About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CBS ignored evidence undermining "double whammy" small-biz attack

July 16, 2009 5:14 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: Katie Couric claimed that small-business owners "would pick up a big part of the tab" for Democrats' health care reform plan. But neither Couric nor correspondent Chip Reid noted evidence undermining that suggestion.

8 Comments

During the July 15 edition of the CBS Evening News, host Katie Couric claimed that "there is growing opposition from small-business owners, who would pick up a big part of the tab" for health care reform, and correspondent Chip Reid claimed that a small-business owner "who has 25 full-time employees, worries about getting hit by a double whammy," and that "[t]he second part of the double whammy is a surtax of at least 1 percent." Neither Couric nor Reid noted that Democrats dispute the suggestion that most small-business owners would be subject to the proposed surtax; Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said on The Huffington Post that "according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, only 4.1 percent of all small business owners will be affected by the health care surcharge."

The House tri-committee legislation, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act, would establish on taxpayers filing joint returns a 1 percent tax on income exceeding $350,000 but not exceeding $500,000 per year, a 1.5 percent tax on income exceeding $500,000 but not exceeding $1 million per year, and a 5.4 percent tax on income exceeding $1 million per year, with married individual filings and other filings subject to a surtax of 50 percent and 80 percent of those amounts, respectively. In his July 15 post, which went up in advance of Reid's report, Miller stated of attacks on the proposal by "Republicans and right wing commentators":

Before you adopt their rhetoric, remember that nearly half of the cost of the House Democrats' health plan would be paid by tight cost controls and forcing down the expense of the health care system. That's a top priority. And as for who will pay higher taxes and who won't under our plan, here are the cold facts.

Only the highest earning 1.2 percent of American households will pay a surcharge for health care reform. That leaves 98.8 percent of American households who will not pay any surcharge at all.

As for small businesses, according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, only 4.1 percent of all small business owners will be affected by the health care surcharge. The remaining 95.9 percent of small business owners will be completely unaffected by the surcharge.

Under our bill, a family making up to $350,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) will not owe any surcharge at all, as President Obama has promised. A family making $500,000 in AGI will contribute $1,500 to help reduce costs and provide access to affordable health care for all Americans -- 0.3 percent of their annual income. And a family making $1 million in AGI will contribute $9,000, or 0.9 percent of their annual income.

Who are the highest earning 1.2 percent of all households? They are the same households who over the past 20 years have seen a massive shift in wealth in their favor and who over the last 8 years received the lion's share of President Bush's tax cuts.

In not reporting Miller's statement, CBS echoed media figures and outlets who have previously allowed conservatives to characterize Obama's and Democratic proposals to increase income taxes on wealthy individuals as a tax on small businesses, without noting the small percentage of small businesses that would actually be affected by the proposal.

From the July 15 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

COURIC: A number of proposals are making their way through the House and Senate this week, but chief White House correspondent Chip Reid tells us there is growing opposition from small-business owners, who would pick up a big part of the tab.

[begin video clip]

REID: President Obama praised Congress today for taking their first small steps toward health care reform, then pleaded with them to pick up the pace.

OBAMA: We can't kick the can down the road any longer. Deferring reform is nothing more than defending the status quo.

REID: Democrats on a key Senate committee passed the first piece of their reform plan today with no Republican support. Yesterday in the House, Democratic leaders introduced their bill.

Both plans would extend coverage to the vast majority of the 50 million uninsured, require those without insurance to buy it, and give subsidies to low-income Americans to help them afford it.

OBAMA: Both proposals will offer stability and security to Americans who have coverage today and affordable options to those who don't.

REID: The White House says most Americans would come out winners. But try telling that to Chris Warner, who owns a small mountain climbing business in Maryland. He's climbed the two tallest mountains in the world, Everest and K-2, but says surviving health reform could be his toughest challenge yet.

WARNER: We really could find ourselves in a position where a lot more small businesses are going to go bankrupt.

REID: Warner, who has 25 full-time employees, worries about getting hit by a double whammy. First, under the House bill, businesses with payrolls of more than $400,000 -- Warner's is $1.4 million -- must either provide health insurance for their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of their payroll. That could add over $100,000 to Warner's tax bill.

WARNER: Do we do it by not giving employees a raise? By not reinvesting back in our company? You know, we're -- it's just that classic catch-22 of small businesses.

REID: The second part of the double whammy is a surtax of at least 1 percent. Warner would have to pay it because his business earnings exceed the threshold of $280,000 a year, even though he personally takes home much less than that.

WARNER: Is the, you know, greater good for me to take that capital and pay taxes for it, or is the greater good for me to create more jobs?

REID: In an interview today with CBS News medical correspondent, Dr. Jon LaPook, the president said the money for health care reform has to come from somewhere, and he prefers getting it from those at the high end of the income scale.

OBAMA: If you can afford it, either give your employees health insurance or pay into the pot so that we're not subsidizing it.

[end video clip]

REID: The president today, again, ratcheted up the pressure on the House and the Senate to get their initial bills passed before they go home for the August recess. The plan is then they would come back in the fall, work out the differences between the two Houses, and then get a bill to the president's desk before the end of the year.

Today he said he wants the signing ceremony in the Rose Garden -- Katie.

COURIC: Meanwhile, Chip, at a time when the president is really trying to resuscitate the economy, will the potential burdens on small businesses be addressed or lessened?

REID: Well, I think so, Katie. I've been going through some of his speeches. He has put himself forth as the best friend in this town of small business. He said small business is the heart of the American economy, the heart of the American dream, the job creators; they're responsible for more than two-thirds of jobs over the last 10 years.

And on Capitol Hill the lobbying operation of small business has really kicked into gear, so the thinking is that, in the end, small business won't be hit as hard as the House bill might suggest.

COURIC: All right, Chip Reid at the White House tonight. Thank you, Chip.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by galileonardo (July 16, 2009 6:24 pm ET)
        2
      Anyone who believes the government will be "forcing down the expense of the health care system" has not scrutinized any government program. But let's just say that is accurate and costs do go down, do you think the overall health care system will be better or worse in the end? I know nobody likes to hear about the UK model, but what has been the result of their system:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92916560
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8117561.stm
      http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukwheelchair.html
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aYPuCa1iuxG8

      I have said this before, but I live in Massachusetts and we now have a system that insures over 95% of our citizens without the public option carrot. It is admittedly bleeding money and is far from perfect, but the system allowed me to afford a legitimate plan for my family through a traditional insurer whereas a similar plan had previously been unaffordable. If we are being forced down this road, why not a system like that?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (July 16, 2009 11:21 pm ET)
        1  
        Don't follow this troll down his derail path please.

        The subject here is that CBS pushed the right wing spin on this topic, without telling us the TRUTH, that the right wing spin is a bunch of lies and distortions. Almost no small businesses will be affected, and they'll pay an extra one percent of their income.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jcalton (July 17, 2009 1:04 am ET)
             
          Um, I'm not sure that's a troll post. It probably helps (usually does) if you read the whole thing.
          He's advocating a system that costs a lot of taxpayer money but insures 95% of citizens. That's not perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now.
          That's hardly trolling.

          Also, I'm not sure that Katie Couric's statement was a bunch of "lies and distortations:"

          MM quoting Couric: "there is growing opposition from small-business owners [True], who [if referring to 4.1% of SBO's = True] would pick up a big part [Probably not true] of the tab"

          There's probably a lot more than 4.1% of businesses who dream they might someday fall grow into that category. There likely will be when the economy picks up.

          Anyway, let's give Katie at least 1 out of 3, maybe 2 out of 3 with the benefit of the doubt. I'd say 1.5 out of 3, to be fair.

          One distortion. Maybe one lie, tops.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by The_Cat (July 17, 2009 11:19 am ET)
               
            An interesting analysis, jcalton, but you left something out:

            One distortion, maybe one lie, and the omission of the entire other side of the argument. All CBS reported was the conservative/Republican view of health care reform, related taxes, and the public option. Since they completely omitted any mention of the other side of the story, by far the biggest problem with their reporting was that it was quite obviously biased in favor of one side. This is not journalism, but propaganda.

            If they were to do justice to the story, -both- sides would've had to be presented, leaving viewers to decide for themselves.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (July 17, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
           
        There is nothing wrong with the UK system. The 89 yo with macular degeneration would likely have been turned down by a private insurer too. They don't know why the cancer survival rate is lower there. It's a stretch to blame it on govt health insurance though. I didn't read the other 2 articles but I assume they are more of the same.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by justjoe628 (July 18, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
             
          First of all a private insurer can't just turn down a treatment because it's too expensive. Experimental yes, but not because it's expensive. They can "not cover" pre-existing conditions if he were swithcing but thats not likely at his age. Fact is, at 89, he'd have medicare and we, the taxpayers would be paying for it. It's also very convienient for you to simply dismiss the difference in cancer survival rates. I'm sure if their survival rate was higher you'd be giving credit to their superior system of healthcare. And you assumed right about the other two articles, just talking about disabled children having to wait up to two years for wheel chairs and the NHS putting them off so that maybe a charity would pay for them instead. There's also the one about the NHS turning down a mans cancer treatment. Too expensive. Too bad for his 1 year old daughter. Too inconvienient for you to read something you don't want to hear about.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by justjoe628 (July 18, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
         
      That guy is good at twisting words. I really like how he sets up the whole class warfare by talking about the richest 1.2% and how they've been the recipient of Bush tax cuts. And therefore they must pay!!!! I particularly like how he says they will "contribute", so that all Americans can have affordable health coverage. (Please make sure and say that in a sing-song, happy-happy, joy-joy tone) It is not a contribution, the government is taking it. And quit trying to make it sound better by calling it a "surcharge." Are you kidding me? It's a freakin tax. And ANYONE who thinks for one second that the government is going to be able to pay for it with "tight cost controls" and "forcing down expenses" is either really naive or just plain ignorant of government. The only thing a democrat controlled government is efficient at is raising taxes. Call it exactly what it is....government sponsored wealth redistribution!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by justjoe628 (July 18, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
         
      First of all, bravo to CBS news (yuck, did I just say that), for not just following the typical democrat talking points and actually presenting something on the other side of the story. The democrat want to talk about all the good that will come of this but nothing of the bad. I'm also not really sure why CBS news is resposible for something Rep. Reid said on the Huffington Post. Now there's a place for some unbiased news. Yeah right. What I find most strange is how Rep. Reid failed to mentions a couple of minor details that the Joint Committee on taxation said in their report. He forgot to metion that the 1% "surcharge" for incomes between $350-500K will go up to 2.5% and the 1.5% for $500-1M will go up to 3% in 2013. Oops, he musta forgot. The 5.4 for those over $1M will stay the same. He also didn't mention that in the Joint Committee's report, which I read by going to their website, says the info for small businesses was coming from the CBO. That's all it said in specific reference to small businesses. Those other numbers were for individual filers. What they also failed to mention is that there are not enough taxpayers in this top 1.2% of American to pay for this fiasco. So that means someone elses taxes will eventually have to be raised also. I wonder whose that will be? Ya know there are only so many "rich" people around. So when they run out of rich people, they come after you and me next, because this utopia where the government meets all your needs is gonna cost a whole lot more that Obama, Pelosi and Reid think.
      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.