Print media noted Cindy McCain's limited financial release, but not how McCains benefit from tax cuts
SUMMARY: In contrast with The New York Times' 2004 analysis of the benefit Teresa Heinz Kerry gained from the Bush tax cuts, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and The New York Times did not note, following the May 23 release of a summary of her 2006 tax returns, that Cindy McCain also benefited significantly from the tax cuts -- which Sen. John McCain has pledged to make permanent.
Following the release of part of Cindy McCain's 2006 tax returns on May 23, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and The New York Times noted that she reported more than $6 million in income for that year. But in contrast with The New York Times' analysis in 2004 of the benefit to Teresa Heinz Kerry of the Bush tax cuts, none of those outlets noted that Cindy McCain also benefited significantly from the tax cuts -- which her husband, Sen. John McCain, has pledged to make permanent.
In an October 16, 2004, article, The New York Times reported of Heinz Kerry, the wife of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (MA): "She was a big beneficiary of the reductions in tax rates on dividends and capital gains that have been enacted under President Bush. She collected more than $2.2 million in dividends, all of which qualified for the new 15 percent tax rate, saving her $440,000, compared with the 35 percent rate that previously applied to dividends for those with million dollar-plus incomes."
In contrast with the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, the AP, and The New York Times, in a May 24 article, Washington Post staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Matthew Mosk said that Cindy McCain's "returns also show just how much the McCain family stands to gain from the Arizona senator's pledge to make permanent President Bush's tax cuts, which he voted against."
From the May 24 Washington Post article:
Her returns also show just how much the McCain family stands to gain from the Arizona senator's pledge to make permanent President Bush's tax cuts, which he voted against.
"She's pretty rich," said Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official at the Urban Institute, who is the director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "She would do well under Senator McCain's plan."
According to the summary, Cindy McCain earned $299,418 in wages and salary in 2006, much of which is taxed now at 35 percent but would be taxed at 39.6 percent if the Bush tax cuts lapse as scheduled in 2011.
The bulk of her income -- $4.55 million -- came from trusts, real estate rentals, partnerships and other passive ventures. The campaign did not release her Schedule E, which would have detailed them.
The McCain campaign did not release details of her tax deductions, but they totaled $569,737, a relatively small amount on income topping $6 million. Burman said that indicates a small amount of charitable giving from her personal wealth, since about half that deduction is probably for Arizona's 4.54 percent income tax. The John and Cindy McCain Foundation donated $78,250 in 2007 to nonprofits to which the couple are connected through their children.
She reported household employment tax payments of $24,162, indicating a staff of household help earning nearly $170,000.
From the October 16, 2004, New York Times article:
Ms. Heinz Kerry paid a federal tax of $628,401, which is 12.3 percent of her total income and 27.4 percent of her adjusted gross income.
She was a big beneficiary of the reductions in tax rates on dividends and capital gains that have been enacted under President Bush. She collected more than $2.2 million in dividends, all of which qualified for the new 15 percent tax rate, saving her $440,000, compared with the 35 percent rate that previously applied to dividends for those with million dollar-plus incomes.
Mr. Kerry, during the campaign, has proposed raising income taxes and dividends taxes on Americans who make over $200,000 back to the levels that they were before 2001, changes that would have an effect on his wife.
Nothing about the trusts that benefit Ms. Heinz Kerry herself and her three sons was disclosed. These trusts, set up after the 1991 death in an airplane crash of her first husband, Senator John Heinz, the heir to the H. J. Heinz Company fortune, are believed to be worth about a billion dollars.
Don't put any any faith in the Los Angeles Times.
Just today, they ran an incredible one-sided "analysis" of the anti-rent control Proposition 98 that basically sided with the landlord's phony and deceptive ads. The Times made completely false claims about its effect.
And last week they ran one of their usual union busting, blame-it-on-organized-labor editorials.
When the chips are down, Republicans can be counted on being one thing and one thing only: Republicans.
This is a logical fallacy. By this logic, MMFA would argue that all Republican and Democrat congresspeople that are for tax-cuts support this view because they are rich and benefit from them.
You got it. Republicans want to target Democrats by demanding "your papers, please" to vote? I say we make republicans pass a basic GED test with an 80 or better to vote. ;)
I wonder how those tax cuts fit in with $4 per gallon gas and high inflation?
This is a logical fallacy. By this logic, MMFA would argue that all Republican and Democrat congresspeople that are for tax-cuts support this view because they are rich and benefit from them.
So says LieSpreader, I mean TruthSeeker.
What Media Matters 'argues' is that almost no news media covered the fact that Cindy McCain looks to benefit from a continuation of the Bush tax cuts, and that many media outlets covered the same facts about Teresa Heinz Kerry.
The "tax cuts" Bush sponsored are gutless and irresponsible.
It smacks of a bad parent trying to "buy love" with allowances given kids, but which plunges the family towards bankruptsy because it's all put on the credit card. Bush hasn't paid for a DIME he's "given" in tax cuts. It all goes on our grandchildren's backs.
Of course, those in the highest brackets are realizing BILLIONS in increased wealth ... at a time of WAR, no "sacrifices" asked of THEM.
And most ironic, any "tax cut" allowed an average family is miniscule compared to additional demands in higher costs of food, fuel, heating oil, tuition, health care, and other "necessities" provided by avaricious corporations who are enjoying record profits.
Gutless and irresponsible. But hey, tax cuts are a Republican/Conservative "core value", aren't they? So WHAT if they are the WRONG thing to do, in terms of America's future? These Republicans have to get ELECTED, don't they? And irresponsible tax cuts have done the trick before, haven't they?
Cindy McCain is in the top 1% of wealth holders. She is in the category targeted by Republicans to receive ALL benefits and ALL advantages.
People in her bracket hire lobbiests by the thousands to assure that lawmakers know exactly how to vote on each and every measure considered by our government, because every government policy can be skewed towards further enriching the already very rich. Millions are spent to reap BILLIONS, and it is all at the expense of the remaining 99% of the American People (who HAVE no lobbiests).
John McCain can be depended upon to, like George W before him, govern to benefit his wife Cindy. Every day, ordinary Americans pay their mortgage (if they still have a house), pay their kids' tuition, buy groceries, fill up the tank, and pay for health care insurance (if they are able to get it), and then look at their paycheck, which hasn't changed much in the last decade (if they're lucky enough to still have the same job).
Our middle class has had WAR declared on it, and we are LOSING to the NeoCons and the elitist wealthy Republican corporatists. It will not end until Republicans are purged from positions of power in this nation.
John McCain can be depended upon to, like George W before him, govern to benefit his wife Cindy.
And without FULL DISCLOSURE of Cindy's tax returns (including a list of ALL her investments), there is no way of knowing how she has already benefitted by her husband's actions in the Senate. This should be - and will no doubt become - a major campaign issue
I can already hear Sean Hannity...
That's almost enough to make you poke your eardrum with an icepick, isn't it?
This is a logical fallacy. By this logic, MMFA would argue that all Republican and Democrat congresspeople that are for tax-cuts support this view because they are rich and benefit from them.
I'm afraid it's the title that (mis)lead into reaching that conclusion: Print media noted Cindy McCain's limited financial release, but not how McCains benefit from tax cuts.
MMFA should change it so that people who ignore reading the article in it's entirety don't completely miss the point. The issue here is the print media's inconsistency in highlighting how a presidential candidate's wealthy wife benefits from the tax-cuts.