Plan Is "Purely A Political Stunt." During the October 25 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer asked Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros, "How vulnerable is this president on the issue of housing going into an election year?" Tantaros replied that Obama is "very vulnerable" and later said that "his plan is purely a political stunt."
Morici: Obama's Plan Is "A Re-Election Ploy." On the October 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy interviewed economist and professor Peter Morici about Obama's mortgage relief plan. Doocy said, "You know, the president is trying to not only keep people in their houses, but to try to keep him in the White House as well with this." Morici agreed, saying, "This is really a re-election ploy, because it's going to create new problems down the road."
Krauthammer: "[Obama] Knows That This Is A Farce." On the October 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said of Obama's plan, "But Obama is not here about fixing stuff. This is all about framing the debate. This is an appearance of motion. ... He knows that this is a farce." Fox Nation later hyped Krauthammer's commentary in an October 24 post.
Dobbs: Obama's New Plan To Help Homeowners Is "Offering Up ... Bribes" So He Can "Get Re-Elected." On the October 24 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly discussed Obama's plan with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs. Dobbs attacked Obama's plan, saying it was "one of the most irresponsible initiatives [Obama] could take" and later claiming that Obama is "offering up billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars in bribes" so that he can "get re-elected."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
