Posted on 06/02/2003 9:33:49 AM PDT by LavaDog
Networks Recycle Liberal Groups PR Spin, Pound Bush for Not Giving Tax Cuts to Non-Taxpayers
What is the purpose of the new tax cut President Bush signed this week? Is it designed to perk up the economy? Or is it designed to provide welfare checks for poor people who dont pay taxes?
Last night and this morning, the networks fervently picked answer #2. Yesterday, The New York Times published a front-page article by reporter David Firestone that largely served as a press release for the paleoliberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The CBPP told the Times that most families with incomes from $10,500 to $26,625 will not see any tax relief, including 11.9 million children.
The networks picked up this story and ran with it, telling the traditional class-war sob story about how the poor wont get any cash, while the rich dont need any. Left out or played down: that most of these taxpayers with kids pay little or no income tax, so fully refundable checks would be welfare payments, not tax cuts.
ABC: Peter Jennings began: On World News Tonight, the tax cut surprise. Some of the people who need it most will benefit the least. In the top story, reporter Linda Douglass found office messenger Rhonda Williams to lament that she would have used the money to send her kids to a nice college. Near the end, Douglass admitted: Many low-income families do not pay income taxes but are entitled to a portion of the child credit.
CBS: Substitute anchor Jane Clayson began the Evening News: Millions of U.S. taxpayers wont get the rebate theyre expecting. CBS was the oddball in not making this the top story, but reporter Bill Plante found a woman who wanted to pay for Pampers and wont be getting that refund check the president says is in the mail. Plantes last sentence allowed the White House points out that many of the families who will miss out on the $400 child tax credit already pay little or no income tax.
CNN: The afternoon show Inside Politics began with an announcer: The check may not be in the mail. This family is looking forward to the new child tax credit. But, surprise. Millions of low-income families wont get it. In the top story, Kate Snow totally ignored the angle that most of those left out dont pay income taxes. On Wednesdays edition of NewsNight, anchor Aaron Brown warmly previewed the Firestone story and said it proved why The New York Times is a great newspaper.
NBC: Tom Brokaw began Nightly News: Cut out. Why millions of lower-income families may not be getting the help they expected from President Bushs new tax cut. Brokaw described an embarrassing omission, that Bush left out low-income families in the tax cut. In the top story, reporter Campbell Brown even scolded Democrats, who only spoke up about it in response to a New York Times report today.
On CNBCs The News with Brian Williams last night, Williams echoed Brokaws embarrassing omission line, and ran the same Campbell Brown report. Both shows had the embarrassing omission of the non-taxpayer angle.
The bias even extended to the White House briefing yesterday. NBCs David Gregory incorrectly insisted a large group of people wont get their money. ABCs Terry Moran proposed to Ari Fleischer he should agree with his summation: I just want to make sure that you are saying that the White House agreed to make the choice to leave these children behind. For more on this very biased night, see todays CyberAlert.
They'll vote republican.
I didn't hear Peter Jennings spinning about the "unfairness" to childless families.
Honey, you're gonna need more than the small tax cut to acheive that goal, like a better job!
The Republicans present the Democrats with a choice. They can get tax relief for their constituents if they finally surrender the notion that FICA is not really a tax. It would be a fair trade, IMHO, to cut taxes on the lowest earners in return for eliminating the dedicated taxes. Once the dedicated taxes are gone, the public will start to look at the costs of the current non-means-tested Social Security system much more realistically.
Children are props to both parties because they know that most of the voters are stupid enough to by the "...for the children" line of crap. People with kids that they can't afford are easy votes to buy when they are doing it with other peoples' money.
Say.... this sounds vaguely familiar. Gee I wonder where this outlook started from. I got this email on Friday I believe...
By the way, am I the only one that see "CBPP" and thinks "CCCP"?
Footnotes at end of table. | ||||||||||||||||
Table 3.--Number of Individual Income Tax Returns, Income, Exemptions and Deductions, Tax, and | ||||||||||||||||
Average Tax, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Years 1999-2001--Continued | ||||||||||||||||
[All figures are estimates based on samples--money amounts are in thousands of dollars except as indicated] | ||||||||||||||||
Returns showing total income tax | ||||||||||||||||
Size of adjusted | Average tax (whole dollars) [4] | Tax as percentage of AGI [4] | ||||||||||||||
gross income | 1999 | 2000 [r] | 2001 [p] | 1999 | 2000 [r] | 2001 [p] | ||||||||||
(19) | (20) | (21) | (22) | (23) | (24) | <![if !vml]> |
116147596 | |||||||||
Total ........................................................................ | 9,280 | 10,129 | 9,401 | 15.7 | 16.1 | 15.3 | ||||||||||
No adjusted gross income [1,2] ........................................................................ | 22,567 | 21,673 | 8,680 | [5] | [5] | [5] | ||||||||||
$1 under $1,000 [2]........................................................................ | 31 | 17 | 11 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.2 | ||||||||||
$1,000 under $3,000 [2]........................................................................ | 132 | 134 | 106 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 5.6 | ||||||||||
$3,000 under $5,000 [2]........................................................................ | 172 | 179 | 105 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 2.4 | ||||||||||
$5,000 under $7,000 ........................................................................ | 302 | 297 | 162 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 2.7 | ||||||||||
$7,000 under $9,000 ........................................................................ | 298 | 331 | 219 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 2.7 | ||||||||||
$9,000 under $11,000........................................................................ | 497 | 470 | 320 | 5.0 | 4.7 | 3.2 | ||||||||||
$11,000 under $13,000 ........................................................................ | 719 | 704 | 557 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 4.6 | ||||||||||
$13,000 under $15,000 ........................................................................ | 864 | 883 | 753 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 5.4 | ||||||||||
$15,000 under $17,000 ........................................................................ | 1,054 | 1,052 | 926 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 5.8 | ||||||||||
$17,000 under $19,000 ........................................................................ | 1,300 | 1,279 | 1,143 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 6.4 | ||||||||||
$19,000 under $22,000 ........................................................................ | 1,549 | 1,565 | 1,461 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 7.1 | ||||||||||
$22,000 under $25,000 ........................................................................ | 1,832 | 1,815 | 1,751 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 7.4 | ||||||||||
$25,000 under $30,000 ........................................................................ | 2,277 | 2,248 | 2,203 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.0 | ||||||||||
$30,000 under $40,000 ........................................................................ | 3,101 | 3,094 | 2,990 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 8.6 | ||||||||||
$40,000 under $50,000 ........................................................................ | 4,462 | 4,462 | 4,306 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 9.6 | ||||||||||
$50,000 under $75,000 ........................................................................ | 6,788 | 6,824 | 6,551 | 11.1 | 11.2 | 10.7 | ||||||||||
$75,000 under $100,000........................................................................ | 11,767 | 11,631 | 11,130 | 13.7 | 13.6 | 13.0 | ||||||||||
$100,000 under $200,000........................................................................ | 22,855 | 22,783 | 21,943 | 17.4 | 17.3 | 16.7 | ||||||||||
$200,000 under $500,000 ........................................................................ | 69,465 | 68,628 | 67,145 | 24.0 | 23.9 | 23.4 | ||||||||||
$500,000 under $1,000,000........................................................................ | 192,426 | 192,092 | 192,204 | 28.4 | 28.3 | 28.4 | ||||||||||
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 ........................................................................ | 354,914 | 353,561 | 359,041 | 29.4 | 29.2 | 29.7 | ||||||||||
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000........................................................................ | 507,694 | 505,605 | 514,080 | 29.5 | 29.4 | 30.0 | ||||||||||
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 ........................................................................ | 875,150 | 873,054 | 892,269 | 29.3 | 29.2 | 30.1 | ||||||||||
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000........................................................................ | 1,945,630 | 1,951,599 | 2,022,372 | 28.5 | 28.5 | 29.7 | ||||||||||
$10,000,000 or more ........................................................................ | 6,326,785 | 6,790,191 | 6,000,557 | 25.4 | 25.4 | 27.4 | ||||||||||
[p] -- Preliminary. | ||||||||||||||||
[r] -- Revised or corrected. | ||||||||||||||||
NOTES: Details may not add to totals because of rounding. All amounts are in current dollars. Data are subject to sampling error. Tax law and tax form changes affect the year-to-year comparability of data. | ||||||||||||||||
[1] In addition to low-income taxpayers, this size class (and others) includes taxpayers with tax preferences, not reflected in adjusted gross income or taxable income, which are subject to the | ||||||||||||||||
alternative minimum tax (included in total income tax), defined in Table 1, footnote 35. | ||||||||||||||||
[2] A study for 1993 showed that about half of all returns with adjusted gross income under $5,000 were filed by dependents of other taxpayers. | ||||||||||||||||
[3] Adjusted gross income (AGI) minus personal exemptions and total deductions will not equal taxable income because the total of deductions and exemptions could exceed AGI and, therefore, includes | ||||||||||||||||
amounts that could not be used in computing taxable income. | ||||||||||||||||
[4] For the most part, the statistics for 1999-2001 are comparable. However, for Tax Year 1999, total income tax is the sum of two components, income tax after credits and alternative minimum tax (AMT), | ||||||||||||||||
while, for Tax Years 2000 and 2001, total income tax was, for the most part, the same as income tax after credits, because the tax after credits was redefined to include AMT. | ||||||||||||||||
[5] Not computed. | ||||||||||||||||
SOURCE: IRS, Statistics of Income Bulletin, Winter 2002-2003, Publication 1136 (Rev. 4-2003). Also, Statistics of IncomeIndividual Income Tax Returns, appropriate years. |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.