Shipman suggested Democratic-controlled Congress would result in "a culture of gridlock," misled on Democrats' tax position
SUMMARY: On Good Morning America, Claire Shipman warned that "we're still likely, if the Democrats get the House, to see a culture of gridlock" because "[n]either side will have the 60 votes in the Senate they would need to really get things done." Shipman did not inform viewers of the number of issues on the GOP legislative agenda that went unaddressed in this congressional session.
While reporting on the "reality" of a Democratic-controlled House, on the November 7 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, ABC News senior national correspondent Claire Shipman warned that "we're still likely, if the Democrats get the House, to see a culture of gridlock" because "[n]either side will have the 60 votes in the Senate they would need to really get things done." Throughout the segment, onscreen text read: "What if Dems take Congress? Will Government Gridlock?" But in suggesting a "culture of gridlock" would ensue should "Democrats get the House," Shipman did not inform viewers of the current Republican Congress' failed legislative agenda.
Indeed, as ABC News' own reporting has noted, the Republican-controlled House and Senate have not succeeded in tackling major issues, such as comprehensive immigration, Social Security, and tax reforms, which Republicans had identified as their top domestic priorities. During a discussion about the current session of Congress with ABC News correspondent Sam Donaldson on the September 26 edition of ABC News Now's Politics Live, John Fortier, a research fellow with the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), asserted that the current Republican-controlled Congress "is a somewhat unproductive Congress." Fortier explained: "[I]f you go back to President Bush's inaugural speech, this was supposed to be a Congress where we were reforming Social Security or changing the tax code -- big priorities of Bush -- which long ago went by the wayside. So, certainly, it is a Congress that is having trouble passing things." While interviewing House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) during the October 29 edition of ABC's This Week, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos similarly noted that, this year, Congress "killed ... tax reform, Social Security private accounts, and comprehensive immigration reform" -- three Bush-sponsored "agenda items."
Additionally, Shipman misled on Democrats' stated position on Bush's tax cuts. Shipman noted that both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believe that Democrats would raise taxes if elected, and then aired House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's (CA) contention that Democrats would seek to "roll back some of President Bush's tax cuts." Shipman did not report, however, that Pelosi has stated that Democrats will consider increasing taxes only on those making "$250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher" and would cut taxes for the middle class, as Media Matters for America has previously noted. Moreover, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has said that Democrats' highest priority, with regard to taxes, would be on reducing the impact of the alternative minimum tax on middle-class taxpayers.
From the November 7 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
SHIPMAN: Good morning, Robin. We are in one of the many House hearing rooms. And this is what has Republicans incredibly nervous: that these rooms are going to get very busy on issues like Iraq, the [former Rep. Mark] Foley [R-FL] scandal if Democrats get control of the House and get to sit in the chairman's spot.
ANNOUNCER [video clip]: Liberal Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq.
SHIPMAN: Just thinking about it, strategists hope, will give Republican voters such severe chills they'll rush to the polls.
[...]
SHIPMAN: The reality of a Democratic-controlled House? Here's what the woman who would be in charge says.
PELOSI: We would make our country safer, make our economy fairer, make college more affordable, heath care more accessible. We would move toward energy independence.
SHIPMAN: All that probably unlikely without a Democratic Senate and White House, as well, but do look for these specifics.
STUART ROTHENBERG (The Rothenberg Political Report editor and publisher) [video clip]: The Democrats are gonna push minimum wage, reimportation of prescription drugs, student loans, and the big thing is, we're gonna get, I think, a number of inquiries into Bush policy, whether it's Iraq, post-Katrina cleanup, or domestic surveillance.
SHIPMAN: Ah, yes, the power of investigation. Not to mention the power of the purse. Both could make a Democratic House a real force in pushing for a drawdown in Iraq, for example. And Republicans are right about one of the stickiest and unresolved questions for Democrats should they win.
BUSH [video clip]: Raising taxes is what the Democrats want to do.
CHENEY [video clip]: I think, in fact, you would see a major tax increase.
SHIPMAN: But you would intend to roll back some of President Bush's tax cuts.
PELOSI: Some of President Bush's tax cuts.
SHIPMAN: And immediately?
PELOSI: Well, we have to go through it and see how much money is required.
SHIPMAN: One clear pledge the minority leader has made, perhaps with an eye toward helping a Democrat win the White House in 2008 --
PELOSI: We have taken impeachment off the table.
ROTHENBERG: The way to win the White House is not to come out with both barrels blasting and try to impeach the president. So, I think you may see a surprisingly pragmatic Nancy Pelosi and Democratic majority in the House.
SHIPMAN : Now, if Republicans keep the House, look for a leadership shake-up. Many Republicans are unhappy with the leadership style of the speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert [IL]. It's been a hands-off style. They don't like all of the scandals they've had to endure. But keep in mind, we're still likely, if the Democrats get the House, to see a culture of gridlock. Neither side will have the 60 votes in the Senate they would need to really get things done. Robin.
From the October 29 edition of ABC's This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to the domestic agenda. At his press conference this week, President Bush said he wanted to revive three agenda items that were killed in Congress this year: tax reform, Social Security private accounts, and comprehensive immigration reform. Here's how he put it.
BUSH [video clip]: First, I haven't given up on any of those issues. I got two years left to achieve them. And I firmly believe it is more likely to achieve those three objectives with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled Senate.
STEPHANOPOULOS: As Republican leader in the House, if you maintain the majority, will you help the president pass Social Security private accounts and comprehensive immigration reform?
JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): I believe that having fundamental tax reform is critical for our long-term interests. Our tax system burdens a lot of our exports and if we change our tax system like other countries around the world have, we can lower the tax load on our exports, helping to increase our exports.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And that's tax reform --
BOEHNER: When it comes -- when it comes to the issue of entitlements, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, baby boomers, like I, have made promises to ourselves that our kids and grandkids can't afford. And we as a country need to have a very serious conversation about what's fair here. But -- but --
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the Republican House --
BOEHNER: But George --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me, let me just interrupt you there, because the Republican House last time killed the president's proposal on Social Security reform. Are you saying you're going to bring it back?
BOEHNER: George, what I'm saying is we as a nation have to have a serious conversation about the three largest entitlement programs we're having. They're growing at double-digit rates of inflation -- they're not sustainable -- and rather than put issues on the table or take issues off the table, I think it's time for Americans to come together and let's have an honest conversation about the promises we've made to ourselves that literally our kids and grandkids cannot afford.
From the September 26 edition ABC News Now's Politics Live:
DONALDSON: Well, now, is this business as usual? I mean, are we making too much of this? If we went back in history in the last 20 or 30 years would be fine, every Congress says the same nothing.
FORTIER: Well, there are instances of things being put off until after the election long breaks, but it is a somewhat unproductive Congress, I think. And you didn't even mention, if you go back to President Bush's inaugural speech, this was supposed to be a Congress where we were reforming Social Security or changing the tax code -- big priorities of Bush -- which long ago went by the wayside. So, certainly it is a Congress that is having trouble passing things. It's a challenging atmosphere for Republicans, and they're not gonna look back on this one as one of the highlights.
Clinton had a republican controlled Congress, and actually got quite a lot done. Of course, there was no rubber stamping, and they came to loggerheads on somethings (the federal budget being one of them), but indeed, it wasn't gridlock. Old George and his cronies, if the democrats take the House or the Senate, or both possibly, are going to have to re-learn to reach across the aisle, and work with the majority again. This could be a good chance for Bush to actually show that he can be a uniter, instead of the divider that he has been.
Then again, with the republicans in Congress as of late, battling with Bush, they have created their own gridlock anyway. What has gotten done there in the last 6 months, even with republicans in the White House and controlling Congress? Not a hell of a lot folks. It might actually get better with dems running the majority.
These nasty little tax increases that keep being hung around the necks of these liberal Democrats. The incessant whining about how they will only raise taxes on the rich, not everybody, only the rich. Come on media, please, please, PLEASE, say only "SOME TAXES" - this is so unfair, we can't get out from under this tax raiser umbrella no matter how hard we try! Somebody out there, please help!!!
Why do the people think we want taxes raised? Only "SOME TAXES", not all, really, REALLY......what are we to do????
(My advice > Firmly committ to NO tax hikes WITHOUT qualifiers and stop the word parsing and you might not have to fight this unwinnable struggle at every election)
is the tax cuts that bush gave out to the wealthy restored to the level of the clinton administration. so why should they say no new taxes when that is not what they think. they are trying to get us back to a balanced budget.
Not raising taxes after the debt has doubled in the last six years would be beyond fiscally irresponsible. The Democrats as task number one should roll back all the tax cuts on the rich and restore some semblence of physical sanity to our government.
Republicans knew that if they cut taxes on the rich and threw a few pennies to the middle and lower classes, they could paint themselves as tax reducers. Nevermind that they have simply shifted the tax burden to our children and grandchildren by created a swollen national debt. Screw them. Future children and grandchildren can't vote now.
Clinton had it right. Reduce the size of government, cut waste, and balance the budget through sensible tax increases on those that can most afford it. He achieved balance both philosophically and literally. How long did it take this administration to destroy that balance?
The way to balance the budget is to cut spending, not raising taxes.
spending to cut. and of course we have the couple hundred billion in interest to pay every year on the reagan-bush debt.
There's plenty of cuts that can be made, every single department of government should be evaluated and scrutinized for it's cost efficiency. Until politicians with some integrity and cajones are willing to do that, I refuse to accept any tax increases of any kind on anyone. It's a matter of principal, not right vs. left.
going to stop posting on the internet, driving on highways, reporting crimes to police, reporting house fires and visiting national parks as part of your protest to taxation?
Great argument, I also want the police and fire department eliminated.
I love it when liberals argue to take more of someone else's money they always throw up this ridiculous strawman. "No more of any government service, that'll teach ya!"
Taxes are an investment in a benevolent society. We live in a representative democracy, that means we can hold our representatives accountable and demand effective government. That is unless your too lazy to get involved and I know your not lazy. Selfish? Perhaps.
Something like 3/4 of the population oppose tax increases. That same 3/4 would support universal healthcare even if it means raising taxes.
Government is of the people, for the people by the people. Those who would strangle government in a bath tub would usurp the power of the people.
BTW, as a matter of principle are you going to stop partaking of the commonwealth?
Take a look at the constitution. The founding fathers had a very limited role for government; in scope, incfluence, size, everything. All these bloated unnecessary spending sprees that politicians go on would have them turn over in their graves.
Government was never intended to prop up every social ill or program that was floated down the pike, or every silly pork project imaginable...it is meant to be lean and responsive to the people, the bigger it gets the more difficult that can ever happen. Layers of bureaucracy only prevent government from being efficient. Power and money are like drugs to these politicians. Look at the current big govt. Republicans, they used to be for small govt. - the minute they get power they spend more than anybody before.
We have to send a message to the politicians/lobbyists that we want OUR money accounted for and spent wisely and with frugality. No tax increases forces them, like any family's budget, to live within their means. On principal, the gravy train is done for me.........fix what you've got and then we'll see. Until then, no more.
We had a balanced budget under Clinton. First step is to restore tax rates on the wealthy to the prior levels under Clinton. Then, we can look about the tougher job of slimming down the bloated govenment that the "conservatives" built.
Can't do it for me. It's far easier for these politicians to raise taxes than cut spending, that's why they don't do it........their lobbyists and special interest groups won't allow it. Well, too bad. I want spending cut across the board FIRST.
It's just like an alcoholic, you would never say "Ok, keep drinking for now, but we are going to close all the liquor stores eventually and then you won't be able to buy booze anymore, so that will fix your problem".
It's not raising taxes. It's restoring them to a level they were when the country had a more sane fiscal policy.
My mom always said, "You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip." The government needs money to run.
By the way. You must make more than $200,000 a year. Congratulations.
Not that it's relevant, because I don't formulate my opinions on how everything affects me directly, No, I do not earn more than $200, 000 annually.
I wish these guys would listen to you on this subject. Cuts in spending should always take precedence over raising taxes.
The fairly obvious reason for this is political. If Democrats even attempt to raise taxes (directly or by letting Bush's tax cuts expire), they hand the Republicans an automatic bludgeon to use over the next few years. It is almost as stupid as invading an oil rich country on false pretenses. It tends to validate the other side's propaganda.
Surely every Democrat or Liberal in here knows that Conservatives think we are all Commies or Socialists (some may be). Raising taxes before scrutinizing waste only confirms their view of Democrats.
Democrats should stick to transparent and fair investigations of possible misconduct in the executive branch and fairly populist themes at all times in order to blunt criticism from the right. Besides, the more radical and unpopular the Democrats get in their governance, the more they energize and unite their enemies.
Let's see how well they have learned the lessons of the early 90's.
Only from a different worldview. I believe in a lean, responsive government and so do average folks around the country.
Our differences stem from our views of who and what should take priority. I believe in a hand up for the disadvantaged, think single parents, mentally and/or physically disabled, homeless, the addicted, the shut-ins and the elderly. If that means giving a portion of my money for that cause, that is fine. It benefits all of us to help a few of us.
I believe in the triumphant individual but I believe in sharing in his triumph.
But if you want to stay true to your principles, may I suggest that you go off the grid and do as Thoreau did?
Basically, you want to advance the welfare state - which, in my opinion, is the cause for much of our ills. I believe that if people keep more of their money that charities and good works flourish, this has been borne out over history.
Of course, there needs to be a safety net - but not a way of life, but rather a temporary situation and to create opportunity for people to become self reliant which builds character and responsibility. Obviously there are people who will never be self reliant, that goes without saying and we as a society have an obligation to those people.
However, those I do not feel obliged to cater to are people who make major moral mistakes, drop out of school, refuse to work hard - and then look to the government, like you and me, to bail them out. Remove the incentive to be rewarded for this type of behavior, not the opposite.
you support social Darwinism with trickle down acts of humanity. Fair enough we disagree.
You have filtered a view of society through a market fundamentalist lens. In other words, an unregulated, unburdened society will produce the best possible results for all. Or more specifically, that each person’s pursuit of his or her self-interest automatically serves the common good.
I prefer a society that based on a moral obligation to one another.
You can misrepresent and generalize what I said all day long, it doesn't change anything. Where did I say "an unregulated and unburdened" society where everybody is out for themselves? I said no such thing.
We disagree.
I put words in your mouth.
But is it fair to draw the comparison between your views of market fundamentalism vs. government's role in society?
Is certainly the cause of a huge portion of our problems. Talk about a strawman, its always about the culture of dependency for you guys. Yet the average stay on welfare is only 18 months.It was 18 months BEFORE welfare reform. The Great society programs lessened the amount of people in poverty. No one wants to support people who are just lazy but its more important to me that hungry people be fed than that no one ever get a free lunch. If you can come up with a way to seperate those taking advantage great, you dont even try just denigrate the very IDEA of helping the truly needy. Do you have a pin up poster of Ebeneezer Scrooge in you bedroom?
I looked I was paying about $.50/gallon of gas in taxes, should cover roads. Fees at National Parks should (whether they do or not) the majority of the operating systems of those parks. Water, Police, Fire, Education, big items on my property tax bill. Postal Service should be self supporting. Most government agencies (including Military) are top heavy, get them "lean and mean". Demand performance audits, make "earmarks" less transparent. Then lets look at revenue enhancement!
are the majority part of government spending, along with defense and homeland security. no doubt that there could be some trimming of departments, as clinton and gore did, but it won't cover the bush deficits.
Guess what country's defense budget equals the rest of the worlds put together?
Remember that the American military is used as a welfare system and pays for a LOT more than just military - health care, housing, education, and other non-military expenses that other countries don't count as military expenses since they give these things to all citizens.
No doubt the military budget in the US is enormous, but the comparison isn't really valid IMO.
I agree. Lets start by cutting some of the money that the Pentagon receives.
"The way to balance the budget is to cut spending, not raising taxes."
That's your opinion. In reality, you have to do both. Clinton had it right. Bush cut top marginal rates and busted the budget. We need to reverse the damage immediately.
...read an economist who explains how much "discretionary" spending there is to cut.
[link to www.faireconomy.org]
As much as most people would not want taxes raised, there are times when tax increases are necessary. Painting yourself into a corner with a "No New Taxes" pledge is political suicide from either side of the aisle.
Of course there are catastrophic consequences that could come up - I would not hold any politician to a no tax hike pledge should some unforeseen circumstance occur.
However, when any politician says that he or she would only raise taxes on this group or that group, then that is just code for "watch your wallet" - everybody.
and did.
Just can't get over the fact that most people in this country understand what rolling back tax cuts on the rich really means. The vast majority of them are not rich so their taxes are not going to go up.
According to early exit polls it appears the country isn't buying the GOP crap anymore.
Bush getting on FOX news ( errrrrrrrr comedy ) calling democrats " obstructionists ".
"Meanwhile, wealthy Americans have seen a sharp drop in their tax burden. The top tax rate -- the income-tax rate on the highest bracket -- is now 35 percent, half what it was in the 1970's. With the exception of a brief period between 1988 and 1993, that's the lowest rate since 1932. Other taxes that, directly or indirectly, bear mainly on the very affluent have also been cut sharply. The effective tax rate on corporate profits has been cut in half since the 1960's. The 2001 tax cut phases out the inheritance tax, which is overwhelmingly a tax on the very wealthy: in 1999, only 2 percent of estates paid any tax, and half the tax was paid by only 3,300 estates worth more than $5 million.
The 2003 tax act sharply cuts taxes on dividend income, another boon to the very well off. By the time the Bush tax cuts have taken full effect, people with really high incomes will face their lowest average tax rate since the Hoover administration.
So here's the picture: Americans pay low taxes by international standards. Most people's taxes haven't gone up in the past generation; the wealthy have had their taxes cut to levels not seen since before the New Deal. Even before the latest round of tax cuts, when compared with citizens of other advanced nations or compared with Americans a generation ago, we had nothing to complain about -- and those with high incomes now have a lot to celebrate. Yet a significant number of Americans rage against taxes, and the party that controls all three branches of the federal government has made tax cuts its supreme priority. Why?"
cut.
"Like supply-siders, starve-the-beasters favor tax cuts mainly for people with high incomes. That is partly because, like supply-siders, they emphasize the incentive effects of cutting the top marginal rate; they just don't believe that those incentive effects are big enough that tax cuts pay for themselves. But they have another reason for cutting taxes mainly on the rich, which has become known as the ''lucky ducky'' argument.
Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these ''lucky duckies.'' (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their ''blood boiling with tax rage.''
[link to www.faireconomy.org]
pre-tax cut. So, as Mr. Rangel so succinctly put it," None of the cuts are off the table." In order to "balance the budget" and drive their wants and desires, taxes will have to raised across the board. Look back, revenues double every 8 - 10 years, no matter the rates, but spending (except for the last two years of Clinton) generally will double every 6 - 8 years. Show some spending restraint first, even if it means slowing down the growth in non-descrectionary spending also. We can't allow government to take items off the table because its "only a couple of million dollars". The bucketsful of those add up to significant $. A temporary surtax to cover natural disasters, wars, and related, ok by me. But, please, lets demand some restraint in goverment spending.
Repeal the cuts that Bush shouldn't have made in the first place to stop the bleeding. Then you can go after bloat. Heck, do them simultaneously. Both are needed to balance the budget.
have to mean a slowdown in the rate of growth in entitlements (including SS and Medicare). So you are saying the 10% rate returns to 15% along with the others? Does this also mean the deductions (exemptions, child care, etc) return to Clinton era levels? Or will, as usual, be "cherry picking" so the Reps and Senators can have something positive to run on in 2008? All of us need to look at where the figures are today and compare them in two years when we get to do this all again. TERM LIMITS!!!!!!
I hope there is much gridlock. There hasn't been any at all for the last 6 years and I regard that as a total disaster.