Despite earlier report to the contrary, Blitzer said Edwards proposes to "raise[ ] your taxes"
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer correctly noted on several occasions that John Edwards' proposal for universal health care would raise taxes for only people making more than $200,000 per year. Nevertheless, at one point Blitzer told viewers that Edwards plans to "raise[] your taxes," suggesting the average viewer.
On the February 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer correctly noted on several occasions that 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' proposal for universal health care would raise taxes for only households making more than $200,000 per year, but Blitzer nevertheless teased an upcoming interview with Edwards by stating, "I'll ask [Edwards] about ... his ambitious health care plan and raising your taxes," suggesting that Edwards proposes raising the taxes of the average viewer. But as Blitzer himself reported later in the program, Edwards is proposing to pay for his health care proposal by not extending tax cuts for the highest-earning "3 percent of all U.S. households" -- a tax increase for those who "make $200,000 a year or more." Additionally, Washington Post White House reporter Peter Baker stated in a February 6 online chat that Edwards would simply "raise taxes to pay for his health care plan."
During the interview with Edwards, Blitzer noted correctly that Edwards had stated in his February 4 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press that, in Blitzer's words, he "would have to raise taxes on families making $200,000 a year or more." Edwards agreed and later added that "families that earn over $200,000 a year [would] lose the tax cuts they had under George Bush and go back to what the tax system that existed under Bill Clinton. But in exchange, we're going to have a more efficient health care system, a less costly health care system."
Similarly, commentator Jack Cafferty accurately noted the details of the funding scheme for Edwards' health care plan, only to formulate a question for Situation Room viewers that left out crucial details about the new tax. Cafferty explained that "Edwards says he'd free up $120 billion a year to pay for his plan by abolishing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes." But in posing a final question for viewers to answer via email -- a question repeated by Blitzer later in the program -- Cafferty merely asked "Can John Edwards be elected president by advocating raising taxes?" Cafferty added, "It's all in the semantics, I suppose, Wolf, but canceling tax cuts for people who have been living with tax cuts is a tax increase for those people. So that's the way we worded it."
In addition, during a "Post Politics Hour" online chat on washingtonpost.com, Baker responded to a reader who complained about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) recent proposal to use oil company profits to fund alternative energy by stating, "Democrats figure it doesn't hurt, and may help, to talk about taking oil company profits at a time of high gas prices." Baker then added: "Presumably more politically perilous may be former senator John Edwards's statement this week that he would raise taxes to pay for his health care plan." Baker did not explain that Edwards' plan calls for raising taxes only on households making $200,000 a year or more.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the February 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
CAFFERTY: John Edwards wants universal health care for every American, but to do it, he's calling for a tax increase. The Democratic presidential candidate is out with the first detailed health care plan offered up by a Democrat running for the White House. Other candidates are expected to come out with their own ideas about how to help solve the health care crisis in this country.
Edwards' plan, which does address the 47 million uninsured Americans, aims for universal health care coverage by 2012. It's a combination of things, his program, including requiring all businesses to provide insurance. Edwards says he'd free up $120 billion a year to pay for his plan by abolishing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes.
So the question is this -- can John Edwards be elected president by advocating raising taxes? Email your thoughts on that to caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to cnn.com/caffertyfile.
It's all in the semantics, I suppose, Wolf, but canceling tax cuts for people who have been living with tax cuts is a tax increase for those people. So that's the way we worded it.
BLITZER: And he's blunt about acknowledging that himself. And we're going to be speaking with him about this and the war in Iraq in the next hour here in The Situation Room.
[...]
BLITZER: And as Jack Cafferty mentioned earlier this hour, John Edwards is out with a new health care plan. The Democratic presidential candidate is proposing health coverage for all Americans. The 2004 vice presidential nominee says he would raise taxes on families making more than $200,000 a year to pay for the plan's $120 billion-a-year price tag. I will be speaking to Senator Edwards about his controversial plan.
[...]
BLITZER: But next: "The Cafferty File." Can John Edwards be elected president by advocating raising taxes? Jack Cafferty has your email.
[...]
BLITZER: Still to come, my interview with Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. I'll ask him about his call for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, his ambitious health care plan, and raising your taxes. That's coming up.
[...]
BLITZER: Yesterday you were on Meet the Press and you acknowledged -- you said very candidly that if elected president, that in order to pay for your health care that you've announce today to put forward, that you put forward today -- that you would have to raise taxes on families making $200,000 a year or more. Is that right?
EDWARDS: That is correct.
[...]
BLITZER: But you're convinced that your health care plan, in effect, will be able to be paid for by this increase in taxes?
EDWARDS: For people who earn over $200,000 a year -- families that earn over $200,000 a year -- they -- they will lose the tax cuts they had under George Bush and go back to what the tax system that existed under Bill Clinton.
But in exchange, we're going to have a more efficient health care system, a less costly health care system. We're going to get rid of a lot of the administrative costs. Every single American will have health care coverage and every -- we'll bring down the costs of the entire system as a whole.
[...]
BLITZER: And you just heard Senator Edwards say he'd raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for universal health care. Across the United States, by the way, just 3 percent of all U.S. households make $200,000 a year or more. Here are the top five locations where wealthy Americans could take a hit.
So Bush, that sneaky wart on a fly's backside, raises taxes on the middle class by freezing the AMT brackets and all we hear from Wolfboy is a cacophony of sawing logs.
Then Edwards EXPRESSLY says he's going to raise taxes on the top 3% ($200,000 and up) and Wolf can't help but rephrase it so as to make it sound like Edwards is tossing the middle class under the bus.
Why does Wolf hate the truth? Did it taunt him as a child, steal his lunch money and give him a "swirly"? Wolf, it wasn't the truth that did that to you. It was the Chess Club. Hate chess, like the truth.
You're right, fantagor this is misrepresentation at its finest. Wolf used misleading words like 'controversial', disengenuous phrases such as, 'your taxes.' My taxes? Not to mention the ridiculous framing of the poll question. What a couple of GOP talking point stooges. Why can't they pose the question in terms of Edwards' actual proposal and see what the 97% of us unaffected tax payers think? One last thing. It is interesting that conservatives can view cancelled tax cuts as a net tax increase. Then, they will turn around and label progressives every dirty name in the book for pointing out that when money is pulled from the commons and privatized that that it is the equivalent of an upward redistribution of wealth.
Kudos to Edwards for at least a plan for addressing our health care concerns in this country, but why must there always seem to be a tax increase involved? Why not start from the standpoint of cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending and eliminating all the ridiculous pork in the budget FIRST?
Nobody can tell me that there aren't enough unaccountable and wasted funds in our bloated and spendthrift government. We need to demand our elected officials, and those that want our votes, demonstrate they have the stomach and the cajones to stop the spending idiocy before ANY talk of a tax increase on anyone. I oppose any hike in taxes and any more of the people's money flowing to irresponsible politicians on principal outright, for that reason alone.
I don't think there's a political party that runs on that platform. Sorry.
Pork is sort of the opposite of NIMBY. Everyone wants their local/state/federal reps to bring $$ to their district, and the politicians use that brag about how many jobs, roads, schools, etc that they brought to them. Remember those polls before the last election that showed a ~20 point lower approval rating for the whole Congress vs their own representative? Seems we need a cap somewhere...maybe getting rid of anonymous earmarks will help.
Well, Tommy, no one ever bothers to mention the HUGE social security tax break that those making over $92K a year already get, so pardon me if I do not have much sympathy for them. Maybe when they lower the self employment tax / social security tax rate, and then apply it to all income levels, I might have a little more sympathy for them. Right now, as a self employed person making right around $100K a year (by the way, that's BEFORE I've paid all my travel expenses and the cost of two software packages I MUST have at $200/month) and I could really give a damn if someone over $200K has to pay a little extra
If your attitude towards the reckless spending of your hard earned tax dollars by politicians who have no interest in accountability or the respect of your money, is less important to you than sticking it to other taxpayers - I guess that is your business.
I prefer accountability to anger and revenge.
It's not so much about anger and revenge, but about spreading the tax burden evenly. The problem is that "tax burden" is not easily measured. It goes beyond percentages or dollar amounts, and that's why no one can seem to agree. The way I look at it, a person making 200,000 can pay a larger percentage without significantly damaging his lifestyle than a person making 20,000. A person making 2 million can pay an even larger percentage and miss it even less.
The underlying truth is that the essentials of life cost about the same for everyone. The more you make, the more extras you can afford. For a person making 2 million, even a tax rate of 50% does not prevent a luxurious lifestyle, whereas it would drive a person making 20,000 into poverty.
If this is "socialism", so be it. As a famous philosopher said "From him to whom much is given, much is expected."
We have progressive taxation in this country already. It's just a question of where to set the maximum.
Exactly. And I am not comfortable when someone says "they won't miss it, or it won't hurt them, or it's not damaging to their lifestyle........" Who decides this?
We pay our legislators big bucks to make these decisions. How else do they set a tax rate? They have to determine who can afford what; that's how all taxes are set, like it or not. Somebody has to pay, if we want any government at all. Every tax is levied with the consideration of who can afford it and who won't be impoverished by paying it. No, they don't always decide correctly, or spend the money wisely, but that's the system we have.
What a disingenuous question, Tommy! To answer you, there is someone deciding how much the super-rich are to be taxed: the super-rich themselves. And they're doing it at the expense of everyone else.
There was a time in this country when the top tax bracket was 50%. This didn't keep the wealthy from profiting or from living well.
You act as if there were a God-given right to accrue unlimited amounts of wealth without having to give back anything in return. As long as the rich enjoy the benefits of society, they must acknowledge the needs of the other members of that society.
Extreme inequalities of wealth are harmful; a society where there are only the ultra-rich and the utterly destitute is unstable and unproductive, and will fail in the long term.
In fact, there was a time in this country when the top tax bracket was over 90%. That time? The glorious 1950s - America's Eden, according to the righties.
Sorry, there are no disingenuous questions, only disingenuous answers.
Then I suggest you support and vote for politicians running for office who want the same taxation processes as you do. And I will do the same.
There is no such thing as a disengenuous question? So Tommy, are you ever going to stop molesting small furry animals?
Nah, not it. I would say that question goes more to a psychological projection question.
disengenuous Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: actually it was the very definition of disengenuous. Adult education look into it. Your proposition is ludicrous on the face of it. There IS such a thing as a disengenuous question. A REAL question would be will you EVER know what you are talking about?
You know Solon, you are one of my favorite posters here. You try to be mean sometimes, but I just don't buy it. You're a big pussycat, I bet. And an honest liberal who says it like it is. We are often at odds, but I respect you.
I appreciate that tommy. I was in no way trying to be mean. I choose such examples EXACTLY so they wont be taken seriously yet still make the point. The key to successful insults is credibility. I always keep that in mind and usually make my jabs ones that cant really be taken seriously for that reason. They make the point but dont sting.
Actually, that would simply be a fallacious question. I believe an appropriate example of a disingenuous question would be asking "Who did it?" after being the one to have passed gas.
I think the problem is that a lot of people, possibly including Tommy, have bought into the Right Wing talking point that taxes are a form of punishment. I understand that point of view; I really do., but it's based on flawed logic. If we are to live in a modern nation state, we have to pay taxes; there's no getting around it. The question then becomes how much to collect and who should pay it.
No, gotta correct you here. Taxes are a necessity, much like death in our society. For some to always haul out the straw argument that we hate all taxes is silly. I want government to be small, efficient, accountable, honest and fair. All money collected to implement and run government should be the same.
I want government to be small, efficient, accountable, honest and fair.
Of course, Tommy, most everyone does. In fact, most people want government to be just big enough to serve their specific needs, but nothing else. Thus the real debate is which needs will be served, requiring compromise between the participants.
All money collected to implement and run government should be the same.
Say again? I honestly have no idea what you mean by that.
All money collected to implement and run the government should be small in number, efficiently spent, honestly collected, accounted for and fairly distributed.
No, gotta correct you here. Taxes are a necessity, much like death in our society. For some to always haul out the straw argument that we hate all taxes is silly.
Funny you compare taxes to death, yet the very fact without taxes you probably would die, Govt. providing all kinds of protections and aid, your argument on wasteful spending is asinine, look at the last 6 years of the worst fiscal management on the planet.
The Federal Income Tax is a fleece, upward wealth redistribution, and nothing more. It doesn't pay for government services or the running of the government. It pays interest on the national debt and that's it.
Sorry Tommy, been gone a while - it's not about "sticking it" to other taxpayers - it's about me paying more so they can pay less. Why should I pay a higher percentage than someone who makes two, three, four, ten, or maybe a hundred times what I make??? It's about fairness, and those in my tax bracket get the worst screwing of the lot of us. Why should I pay 15.3% in SS taxes on my first $92K, when someone who makes $300k ends up paying about 5% on all of their income?? Why can't we all just pay 5% or 6% on everything? This same A$$hole expects he should get his Federal tax rate reduced??? When I basically pay the same rate? Who are they kidding?
Left of Center, where did you come up with the 15.3% SS rate? The current rate for SS taxes is 6.2% payable for income levels up to $97,500. That 6.2% rate is matched by the employer. And the reason the contribution income level is capped is because the benefit is capped as well. Would you prefer the contribution to be not capped and the benefit to be not capped? You probably would prefer the contribution to be not capped but the benefit to be capped. Your rant about this is really unfounded when you look at what the system does and how it calculates payment. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html
Unfortunately, getting rid of the wasteful spending would require a perfect storm of political statesmanship that we are unlikely to see. Legislators would have to think country first, state second, an honest president would have to be given a line item veto and all the lobbyists would have to drown in a ferry boat accident.
You are correct, sadly. But we have noone to blame but ourselves if our leaders act accordingly. We accept tax increases as long as they are on "somebody else". And we say we want spending cuts as long as they don't "affect me". We get back exactly what we ask for. Until we start refusing the increases and demanding statesmanship, we aren't likely to get it.
While I agree with the idea that we as Americans need statesmen to identify and eliminate government waste that is burden upon the system, I don't think that's exactly the topic here. Once again Tommy has deflected the conversation from what this thread should be discussing, namely Wolf Blitzer's and by extension the MSM's twisting of the facts on a particular topic of discussion. Therefore I propose a new name for Tommy-- not the troll, but Tommy the Gremlin. Anyone who allows Tommy to derail the conversation like this should be advised-- you're feeding him after midnight. And we all know that you shouldn't do that. I agree that not all tax hikes are effective. I think also, we can agree that not all tax cuts are effective.
The point of this thread is that the MSM is taking Presidential candidates to task by trying to raise all the old fears while delibarately misrepresenting the statements of people like Edwards. In the clip, Edwards is very forthright in how he characterizes his plan and then Blitzer and Cafferty take it upon themselves to stoke the fires of tax hysteria. Again, an example of slanted journalism. As I stated in my previous post, why aren't these guys focusing on and crusading against all the corruption behind the colossal waste, theft and mismanagement of the money for the war effort? I'd bet you could find $120 billion doing that...
You are a politician's dream. "Forget Lindenbully, he doesn't give a damn how we waste his money." Any talk of fiscal responsibility on a thread about tax increases is a "diversion" to you? That is rich.
Signed, Tommy the thread-derailing Gremlin.
Uh-oh, Tommy didn't seem to like being caught with his hand in the cookie jar after midnight. Tommy, you poor overnourished mischief maker you. To try and say that I don't give a damn about how politicians spend our tax dollars is preposterous. All I am saying is you're trying to divert attention away from the purpose of this thread which is to expose the hypocrisy and misrepresentation of Mr. Blitzer and CNN. If you want to have a discussion about the misuse of taxpayer funds, I'm all for it in the proper forum. I'd like to see how you defend the no-bid, no-competition, cost plus contracts that were doled out to all the insider corporations like Halliburton, Titan, CACI, Blackstone, etc. Then maybe you can show me how "pro free market competition you really are." Then maybe you can explain how good a job these companies have been doing as our military outsourced vital functions of the war effort to them, in the process abdicating any accountability for the mistakes they have made in doing jobs that our military used to do but at six times the price.
Sorry, your incoherent post lost me in the cookie jar. If you don't want to discuss the logic of my thread, then you are free to stop anytime.
Signed, Tommy the thread-derailing, cookie jar loving, overnourished mischief making Gremlin.
Sorry Tommy, but its only incoherent to those who are off topic to begin with. So, for the third and last time-- this thread is about Blitzer's misrepresentation of Edwards' statements, it s not an open forum about tax philosophy. Take you ball or your hockey puck or whatever makes you happy and go home. Just make sure you stay out of bright lights, little Mogwai. ..
He represented Edwards statement correctly more often than he misrepresented it. Doesn't that count for something? It is CNN, after all.
Sure it counts for something, but notice that once he wasn't talking to Edwards directly that the statement went from eliminating the tax cut on the top 3% of income earners to "Edwards' plan will raise your taxes. This slight change in emphasis could mislead anyone who was just tuning in to the show.
I guess it depends on who was watching the show. Maybe his entire audience consists of the top 3% of income earners. That would explain the ratings.
If that's the case then I hope Blitzer scared the bujeezus out of them.
That depends would you say that someone who tells the truth more than he lies but lies when it is in his best interest is really an honest person? No, representing something honestly is what is to be expected it is the norm, you dont pile up points that allow you to later MISREPRESENT something and get a pass for it.
Instead of Blitzing, poor 'ol Wolf is hyperventilating. His breathless iteration of the "tax hike" mantra smacks of the Republican tactic of trotting out this venerable warhorse every election cycle. I wonder if, during an interview with, let's say Duncan Hunter, he would repeatedly ask if Mr Hunter would continue to allow war profiteering with banner graphics at the bottom of the screen trumpeting "Halliburton-No Bid, Cost Plus Contacts! Good for Ameican Taxpayers?" What are the Vegas odds on that?
It is, of course, accurate to call revoking a tax cut a "tax increase." It is also accurate to call a "surge" an escalation, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" an illegal invasion and "aggressive interrogation techniques" torture.
I'm all for calling a spade a spade, I just think it should be equally applied.
In some repects this is the cliche of the glass being half empty or half full. The analogy that comes to mind is a worker's union agreeing to temporary wage concessions. The employer tends to view the expiration of the concessions as a wage increase. The union views this as an end to a decrease.
In theory, I agree with Tommy that there's alot of waste to be cut. In practice, we're still quite a ways from making progress on that front. A change in management will hopefully help.
In the meantime, we need to take more immediate action with respect to the present fiscal imbalance. Otherwise, debt service will continue to increase as a percentage of the budget, exacerbating the budget issues and impairing the economy. If that means eliminating cuts or increasing taxes, so be it.
Some argue that this policy fails to incent politicians to make budget cuts. This is a rather dubious claim given our government's history of passing year after year of deficit budgets. However, regardless of the validity of that assertion, if we fail to balance the budget we - or more likely our children - will pay.
On another note, if Blitzer were to apply the Administration's Iraq-speak to this topic, shouldn't it be called a tax surge?
uhhh EDWARDS DID say he will raise taxes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070205/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008_6
"we'll have to raise taxes"
Yes he did. Nice catch.
But, as noted in the article above, only on those making over 200,000.
Nice omission of an important fact, Kernel.
Lets raise taxes and jail if necessary (tax evasion) on everyone making $200,00.00 or more and straighten out this country once and for all.