On Fox News Sunday, Liasson falsely claimed that study concluded Obama's tax plans "might add more to the deficit" than McCain's
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Mara Liasson falsely asserted that a Tax Policy Center analysis of Sens. McCain's and Obama's tax plans "said that Obama might add more to the deficit -- because it's unclear how he's going to pay for these -- than McCain would add to the deficit." In fact, the Tax Policy Center found that Obama's tax proposals would raise $700 billion over the next 10 years, while McCain's tax proposals would lose $600 billion, when scored against a " 'current policy' baseline," which "assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax] patch made permanent."
Discussing an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's tax plans on the June 15 edition of Fox News Sunday, National Public Radio national political correspondent Mara Liasson falsely asserted that the "group ... said that Obama might add more to the deficit -- because it's unclear how he's going to pay for these -- than McCain would add to the deficit." In fact, the Tax Policy Center found the opposite of what Liasson claimed. The group -- a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution that describes itself as "made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy" -- found that "Senator Obama's proposals would raise $700 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $600 billion, a decrease of roughly 2 percent" when scored against a " 'current policy' baseline," which "assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax] patch made permanent" over the next 10 years.
The Tax Policy Center analysis also found that Obama's tax plan was less expensive than McCain's tax plan when scored against current law. The analysis further stated that "the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs."
From the Tax Policy Center analysis:
Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.7 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.1 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues. Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a "current policy" baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $700 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $600 billion, a decrease of roughly 2 percent. Senator McCain has stressed that deficits should be closed by spending cuts, but policies he identifies, such as limiting earmarks, would offset only part of the revenue losses attributable to his tax plan. As noted, both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes-Obama probably more than McCain.
From the June 15 edition of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Well, a nonpartisan group called the Tax Policy Center analyzed Obama's tax plan and McCain's tax plan this week, and they say Obama's plan, Mara, redistributes income to lower- and middle-income people, while McCain's gives most of the benefit to the wealthy. Is that an advantage Democrats?
LIASSON: I think to a certain extent it's an advantage to Democrats, unless and until McCain can actually make the case why his tax plans are pro-growth, because that same group also said that Obama might add more to the deficit -- because it's unclear how he's going to pay for these -- than McCain would add to the deficit. I think what's interesting is these two candidates who are trying to be post-partisan figures are, at least in this debate, are really reverting to kind of old-fashioned Democrat-Republican, pre-Bill Clinton, almost -- this is not New Democratic arguments about the economy from Obama, these are Old Democratic arguments. It's pretty populist, you know, "tax the rich," and on McCain's side, much more standard boilerplate Republican talk about taxes. I think for McCain, if he wants an advantage on taxes and the economy, he has to kind of put it into a reform agenda and talk about why what he's doing would actually help the economy.
That's why you "caped" it?
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)
Conveniently ommiting the last 7 years plus
I guess EVERYBODY wants to forget the past seven years ever took place....
invariably, someone will come on here and claim that the surpluses of the clinton years were due to a republican congress....except that clinton's tax increases on the wealthy were passed in 1994, without a single republican vote amid predictions from those republicans that the increases were going to cause a recession or even depression. it didn't work out that way, and the result was one of the longest economic expansions in our history. then when bush came in, it was cut taxes for the wealthy and right back to deficits.
admittedly, sometimes the democrats want one program more than we can afford, and they need to cut the earmarks too. i'm against a national catastrophe fund, because it encourages building in the wrong areas, with inadequate codes. but in general, the republicans have been guilty of spending like drunken sailors. one of the things that limbaugh used in 1994 was the clinton tax increases on the wealthy to hammer the democrats, and rush portrayed it as the usual "democrats want to increase your taxes", when in fact it was only an increase on the few. that perception played a part in the republican takeover that year.
These people at Fox News Channel are funny. Suddenly, the U.S. Government Debt is important to them.
Here's a thumbnail sketch of that Debt, during the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney:
September 30, 2001 (Sep 30 is the date on which the U.S. Treasury reports this particulat figure of U.S. Government Debt... 9/30/01 was the first report during the Bush administration)...
9/30/01: 5.807 Trillion (thousand Billion) dollars. Consider that a baseline of sorts.
On Sep 30 2002, one year later... 6.228 Trillion: an increase of 421 Billion dollars!
The U.S. Government Debt was increased in the first full year and under the first full Federal Budget of the Bush/Cheney administration, by 421 Billion dollars!
On Sep 30 of 2003, the Bush administration increased the U.S. Government Debt by another 555 billion dollars!
In the next year (9/30/04) the Bush administration increased the U.S. Debt by another 596 Billion dollars!
In one more year (9/30/05) the Bush administration increased the U.S. Debt by another 554 Billion dollars!
On September 30, 2006, the U.S. Treasury reported the Bush administration had increased the Debt again, by 574 Billion dollars!
Wait! STOP!
The U.S. Government Debt had only increased by 133 Billion Dollars from 9/30/00 (before Bush/Cheney stole our Federal Government from us) to 9/30/01... just 133 Billion dollars.
And now under the Bush/Cheney administration, that U.S. Government Debt is being increased by 421 Billion dollars, 555 Billion dollars, 596 Billion dollars, 554 Billion dollars, and another 574 Billion dollars on 9/30/06...
Where was Fox News Channel's concern for the U.S. Government Debt then?
You'd think Fox News Channel worked for the Bush/Cheney administration in all those years, they way they didn't bother with the U.S. Government Debt increases (in half Trillion dollar jumps!) the Bush/Cheney administration was running up siphoning off from the U.S. Treasury...
...why is it suddenly important now?
So Clinton did increase the national debt, too? As a pro-debt, pro-deficit Republican, shouldn't you be proud of him?
Also, if what this article claims is true, and Obama will be increasing the national debt, shouldn't that win him your vote?
Oscar -
It sounds like you need a basic lesson in fiscal responsibility. Check this website for an objective, basic primer:
http://perotcharts.com/
There's a difference between the national debt, and the interest we pay on debt collected from previous years, and any individual year's budget surplus or deficit.
But you already knew that, didn't you? How does it feel being so deceitful that you'd pretend that you don't know the difference between ongoing debt payments and the budget surpluses Clinton undeniably led us to?
The National Debt is the accumulated amount we already owe. Something like two-thirds of this total has been accumulated by three presidents, all REpublicans: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
The Federal Budget Deficit is the amount that annual expenditures falls short of revenues. THIS is the instrument that Clinton had in the black, for three or four years running. He was beginning to be able to pay back the national debt with the surplus.
And then, if you'll recall, Greenspan put a halt to that because he was so dang scared that paying off our national debt too fast would shock our economy. I thought staying out of debt was the real world way of demonstrating responsibility.
Whatever, man.
Not that Clinton was overly responsible in his filial relationships, but he was a fairly good steward of our national wealth. Sort of, that is, if you discount his gutting of welfare. I know welfare in general needed some work done to it, but yikes, Bill pretty much ended welfare as we knew it.
Anyway back to the point. I guess in a way Greenspan was smart, he didn't leave too much of our public money hanging out there for W. to blow on global conquest when he came to town. Then again, as the corporate giants see it, that money was always intended for them anyway. The Neocons were simply more eager to hand our common wealth over to an unaccountable private sector, as opposed to so many of our fake-ass, corporate Democrats, who only pretend to be a member of the party of the people, while holding hands, in secret, with big money energy lobbyists.
And conmen posting here, don't pretend that the vast majority of your and my money isn't being spent, right now, in Iraq, on private contractors. That is wealth redistribution upward of the most morally hazardous incarnation. Our money for cold blooded murder from Blackwater private mercenaries. Our money for the further enrichment of a handful of men who own, in essence and reality, war machine factories.
sorry oscar, the bush tax cuts were already taking effect in 2001. can't blame clinton for that.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwblater.htm
In fact, the Tax Policy Center found the opposite of what Liasson claimed. The group -- a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution that describes itself as "made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy" -- found that "Senator Obama's proposals would raise $700 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $600 billion, a decrease of roughly 2 percent" when scored against a " 'current policy' baseline," which "assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax] patch made permanent" over the next 10 years.
My hope is that Liasson , and the others on FAUX will do their homework. I guess I am hoping for too much?
I would say yes, you are hoping for too much.
Irony is that the same person is also employed by NPR.
Seems that Democrats tried to apply that same logic to President Numbnuts' tax cuts.... and got shouted down.
When I first heard Ms. Liason on NPR yaers ago, I always thought there was something about her analysis' that were a little off. When she started doing "analysis" for fox noise, it became clear what it was. I guess I'm gonna stay naive, because I am always surprised at how the right can lie, bald faced, and still be taken seriously by any one. Like Gramps and his "I have never added Earmarks and will get rid of them" statement. In the age of Google, to make a statement that can be checked so easily, and expect that nobody will, is crazy. But I guess...