Chicago Tribune uncritically reported false McCain claim that Obama "will fine" small business owners who don't insure employees
SUMMARY: The Chicago Tribune uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false assertion during the second presidential debate that Sen. Barack Obama "will fine" small business owners who don't insure employees. In fact, Obama's health care plan states that small businesses are "exempt" from its requirement that "[l]arge employers" either "offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees" or "contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan."
In an October 7 Chicago Tribune article about the second presidential debate, correspondents John McCormick and Jill Zuckman uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that "If you're a small-business person and you don't insure your employees, Sen. [Barack] Obama will fine you." In fact, Obama's health care plan explicitly states that small businesses are "exempt" from its requirement that "[l]arge employers" either "offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees" or "contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan." Indeed, in response to McCain's assertion, Obama said, "Small businesses are not going to have a mandate. What we're going to give you is a 50 percent tax credit to help provide health care for those that you need" -- a comment McCormick and Zuckman did not report.
In contrast with the Tribune, in an October 7 post on its blog The Caucus, The New York Times reported:
"If you're a small businessperson and you don't insure your employees, Senator Obama will fine you," Mr. McCain said. "He'll fine you. That's remarkable. If you're a parent and you're struggling to get health insurance for your children, Senator Obama will fine you."
Mr. Obama would, in fact, require medium and large employers to either provide coverage to their workers or pay a tax into a fund that would help subsidize coverage for low-income people. But his plan specifically exempts small businesses from the requirement. In fact, Mr. Obama proposes to offer a substantial tax credit to small businesses to encourage them to provide insurance.
Indeed, Obama's health care plan reads:
(3) TAX CREDITS FOR FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES. Barack Obama and Joe Biden understand that too many families that do not qualify for public health programs like Medicaid and SCHIP have trouble finding affordable health insurance. They know from talking to small business owners across the nation that the skyrocketing cost of healthcare poses a serious competitive threat to America's small businesses. The Obama-Biden health care plan will provide tax credits to all individuals who need it for their premiums. They will also create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. To be eligible for the credit, small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share of the cost of employee health premiums.
(4) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.
From the Tribune article:
McCain also charged that Obama's first instinct is more government.
"As you notice, he starts talking about government. He starts saying, government will do this and government will do that, and then government will, and he'll impose mandates," McCain said. "If you're a small-business person and you don't insure your employees, Sen. Obama will fine you. ... If you're a parent and you're struggling to get health insurance for your children, Sen. Obama will fine you."
And Obama painted McCain as just a captive of Washington as he criticized his energy proposals.
Well, in Grampy's world, a person making under 5 million is middle class. Therefore, it only follows that companies like Hewlett Packard or Starbucks would be considered "Small Business".
Really? Where is that figure on McCain's web site or any record of what he's said or written...
Well, I can't find it. If it doesn't exist, perhaps you've just promoted a falsehood..interesting that you participate on a web site that purports to fight against such things.
Nerz is referring to a comment McCain made to a question about what he considers the definition of rich is.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/18/mccain-definition-rich-graph/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/17/mccain-defines-rich/
Here
Here
Here
Or 360,000 other links that are the result of a Google search for the words "mccain middle class under 5 million".
You're either trying to start trouble or hopelessly clueless. This has been all over the media since McCain's TV appearance with Rev. Warren.
Dex,
He made the 5 million remark at Saddleback in a joking way, but then never defined "rich." He said that he considered 5 million in income as rich, but never defined middle class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP-0pedQeGw
I agree it was a joke. But of course "Bomb-bomb-Iran" was also a joke according to McCain.
Exactly, and he never answered the question as to what he thought "rich" was.
I am sitting up straight waiting in rapt attention for your next brilliant, scathing post! By the way, if you REALLY think McCain is grounded in reality, please provide 5 or 6 examples so I may consider trying to vote for him twice! I personally think McCain transcends us mere mortals, and that is why it is hard to understand where he is coming from- he's.., he's an etheral being sent to deliver peace and harmony to everyone (as long as you're not poor, middle eastern, russian, women, blacks, hispanics, democratic or eco-friendly! Hell, that only makes up .0000001% of the population, right?)
A falsehood? Moi? A rhetorical exaggeration, maybe.... a partisan cheap shot, perhaps.... an unsubstantiated gratuitous assertion, frequently....but a falsehood? Why, I wouldn't dream of it.
In any case, it's just as grounded in reality as Palindrone Twit's assertion that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists".
Harrrumph.
Another pretty good report by mmfa...maybe Foser has been invited to the staff meetings...and they're actually listening to his advice.
One thing omitted from the analysis is Obama's definition of "small business"...and I didn't find it in the link provided...it would be helpful.
The SBA has arrived at a standard definition, and you'd probably be safe in assuming that's the standard that Obama uses.
Thanks neon...and there is some interesting stuff in your link.
Did you know that if you mfg. ammo with less than 1500 employees you're a small business...or...if you make metal cans with less than 1000 you're a small business...or...if you wholesale candy with more than 100 employees you're a large business.
If you make motion pictures or videos you can generate up to $29 1/2 million and be a small business.
It's an interesting link...thanks again.
I get the impression that the SBA judges a "small" business purely by relation to other businesses in the same industry. From a non-business-person's standpoint, it seems overly complicated and intricate. From a political standpoint, it's ideal. Lots and lots of nooks and crannies into which a cunning and greedy politician can stuff political favors...
Man oh man...you said that right...That's what happens when the fed govt. gets involved.
A couple more doozies...If you deal in financing international trade...under $175MM makes you a small business.
If you raise sugar beets or cattle...don't go over $750k or you're a large business.
One thing omitted from the analysis is Obama's definition of "small business"...and I didn't find it in the link provided...it would be helpful.
In the US, companies with less than 100 employees are considered "small businesses", so I figure that must be the definition Barack Obama is using. The following information is from his web site:
FACT #4: Obama Would Lower Taxes For the Vast Majority of Small Businesses. The Suggestion that Obama Would Raise Taxes on 23 Million Small Businesses is Patently False. Because the Obama plan preserves existing tax rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, nearly 99% of small business owners won’t see any tax increase under the Obama plan. Instead, these small firms and business owners are likely to get a tax cut under the Obama plan, which eliminates capital gains taxes for small businesses, provides a new 50% tax credit for healthcare, and helps lower health care costs to make small businesses competitive. The McCain campaign’s tired attack on small business taxes has been thoroughly repudiated: Factcheck.org called it “preposterous”; Politico called it “off-base”; the Atlantic called it a “lie”.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Facts_FINAL.pdf
Since Obama answered this lie in the debate it's very irresponsible of the Tribune to report only McCain's side of the argument.
I agree. In fact, I've levied a fine of $100k on the Tribune for this.
(and by 'fine', I mean that I would have given them $100k, but I'm not going to now that they've published this article)
So they're being punished by giving up $100k of revenue from the annual $100k donation which was promised but temporarily suspended for the previous few years anyway but due to be reinstated next year however is now being retracted resulting in a deficit-side entry on their books for the upcoming year and creating a plummeting stock price requiring the need for a bailout for shareholders.
I get it.
McComplain sounded like a little kid who didn't get his candy bar.