ABC's Tapper joins media advancing small business falsehood
SUMMARY: ABC News' Jake Tapper, CNN's Dana Bash, and Fox News' Sean Hannity advanced the falsehood that President Obama's plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for wealthy taxpayers would cause a large percentage of small businesses to pay higher taxes. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center, just 2 percent of tax returns that reported small business income in 2007 are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected.
After President Barack Obama released his budget, which includes provisions allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for wealthy taxpayers, ABC News' Jake Tapper, CNN's Dana Bash, and Fox News' Sean Hannity advanced the falsehood that those provisions would cause a large percentage of small businesses to pay higher taxes. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center's table of 2007 tax returns that reported small business income, 481,000 of those returns -- about 2 percent -- are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected.
- During the February 26 edition of ABC's World News, Tapper reported, "Almost $1 trillion of the spending, $989 billion, comes from new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting in 2011 -- most of them targeted at families earning more than $250,000 a year." Tapper later reported that "President Obama would push an additional $353 billion in new tax hikes on businesses," and aired Sen. Judd Gregg's (R-NH) assertion that, "So, if you've got a restaurant or you have a small business, then you're getting hit now with a tax rate that's gonna jump from 35 percent up to 41 percent," suggesting that all small businesses would face a tax increase under Obama's proposal to let the top marginal income tax rate increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent as scheduled.
- During the February 26 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Bash uncritically reported that "couples making $250,000 a year and individuals making $200,000 will see their tax rate go up from 36 percent to 39.6 percent" and that "Republicans standing on the other side of a deep philosophical divide argue it will cripple small business owners."
- During the February 26 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity claimed that "when [Obama] talks about this top 2 percent that he's gonna tax, well, that's 80 percent of small business owners in America."
In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the Tax Policy Center has estimated that a mere 2 percent of tax returns reporting small business income in 2007 earned enough income to be affected by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year -- not 80 percent. Neither Tapper nor Bash noted the percentage of small business owners earning enough income to be affected in their reports.
From the February 26 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
OBAMA: I don't think that we can continue on our current course. I work for the American people, and I'm determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November.
TAPPER: That change begins with new priorities, such as $770 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for alternative energy sources, and $634 billion for a health-care reserve fund to pay for whatever health reform Congress devises.
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): You're never going to reach the place you need to be in terms of fiscal responsibility unless you reform health care.
TAPPER: Much of the spending is being done with money the government does not have, creating a $1.75 trillion deficit next year alone.
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): The president's beginning to make President Bush look like a piker when it comes to spending.
TAPPER: Almost $1 trillion of the spending, $989 billion, comes from new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting in 2011 -- most of them targeted at families earning more than $250,000 a year. These individuals face $636 billion in new taxes.
That includes $338 billion from letting the Bush income tax cuts expire, but also an increase in the capital gains tax and a lowering of the deduction for charitable giving -- a tax hike budget director Peter Orszag disagreed would discourage giving.
ORSZAG: The recovery itself will provide a strong boost not only to charities, but to the overall economy and to the people who contribute to charities.
TAPPER: President Obama would push an additional $353 billion in new tax hikes on businesses.
ROBERT GIBBS (White House press secretary): The president doesn't believe that the changes that are being made would hinder economic growth.
TAPPER: On Capitol Hill, President Obama's former commerce secretary nominee, New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg, disagreed.
GREGG: So, if you've got a restaurant or you have a small business, then you're getting hit now with a tax rate that's gonna jump from 35 percent up to 41 percent. Well, where do you pay for that? You lay people off.
[end video clip]
TAPPER: One other interesting note: The budget has what the administration calls a placeholder for additional funds to bail out banks or financial institutions, up to $750 billion worth, Charlie. Just in case.
From the February 26 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
BASH: Congressional Democrats are especially eager to fulfill a major campaign promise: pay for their priorities by repealing President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. For example, couples making $250,000 a year and individuals making $200,000 will see their tax rate go up from 36 percent to 39.6 percent. That would get the government an estimated $310 billion.
PELOSI [video clip]: It's about ending a tax -- a cut that should not have been there in the first place -- that contributed enormously to our deficit.
BASH: But Republicans standing on the other side of a deep philosophical divide argue it will cripple small business owners.
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI) [video clip]: The notion that you raise taxes on the people who are most likely to create jobs in a recession -- it just boggles our mind that they would actually try and pursue this sort of an economic agenda at this very time.
BASH: Republicans are also blasting the president's budget for not doing enough to cut spending.
From the February 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: What do you make of this aspect though of it, Governor, and that is that when he talks about this top 2 percent that he's gonna tax, well, that's 80 percent of small business owners in America. Eighty percent -- the top 2 percent -- that's 80 percent of businesspeople. How is that going to impact them, and how does that impact jobs?
MITT ROMNEY (Former Massachusetts governor): Well, I think there's a general misunderstanding on the part of some people in Washington. They presume that jobs just happen, that the economy just happens, that businesses just grow and thrive on their own. But they have to have an environment where that's possible.
"Eighty percent -- the top 2 percent -- that's 80 percent of businesspeople"
I'd love to know which body cavity he pulled that statistic from.
He probably doesn't care which hole he pulls it from. What's going to happen, some "reporter" will question him? Ha.
Well, you have a point. The Republicants are always whining that liberal reporters can't possible be objective. By that same logic, how can we expect millionaire pundits to be objective about a policy that raises their taxes?
Absolutely, the likes of Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are far more concerned with hanging on to their favorite tables at restaurants and getting invited to the right cocktail parties than getting the story right.
Rove just shut them off, denied them access and gave them the Helen Thomas treatment if they didn't recite the talking points. Even with Obama, they're still doing it.
Jon Stewart does an excellent job of catching them in the act. Last night, he showed numerous "reporters" referring to it as a "Robin Hood" policy. Karl Rove must have been pressed for time when he came up with that lame-a$$ talking point.
I saw that Mrs. Romney had a bunch of jewelry missing from one of their mansions, so Mitt's feeling the economic pain of the average American too.
Nah, he's just afraid that Obama and the Dem Congress will make it more difficult for him to inflict that pain on the average American.
Mitt just wants them red bloodied american market forces to have free unfettered reign. Capitalism at it's best you know. All those intellects on Wall Street...
Since Jindal the Excorcist crashed and burned, the Republitoads may turn in desperation to Romney. The big question is whether the GOP's Neanderthal base will ever be able to vote for one of them there Mormonites.
Oh boy, Jindal, what a disaster. The good news for America though is if Jindal is all the Repugs have , we will never have to fear them destroying our nation like they have done in the Bushie years.
I just read over at reddstate about how they think Olbermann owes Jindal an apology. Their evidence? Lee is dead, and Jindal's aide says everything that Jindal said is true. Hasn't the reich's annointed one ever heard of a photo op? Geez, just show a dang picture...
If Jindals pathetic response to Obama doesn't remove him from contention, this should do the trick.
Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night -- about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?
Turns out it wasn't actually, you know, true. admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrina_story_was_false.php
But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has
And when psycho sarah's sittin' in front of him he'll act like she's his candidate, too.
I believe they specified that only the two top rates would revert back to their pre-Bushonomics level.... maybe you missed that.
Yeah, you'd think saying "letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top earners" would explain that pretty easily. Perhaps his brain turned off after the first half of the sentence?
We heard this yesterday from Bartiromo and what stood out is these people dont know the difference between " income ' and " revenue ". I know from experience observing business claims over the years is some of the bigger businesses seem to have two books, one they show the IRS and one they show the shareholders. I have seen reported massive losses when in actuality these claims are directly related to possible future earnings.
I think you must be referring to the fact that companies keep more than one set of books. This is business 101. You have your tax accounting and your finacial accounting/reporting.
OT but oh-oh, somebody's having a bad day...
Secret Coleman-Lawyer E-Mails Reveal Intentional Hiding Of Witness -- Franken Camp Wants Double-Count Claim Thrown Out Completely
By Eric Kleefeld - February 27, 2009, 12:01PMDid you get that from Hannity's America radio show ?
Nah, raw story. But Ironic, isn't it? The right wing is pouring millions of dollars into a campaign to seat a moderate republican from Minnisota while they are saying they may seek retribution against 3 moderate republicans for voting for the stimulus bill. Put that one in yer pipe and smoke it!
He sure did. The market's a disaster and so is our economy. Save your breath about who caused it - both parties are to a degree responsible. Key thing is to get us out of this mess. I am a small business owner and will be hit by the new taxes - hard. Its not just the tax rate but the loss of deductions. If you put the two together my marginal rate is not 39.6 but as my accountant has shown me it will be over 70% - for those of you who are numerically challenged that is taking the loss of deductions (which results in more tax paid) added to a higher top rate and combined to get an effective rate for the top income bracket. There are many other subtleties inthe bill - but MMFA is too busy trying to compare facts...they should be out seeing what is really happening in the economy.
My customers orders are way down. I have already cancelled all donations for the year, not renewed my season tickets, cut out travel (we use online video conferencing now) and laid off 30% of staff. More cutrs will come if the business community does not have faith in Obamination. I don't, my friends don't, and my customers don't. You think it is bad now - just wait to see how other seemingly uneffected small business owners start reacting.
And before you blow aq gasket - i grew up a family of 7 in an 800 square foot house. Started work ant age 9 and have worked every day since. Put myself through college working while the "rich" kids played. Have worked 70 hour plus weeks while the rest complain about not getting the full 15 or 30 minutes for their break. I have what I have not because someone gave it to me but because I earned it.
Another major disaster is looming on the horizon that maybe MMFA could do some research on. The bulk of the babyboomers will be retiring about the time of the end of Obamination. 401k have been decimated, and as companies fail so will that expected company paid retirement - oh you didn't know that could happen? Silly you. Bailing out retirement funds will make bank buyouts seem trivial. How much did the trachers pension fund lose? or the pollicemen's? Or that unuin fund? Unless there is amiraculus recovery most of you blue collar workers are in deep trouble. I have reviewed in great detail for a client one state's collection of reitirement funds and all I can say is that the picture is "UGLY" and unless there is a Madoff to guarantee huge returns inthe next 5 years those funds will run out of money in about 7 years. And with no small businesses hiring and negative equity in the house from a destroyed property market - enjoy retirement.
You dropped out of school in the 4th grade?
Yes he did, Colonel. He went to work at as a silversmith's apprentice and taught himself a large vocabulary while reading scraps of newspapers pulled from trash cans in the one hour per week he had as "spare time." Later, he scratched out algebraic equations on a piece of slate using charcoal. One day, he earned the admiration of a local business owner when he walked twelve miles to return a hankerchief which he observed had fallen out of the rich man's pocket. The rich man got him a job delivering the Wall Street Journal from 3-5 AM daily for three shillings a month.
Eventually, through thrift, hard work and self-sacrifice, Worldly managed to buy himself a small shop and marry his master's pretty daughter. He built that little shop into a thriving enterprise, and today Worldly is the most highly respected man in his community and an example to all tow-headed little boys at what they may achieve if only they believe in an America with Low Taxes.
His first response to any tax increase will, of course, be to cut out his charitable giving. Next comes the trip to Europe, and throwing thirty percent of his work force on to the Unemployment lines. If it gets any worse, he may be forced to turn down the temperature of the indoor pool.
Thanks for the tale of inspiration, Mr. Alger. Cripes what a snow job.
A lovely tale, JJamele, well done. I wept openly.
Seriously, these pretentious wingnuts with their fantasy lives are a hoot. The only convincing part is that somebody who left school at age nine might actually consider employees a net expense and jettison them to save money.
I'm still looking for some non-fiction examples of employers who get rid of employees because their taxes were raised. Unless you've got a really worthless employee who doesn't produce as much as it costs to employ him (who should be dumped regardless of tax rates), or you're just an extremely lousy businessman, this fable is so silly any high school student should be able to see through it.
Jjamele, that was a wonderful horatio alger parody. Thanks, and glad I wasn't sipping anything while reading it.
You are very welcome, Mary. I've read five of the fifty-odd books and love to show them to my AP History students when we discuss the Gilded Age, which of course was a time in which boys were taught that if they didn't rise from poverty to middle-class respectability through hard work, thrift and obeying their parents, it was their own damned fault and they deserved to die in the gutter.
Amazing how that same philosophy could be on a banner at the current CPAC meeting.
"Silly you. Bailing out retirement funds will make bank buyouts seem trivial. How much did the trachers pension fund lose? or the pollicemen's? Or that unuin fund? Unless there is amiraculus recovery most of you blue collar workers are in deep trouble. "
-Worldly
Trachers pension fund. Pollicemen's. That unuin fund.
I think your "dropped out of school in the 4th grade" comment was way off the mark. Second grade is probably more accurate.
After all, there was a family of seven to support in that 800-square foot house, and the saw mill was hiring.
You may be right,JJ. It took the wordy M.R. four painfully dull paragraphs to say what Sean Hannity screeches out in five seconds. Add that to his sloppy work ethic , and I think it's clear why his business is struggling. All the tax cuts in the wordly world aren't going to make up for that sort of inefficiency and incompetence.
first of all your rendition of the Obama presidency as Obamanation sounds too much of an emotional reaction and makes the rest of your argument ignorable. I expect such rant from businesses that accepted Bush's derelulation and paid no taxes ( or very little ) and now are being called to make the US Trasury solvent again. No, I don't feel your pain. Poster boy Joe the Plumber lied to the electorate about his business and he may not be the only one here.
Wow, you made that story up all in what? A week, and in your parents basement. Bravo!
WMR says "The market's a disaster and so is our economy. Save your breath about who caused it - both parties are to a degree responsible. Key thing is to get us out of this mess."
Why is it that when looking back at the past really makes Republicans look bad, Republicans always say that there's no value in looking back, and that we have to look forward? Why is it that when looking back at the past with a wicked partisan view can be twisted to make a Democrat look really bad (when he may have been slightly bad, or not bad at all!), the Republicans can't stop themselves from doing it?
Both parties are not equally to blame. One party, the party on the right, is vastly more responsible for the problems, and so when we look to groups to provide solutions, we sane people don't think we should look to the party that was vastly more responsible for the problem.
Only a fool would say that there's no value in looking at the past history of the last Administration when it comes to making decisions about what to do in the future.
Dude, taxes are fifth or less in your list of problems. Get out of the way and let Obama get your customer orders up.
Kinda weird how the repubes keep jumping from one "great white hope" to another.I don't think they really know or care who they are backing. They seem so desparate to find a new leader that they will jump on who ever comes up. Sorta like they just listen to the current gop slop and run with it. No vetting, no thinking. Monkey see monkey do.And after each one implodes they claim they didn't and declare a new winner.Must be tough to love your party and seem them chase their collective tail with no forthought and no shame.Just make a quick list of the last two years worth of "worthy" candidates and vialble spokesmen.Mess after mess after mess.When will they learn that you can't run a party like you run to war in Iraq.MG
that was in responce to Caseysprings
Of those 2% of "small" businesses that would be affected, I am interested to see a distribution of what they make as profit. I am willing to hazard a small sum that many of them are not such small businesses. A guy who owns six McDonalds each pulling in $500,000 a year is not a small businessman.