About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC's This Week yet to correct Will's Social Security falsehood

May 21, 2008 4:32 pm ET

SUMMARY: Newsweek has corrected George Will's false assertion in his Newsweek column that Social Security taxes are levied based on household income. Will made the same assertion on ABC's This Week, but ABC has yet to issue a correction on the show.

17 Comments

More than four weeks after ABC News commentator George Will, in criticizing Sen. Barack Obama, falsely asserted on the network's This Week that Social Security taxes are levied based on household income, ABC has yet to issue a correction on the Sunday morning show, even though Will has appeared on three broadcasts since making the false statement.

As Media Matters for America noted, on the April 20 edition of This Week, Will -- an ABC News commentator and regular panelist on the program -- said of Obama: "[O]n raising Social Security taxes -- or the body of income susceptible to the 12.4 percent rate -- he clearly says he's considering raising taxes on those making more than $103,000, much less ... than what he had at $200,000." Will later falsely asserted of Obama: "[W]hat we heard this week from the probable Democratic nominee is that he wants to raise taxes on a lot of people, beginning with those earning about $100,000 a year, a household" [emphasis added]. He added: "That's a Chicago cop and a Chicago teacher."

Will made the same false claim in his May 2 Newsweek column, in which he asked Obama: "You favor eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000. A Chicago police officer married to a Chicago public-school teacher, each with 20 years on the job, have a household income of $147,501, so you would take another $5,642 from them. Are they undertaxed? Are they rich?"

In its May 19 edition, Newsweek issued a correction, noting, as Media Matters also noted, "because the Social Security tax is assessed individually [not on the household, as Will asserted], and the couple each earns less than the current cap, any elimination of that cap will not have an effect on their tax burden."

Will has appeared on the April 27, May 11, and May 18 editions of This Week, but his false April 20 statement has yet to be corrected on that program.

The Newsweek correction:

CORRECTION (published May 19, 2008): This column originally stated that Obama favors elminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax. The tax (currently limited to the first $102,000 at 12.4 percent) of the couple cited in the column's example was assessed on their combined income. But because the Social Security tax is assessed individually, and the couple each earns less than the current cap, any elimination of that cap will not have an effect on their tax burden. NEWSWEEK regrets the error.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 21, 2008 4:37 pm ET)
         

      5/21/08

      e-mail to George

       Dear Mr. Will,Media Matters for America just posted the correction Newsweek posted concerning your screw up on Social Security taxes. Try to be more careful.  It’s bad enough to be an elitist, ivy league, conservative.  You don't want people to think that you're also a liar, do you? 

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MoonbatYouBet (May 21, 2008 5:05 pm ET)
           
        Elitist, Ivy League conservative and liar aren't synonymous?  I'll check off "Learn something new" on my daily to-do list now. 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 22, 2008 12:21 am ET)
             

          I never said they were synonymous????

          What are you talking about? 

          Report Abuse
      • Author by mikerhyner8202 (May 22, 2008 12:39 am ET)
           
        He should have just said there were 57 or more states...that way it would have stayed off MMFA.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sueelldd (May 21, 2008 4:41 pm ET)
         
      I do not expect ABC to correct George Will, he is a stubborn SOB.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (May 21, 2008 4:44 pm ET)
           

        Sue, you just called his mother the "B" word.  Isn't that against the rules or something according to the Clinton thread?  I thought it was, but please everyone let me in on the exceptions to the rule.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sueelldd (May 21, 2008 4:46 pm ET)
             
          You are right, it is against the rules, I apologize. He is a stubborn man. I have nothing against his mother and should have used better judgement.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (May 21, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
             
          Maybe George Will's mother should have taught him the values of honesty and integrity, then she wouldn't be subject to such insults.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bruce1ace (May 21, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
               
            That is some of the most interesting "logic" I've read in quite a while.  I'll jot that down for future analysis.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (May 21, 2008 5:19 pm ET)
           
        I's not up to Will whether or not ABC corrects his error.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (May 21, 2008 8:47 pm ET)
             

          Sure it is.

          He could correct it. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by see it real (May 22, 2008 5:40 pm ET)
               

            Carl, we both know that Liar George Will will NOT correct his own deliberate lie!

            Also, since GOP-Disney-ABC is as right wing conservative as Will is, GOP-Disney-ABC may even be complicit to some degree in Will telling this lie.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by see it real (May 22, 2008 5:37 pm ET)
           

        That, and the fact that GOP-Disney-ABC is a right wing corporatist conservative pro-Bush/pro-McCain/pro-Republican network.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 21, 2008 4:47 pm ET)
         

      Indeed,

      Blind adherence, even when they know they are wrong, is not an attractive conservative trait.

      And Stephanopolous is such a wimp, you know he'll never challenge the elite, ivy league pundit.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (May 21, 2008 8:46 pm ET)
         

      Well, so much for Mr. Exactitude and Mr. Precision in Language.

      He's as much of a flak-hack as the rest of them. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bevj (May 21, 2008 10:00 pm ET)
         
      I wish you had also pointed out the misperception of the 12.4% tax.  It is half of that percentage that the worker pays; the other half is paid by the employer.  Self-employed individuals do pay the entire 12.4%.  Also, the hypothetical couple mentioned in the example are a cop and a teacher.  In most states, teachers are not in the Social Security system, but have a different retirement system to which they contribute.  The cap on the upper limits of wage income is regressive.  The percentage of a worker's wages under that cap is higher than it is for people making more than the 102K, since above that amount no more FICA taxes are taken out, thus the percentage of net income is higher the more money one earns.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 22, 2008 12:28 am ET)
           

        Well done Bev...

        If the filthy wealthy elite in this country--who gained most of their wealth either through inheritance or raw corporate privilege--just paid their fair share of taxes, then...

        ...their is no "problem" at all with social security.

        And our economy is stimulated by old folks having a few more dollars in their  pockets to spend at the store.

        Conservatives only believe in "top down" economics.  That's why they've gotten us into this mess. 

         

        Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.