Blitzer did not challenge Pawlenty's false claim that under Obama plan, taxes will increase if "you have an IRA or a 401(k)"
SUMMARY: On Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer did not challenge Gov. Tim Pawlenty's false claim that under Sen. Barack Obama's proposal to increase the capital gains tax rate, "if you have an IRA or a 401(k), which a lot of middle Americans do, and you go to retire or, you know, use that money, you're going to pay almost double the rate in taxation." In fact, most distributions from retirement accounts are taxed as regular income, not as capital gains.
On the June 22 edition of CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer did not challenge a false claim by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) that under Sen. Barack Obama's proposal to increase the capital gains tax rate, "if you have an IRA or a 401(k), which a lot of middle Americans do, and you go to retire or, you know, use that money, you're going to pay almost double the rate in taxation." In fact, most distributions from 401(k) and IRA accounts are taxed as regular income, not as capital gains. Additionally, Blitzer did not point out that Obama has said he would not raise the capital gains tax rate on individuals with income of less than $250,000.
Further, during an earlier discussion of Obama's proposal for Social Security, after Pawlenty claimed that Obama wants to "lift[] the cap on Social Security taxes," Blitzer noted that "there would be a lapse between $97,000 and 200 or $250,000." But Pawlenty went on to claim, "[W]hen you look at $97,000 of income, I think that's people who are clearly middle income or upper middle income, but that affects a lot of Americans," falsely suggesting that people earning $97,000 in income would be affected by Obama's Social Security tax reform proposal. In fact, wage earners currently pay Social Security taxes on income up to $102,000, and Obama made clear in a June 13 speech that "[a]nybody under $250,000 would not be affected whatsoever. Ninety-seven percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my plan."
From the June 22 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: Here's some statistics that I'm sure you're familiar with. When President Bush took office seven years ago, almost eight years ago, the national debt -- the national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now closer to $9 trillion, and it's going up.
Senator Obama says if Senator McCain has his way with the tax cuts he wants to make permanent, the Bush tax cuts which Senator McCain originally opposed, that national debt is going to skyrocket. Listen to Senator Obama.
OBAMA [video clip]: We've borrowed billions from countries like China to finance needless tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and an unnecessary war. And yet, Senator John McCain is explicitly running to continue and expand these policies without a plan to pay for it.
BLITZER: All right. Go ahead and respond to Senator Obama.
PAWLENTY: Well, first of all, this is one more instance where the rhetoric and the reality around Senator Obama is going to be brought into to the light through this campaign.
He continues to make claims about being one way, and he has a reality and a record that's a different way. In his case, he is for dramatically increasing taxes. We don't think that's the way in the McCain campaign, and Senator McCain doesn't believe that's the way to grow the economy, particularly when people really need relief --
BLITZER: But he says he wants to do it only for those families making more than $250,000 a year. He wants to reduce taxes for the middle class, people making $50,000 or $75,000 a year.
PAWLENTY: Well, when you look at his proposals, Wolf, including lifting the cap on Social Security taxes, in terms of income levels; when you -- not addressing the AMT at all, or very fully --
BLITZER: But on the Social Security -- excuse me for interrupting -- he says it would only go into effect, increasing those Social Security withholding taxes, for people making more than $200,000 a year.
PAWLENTY: Ninety-seven thousand for an individual or so. He also wants to --
BLITZER: But there would be a lapse between $97,000 and 200 or $250,000.
PAWLENTY: Well, but when you look at $97,000 of income, I think that's people who are clearly middle income or upper middle income, but that affects a lot of Americans.
He also doesn't want to address, very clearly, the AMT, and he wants to boost capital gains taxes from 15 percent to almost double that. So if you have an IRA or a 401(k), which a lot of middle Americans do, and you go to retire or, you know, use that money, you're going to pay almost double the rate in taxation.
Senator McCain, on contrast, wants to increase the exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000. He wants to make sure that we address the AMT. He wants to keep capital gains where it is now.
The other thing is, when Senator McCain talks about the economy, he talks about growing the economy, not increasing burdens. And a lot of the tax analysis that gets done about the Obama and McCain campaign plans lumps in corporate tax reductions as, you know, for the wealthy. But most tax analysts who are nonpartisan will tell you that increasing taxation on businesses is quite regressive, because they pass it on to consumers, in most instances.
BLITZER: So, let me just be precise, Governor Pawlenty. You don't have a problem with allowing the Bush tax cuts that were implemented in 2001 and 2003 being made permanent, all of the Bush tax cuts, the estate tax, plus the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, including billionaires?
Uggh
I have a Republican grandmother and brother, I feel your pain
It is Hannity talking
That Republican's comment can be translated, "We cannot win so lets tell a bunch of lies". It might have worked a bit in the last two elections but even a Republican like me is so aware of the horrible job done by Bush and his our party's yes-men and women, so we cannot possibly support a Bush 3 term. And Ladies and gentlemen, if we elect Senator McCain, that is exactly what we will do. I am a Republican and would have gladly voted for McCain before he has decided to sell his soul to the same horrible group of people who made those despicable comments about his adopted child. When that child grows up, I expect she will have some interesting questions as to why her Dad sold her down the river for a mess of pottage, ummm, for a few votes.
And as far as Hannity goes, he keeps it really simple on taxes. Every time I catch even a snippet of his tv or radio show, I hear "Obama is going to raise taxes". Which is probably technically true, Obama's plan is to raise some taxes, mostly those that were lowered on very wealthy Americans.
Of course, the Hannitized are ignorant enough to think their taxes are going to go up, even if they're working part-time at Hot Dog on a Stick.And I can't imagine anybody who takes Hannity seriously holding a better paying position than that.
McCain has the current upper hand in energy policy
Would that be the proposal of the suspension of the gas tax, a generalized call for offshore drilling,or the 300 million prize for developing a cleaner energy car? Let's see, isn't it conservatives who always spout the "Obama gives no specifics" charge? I'm wondering what specifically about McCain's energy proposals leads you to assert he has the upper hand in energy policy?
The simple fact that he is detailed in saying - lets drill off the coast, lets create incentives for alternatives to be created, lets do what we can to immediately offer SOME releif at the pump (although i think the gas tax is worthless), and lets regulate the speculator market.
Obama says, lets go after speculators and force consumers to pay even more at the pump through windfall profit taxes.
One shows at attempt to do what we can for immediate and long term independence, and the other shows that global warming outplays our immediate energy needs.
Theres a reason that polls show 76% in favor of immediate drilling....because no matter how much YOU hate it, our energy concerns far outweigh global warming theory.
"lets drill off the coast, lets create incentives for alternatives to be created, lets do what we can to immediately offer SOME releif at the pump (although i think the gas tax is worthless), and lets regulate the speculator market."
-Columbus
I can tell you for a fact that North Carolina, at least, will not allow the oil companies to drill off the coast. I don't care who's in charge. Elizabeth Dole has already said she wouldn't allow it, and we have a Democratic Governor who's definitely not going to allow it.
And are you really advocating regulation of the speculator market? Yet you still support McCain? You do realize that Phil Gramm was one of the lobbyists advocating for the Enron loophole don't you? The same Phil Gramm who is McCain's senior economic adviser?
And Obama is a pragmatist, he's not some flaming liberal, no matter how the right tries to paint him. But I'll tell you what, if you can prove to me that Obama is more liberal than McCain is more conservative (at least the current McCain, who knows where he'll be next week), then I'll give you brownie points.
Oh, and this photo, I do believe, sums up the modern GOP (and it's chances in this election) in a nutshell:
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/NIB-Giuliani-Spotted-R.jpg
What we need is investment in a green economy, we need bold ideas not capitulation to the same old destructive ideas.
And 76%? What poll are you citing? Fox News?
"And 76%? What poll are you citing? Fox News?"
Must be a Hannity.com poll.
"green" sources? What a joke...another global warming debate. Its the "feelgood" story. The fact is wind & solar do not provide anything close to the real energy needed, nor do they provide anything close to a stepping stone to viable alternatives. Spin the data anyway you like, or complain about the addiction, or whatever else. But the bottom line is simple - oil & coal funded the industrial revolution, they fuel our every day economy right now, and it would take no less than 15 years JUST to TRY and remove cars from running on gasoline.
As far as data, heres a few for you...
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1519
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_lower_prices
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108121/Majority-Americans-Support-Drilling-OffLimits-Areas.aspx
And just for S***s and Giggles, here is a poll on the gas tax. Seems to have widespread support, no?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107257/Majority-Americans-Favor-Suspending-Federal-Gas-Tax.aspx
You beg for the status quo. More oil, more oil, more oil. Darn right it will take a while to have a sustainable, green economy but so will drilling here not have an immediate impact (a point you cannot refute) so why not start creating a better future today?
This obsession with fuel, be it petroleum or ethanol or whatever is a flawed discussion. It ignores the need to assess our patterns of production, distribution and consumption of energy. A better approach in solving this mess includes people as local consumers becoming local producers of energy. It's about funding research to enable self reliance. That's the right direction to head. Screw the oilmen, they'll be just fine without the 300 million dollar redistribution of wealth that McCain proposes to give them.
As far as poll numbers, in case you missed it, I don't care about polls much. People change their minds all the time. Hell, alot of people supported invading Iraq. Do they still? Not so much. Same with drilling here. Minds will change as the idea proves to be a dumb one.
If no, I will thank you humbly and take your silence as a concession.
Nature has everything timed perfectly. Global warming will get us at precisely the moment that our oil supply runs out. So what's the problem?
The oil companies obviously have a nice profit margin, but as far as business goes, not nearly as much as other markets such as software and drug companies. However, what the oil companies are most at fault for is raising their prices based on the speculative price per barrel. In essence, they are charging prices based upon oil prices that they havent even paid yet. In that case, I am against big oil.
However, it is clearly speculators driving up market prices - some corrupt, others following, and others based on what they think OPEC will do.
OPEC has the ability to regulate supplies, and no one can force them to sell their own resources, at any price.
The energy policy of the current administration, or lack there of, is not to blame for the speculators - in fact, Clinton's Enron loophole is. But the current administration - with most of the blame on congress - not doing anything about this for 8 years share the brunt of the blame.
Anyone who blames the Bush for the problem, or big oil for the problem, are clearly obtuse and misinformed.
You would first have to change the current US law. If we open up more areas to drilling (even though the vast majority of currently leased land is actually being drill upon), the oil companies are under no obligation to give the US priority. It goes on the world market. So far, I have not heard McCain say that he would repeal that law.
Furthermore, the idea's a complete dud. If offshore areas AND ANWR were opened up to UNLIMITED drilling, it would lower the price at the pump a whopping 2.5 cents per gallon by 2025. Do you think that there would be all this public support for this loser policy if the American people heard the truth instead of the constant bombardment of oil company propaganda they are now getting.
The fact is that this whole thing is a trick by the oil companies to use the current situation to weasel their way into securing more leases before Republicans leave office. And you and all the other supporters of it are either too stupid to realize they are being duped or are complicit.
Wait - are you really trying to cite a secular progressive website as a reliable data source for oil drilling? Try again.
The truth is that the Dept of the Interior had estimated, as far back as 1987, that ANWR has an estimated 9.2-13 Billion barrels in one reserve, and 26 other reserves in the range of 500 million barrels each. Therefore, its not what doubled to be estimated of whats in ANWR, it actually counts things other than a single reserve.
But as most here believe, is that the oil market is fueled by corrupt speculators - not supply & demand. Therefore the $140 price tag of a barrel of oil is not an accurate figure to base on for future market supply - because the opening of these landmarks will come with speculator regulation, and not exporting the oil. That is the actual comprehensive plan.
You really need to lay off the progressive websites when trying to find real market information and how economics work....you know..without the objective spin.
Wow, you sure did rip a huge hole in that well linked argument by shooting the messenger and pointing to (without a link) a high end estimate that only increases the amount by a few billion barrels. How exactly does that significantly change the 2.5 cents figure? Do you have any numbers to educate us with?
Even if the figure is off by a magnitude of 10, which is laughable, we're still only talking about 25 cents per gallon. That's quite a forward thinking energy policy. Where do we sign up?
In response to Columbus1492's stating, "...he's(McCain) not a neo-conservative by any means" here's a link that contradicts that statement.
http://www.truthout.org/article/make-no-mistake-mccains-a-neocon
Dont let data, facts, current scient, and common economic understanding stand in the way of liberal theory, Hurricane....
In early May, more than 300 economists, including several Nobel laureates, issued a statement opposing the proposal because, among other reasons, "research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers."
The view of hundreds (at least) of economists from across the political spectrum hasn't stopped McCain from promising voters that “[i]n the short term, I can give you some relief" by repealing the tax.
Damn those elitist economists, with their fancy Ph.Ds and ultra-liberal college educations. The majority of Americans favor a gas tax holiday, so it must be the logical thing to do.
Public opinion and daily polling should NOT be the end all be all when it comes to policy making decisions.
Public opinion and daily polling should NOT be the end all be all when it comes to policy making decisions.
Ahh but it is. The voters vote for people with similar views on society, both social & economical. The point when our politicians start going against the will of the people, they lose their vote when it comes time for re-election.
Besides, ever heard the phrase "for the people, by the people"? Or are you of the viewpoint that the people shouldnt have a say in the decisions being made that effect their lives?
In the case of the gas tax, I agree that it won't provide much relief, if any. But at the same time, our entire congress has done NOTHING for the last 9 years of increasing prices, much less 30 years of dependancy. Its apparent that our congress doesn't know what to do, so after 30 years, may as well let the people decide. Can't be any worse than the people making the current decisions for the last 30 years.
Public opinion should be a factor in policy initiatives, but not the sole factor. Otherwise we would have mob rule: the problem with that is that the American populace could be absolutely wrong on some issues and right on others.
If the majority of Americans favored universal healthcare and free college education, should that be immediately implemented without question, without debate, and without first looking at the implications that are involved? What if most people wanted the troops out of Iraq in 3 months tops? That is not a smart way to run a democratic country.
Politicians are representative of the people who elected them, so of course they should always be sensitive to public opinion. But they are not some empty shell. They are expected to have a more informed opinion about things like the economy and foreign policy compared to the Average Joe, and so they have their own opinion on matters.
Sometimes their decision is the logical one, but it conflicts with the majority, who are dead wrong. They can either wither under pressure or face being kicked out of office come next election. Which supports the phrase, people get the govt. they deserve: if the people are irrational thinkers, don't be surprised if they elect an irrational leader.
Anyway, on the issue of the gas tax holiday, the decision people are making is actually counter-intuitive and could possibly hurt them even more. It isn't based on a cost\benefit analysis or even supported by economists, people who best know the outcome. Following through with it just because of the latest polls is pandering, plain and simple. Furthermore, how is that even leadership?
It's all in how you twist the truth. What would be more true is that McCain favors a tax code in which the profits of investment bankers, stock traders and fund managers are taxed at half the rate of retirees who just want to enjoy the sunset of their lives.
See how that works?