About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

King didn't challenge Rep. Price's false claim that Obama's proposed budget eliminates deductions for donations to charity

March 01, 2009 4:42 pm ET

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.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On State of the Union, John King did not challenge Rep. Tom Price's false claim that President Obama's budget proposal "will remove the ability to make charitable contributions deductible." In fact, the provision would, beginning in fiscal year 2011, reduce the tax rate at which families earning over $250,000 can take itemized deductions from the current rates of 33 percent and 35 percent to 28 percent.

13 Comments

On the March 1 edition of CNN's State of the Union, host John King did not challenge Rep. Tom Price's (R-GA) false claim that President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget proposal "will remove the ability to make charitable contributions deductible." Price added, "That means that churches across this nation and synagogues across this nation and community groups all across this nation will not be receiving the same kind of support from their citizens in their communities. That's not the kind of change that the American people desire." In fact, rather than "remov[ing] the ability to make charitable contributions deductible," the provision would, beginning in fiscal year 2011, reduce the tax rate at which families earning over $250,000 can take itemized deductions from the current rates of 33 percent and 35 percent to 28 percent.

Price was not alone in misrepresenting the effect of Obama's budget proposal on charitable deduction during State of the Union. Later in the show, senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash stated of Obama's budget, "[T]here are already things that some Democrats don't like -- many of them don't like. Like, for example, getting rid of some of the deductions that people can take for charity, just for one example." Neither Bash, White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, nor King noted that the provision applies only to families earning over $250,000.

From Obama's budget proposal:

Reducing Itemized Deduction Rate for Families With Incomes Over $250,000. Lowering health care costs and expanding health insurance coverage will require additional revenue. In the health reform policy discussions that have taken place over the past few years, a wide range of revenue options have been discussed -- and these options are all worthy of serious discussion as the Administration works with the Congress to enact health care reform. The Administration's Budget includes a proposal to limit the tax rate at which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to 28 percent -- and the initial reserve fund would be funded in part through this provision. This provision would raise $318 billion over 10 years.

Addressing the question, "Is our budget proposal uncharitable?" in a February 27 blog post, Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag wrote that "we are not eliminating the deduction -- just reducing it to 28 percent ... for the 5 percent of families at the very top of the income distribution":

Non-profits play a critical role in our society (indeed, I have worked at several of them in the past). But let's look at how the tax code treats two different contributors to a non-profit. If you're a teacher making $50,000 a year and decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy a tax break of $150. If you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and you make that same donation, you get a $350 deduction -- more than twice the break as the teacher.

This proposal walks that difference back some of the way -- it would limit the tax benefit for Buffet or Gates to $280. In other words, we are not eliminating the deduction -- just reducing it to 28 percent (or $280 on the hypothetical $1,000 contribution) for the 5 percent of families at the very top of the income distribution. That is the same tax benefit that they would have enjoyed at the end of the Reagan Administration.

From the March 1 edition of CNN's State of the Union with John King:

KING: He has a point, Congressman Price, in that you do not have any; we could not find any in your name. But many of your leaders, the Republican side in Congress, have loaded their share of earmarks in this, too.

PRICE: Well, I believe the whole earmarking process and the budgetary process right now is corrupt, and it's corrupting. The fact that the president said that he won't sign a bill with any earmarks in it and then is embracing the bill that's on the floor right now is just disingenuous.

Going back to his budget -- the budget that he has put on the table will change the very character of the nation because it will remove the ability to make charitable contributions deductible. That means that churches across this nation and synagogues across this nation and community groups all across this nation will not be receiving the same kind of support from their citizens in their communities. That's not the kind of change that the American people desire.

So, what we need to do is to step back, say in a cooperative fashion, "Look, there are good ideas on both sides. But let's come together and come up with solutions as opposed to keep throwing these stones on past times."

KING: Gentlemen, we're out of time, unfortunately. We'll invite you back in the weeks and months ahead because this is a discussion worth having. I thank you both for joining us this morning.

[...]

KING: Joining me now to continue our Sunday conversation, senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash and White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.

Let's start with the president's budget proposal -- $3.6 trillion. Republicans are out saying, "Too much spending, too much deficits." The number two Republican in the Senate, Jon Kyl [AZ], was on Fox News Sunday, and he says unlike the stimulus battle, he hopes Republicans can keep enough unity to block this budget. Let's listen.

KYL [video clip]: I hope that we can, but that means that all of us will have to be together on this, and there are only 41 of us. So we have to be absolutely united on this, and we will be if the American people convey to all of us their desire that we get a handle on this budget.

KING: Senators [Arlen] Specter [R-PA], [Susan] Collins [R-ME], and [Olympia] Snowe [R-ME] were the three Republicans who defected on the stimulus, Dana. Can the Republican leadership hold them on the budget?

BASH: It's going to be hard. And I think, really, a lot of it depends on what the "it" is. You know, the president put out a blueprint, a rough outline, but it is obviously Congress that is going to write the details of the budget. And there are already things that some Democrats don't like -- many of them don't like. Like, for example, getting rid of some of the deductions that people can take for charity, just for one example.

So it just depends on what happens at the end of the day, because we are a long way away from actually seeing legislation on this. But those three Republicans are so incredibly powerful, and Jon Kyl is going to have a little bit of a hard time keeping them in check.

KING: And as Jon Kyl tries to keep them in check, what are we learning about the new president and his ability to court the other side?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DAWUSS (March 01, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
         

      Charitable donations are no longer tax-deductible? There goes my donation to Media Matters.... ;)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (March 01, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
           

        Not sure why you would donate to them anyway, since you don't read their articles.  (hint:  charitable donations are tax deductable.)

        Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (March 01, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
           

        (If you were just portraying the lying congressman, I'm sorry for snapping.)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by DAWUSS (March 01, 2009 6:52 pm ET)
             

          It was a sarcastic answer in response to the Representative's statement. You can't really capture emotion too well with text...

          Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (March 01, 2009 8:19 pm ET)
           

        Yeah, because this really concerns you, Dawuss, because you make over $250,000 a year, right? And you donate a large enough percentage of your income already so that you top the floor that is set to itemize charitable contributions? And you actually do contribute to MMfA? And the fact is that charitable contributions are still tax-deductible, just not to such a large extent anymore!

        You scored a 100% on getting everything you could possible get wrong, wrong. I hope that's wht you were aiming for.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by right-winger (March 01, 2009 6:50 pm ET)
         

      EVERYONE AT CNN LET REPUBLICANS GET AWAY WITH FALSE CLAIMS EVERYDAY. BUT THEY GO AFTER OBAMA AND DEMS WHEN THEY PUT OUT FALSE CLAIMS. AND I COULD TELL CNN GOT A LOT OF ANGRY EMAIL WHEN THEY LET THAT FOOL RUSH SPEAK FOR A LONG TIME. JUST LOOK AT THE FACES ON THOSE REPORTERS. JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA ARE AFFRAID OF RUSH TOO!!! AND I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE LET MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC AND CBS HAVE IT WHEN THEY PUT THESE HATEFUL PEOPLE ON THERE SHOWS.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (March 01, 2009 7:03 pm ET)
         
      Apparently that is the plan conservatives have. Think of something no one in their right mind would EVER propose, and claim that Obama and the democratic congress has proposed it. Somehow they want to convince the public that Dems want to eliminate charitable deductions in the budget. Right after also starting the rumor that the budget will create a tax on revenue. Actually I am kind of disappointed in the Dems and Obama in that there seems to be little effort to head off these lies. They can't solely depend on MMFA or others to spotlight it or hope that a mainstream media personality will reveal the truth. They seem to wait around until the lie becomes common knowledge in the mainstream media and THEN they try to deal with explaining the truth. If they are making efforts to head theses lies off early, they are not doing a very good job. Dems, don't wait around for Media Matters to have to write anther "10 Myths about" for the Dem proposed budget before trying to dispell those myths.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (March 01, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
         

      Just out of curiosity, why would right wingers stop making donations if those donations were no longer tax deductible? I thought they were the true christians?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by National_Insecurity (March 01, 2009 11:40 pm ET)
         

      Yet again, why doesn't anybody on TV or in congress seem to know the distinction between between gross income and adjusted gross income? Or have sat down with a tax return, even free online TurboTax, to model "what if" scenarios.

      Oh wait, I know, it's because they're paid over $250K a year to look good on camera and read a TelePrompTer, not actually do any homework on the subject.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cannonball (March 02, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
         

      The problem with the 28% tax limit is that hinders large scale charitable giving.  People who fund a charitable remainder trust with $2,000,000 in low basis stock do so for three reasons, they can give to charity, avoid the capital gains tax on the stock sale and share in the trusts appreciation over time.

      For instance, this trust holds $2 million in a stock trading at $10, but I paid $1 for it twenty years ago.  So I give 200,000 shares to the trust.  The trust is treated like a charity and pays no taxes.  So it sells all the stock and buys an index of the market.   Right then, I save about $360,000 in federal and state income tax.  Now it pays me back 5% of the trust every year for my and my wife's lives, say the next 30 years.  The trust also grows at about 8% a year between dividends and appreciation.  So after paying me 5% a year, it has 3% growth left over 30 years for charity, about $4.8 million.  What did I get over the 30 years, about $4.5 million. 

      The tax deduction for this gift is taken in the current year, with a five year carry over, at the full $2 million minus the present interest value of the annuity, about $800,000.  This gift saves about $295,000 in federal taxes.  Under Obama's plan, it saves only $224,000.  Not much different, it's true.

      So what if I balked at this trust planning because of Obama's new tax bill and I just sold the stock and kept the index portfolio and still lived on 5% a year, what would I have left after 30 years to give to anyone?  About $2.9 million.  You see the charitable trust never pays taxes, but the beneficiary does.  So by not doing the trust, I ate about a $2 million in lost appreciation, dividends and taxes and left my legatees, either a charity, my children, or both, about $1.6 million short. 

      Bad move, right, it still would be way better to do the trust.  The problem is that these strategies are so complicated, that any bad news keeps taxpayers from doing them.  Rich people make rich gifts that fund the endowment of really good charities.  Without significant tax breaks, people won't make big gifts, just little ones.

      BTW, I'm as liberal as can be, but this is how the large charitable organizations depend on the tax code to promote giving in big numbers.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 03, 2009 8:27 am ET)
           

        You... you expect us to believe that people with $2 Mil to give to charity are going to stop doinf that because of $140K difference in taxes?  They just gave a way TWO MILLION.  Do you know how much money you'd have to have to do that?  DO you think that would amke a difference to them?  What would they do with the money instead?  If they wanted to invest it, or get a return, they'd DO that!  They wouldn't be donating it in the first place!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by GotKids (March 03, 2009 5:59 am ET)
         

      Thank you MM for getting into the weeds on the financial topic. I was really getting depressed yesterday watching CNBC Mis-Reports, the sky is falling John Kramer and I lie through my teeth for a living Larry Kudlow. I will be paying higher taxes for the forseeable future, although not that much higher, I just want to be sure the money is being spent wisely.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.