Fox & Friends falsely claimed Hoyer supports raising the top tax rate to 70%
On March 3, Fox & Friends distorted a Hill article on House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's recent comments about deficit reduction to repeatedly falsely claim that "some Democrats want you to hand over 70 percent of everything you make." In fact, Hoyer and the Hill article they cited said no such thing.
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.
Fox & Friends claims "some Democrats want Americans to pay 70% of their income in taxes"
Carlson: "Some Democrats want you to hand over 70 percent of everything you make." On the March 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson teased an interview with European Parliament member Daniel Hannan by claiming, "Some Democrats want you to hand over 70 percent of everything you make to pay for their out-of-control spending? A member of the European Parliament who has been through this before -- he says he has a better plan."
Carlson: "Some Democrats want Americans to pay 70 percent of their income in taxes." During the second teaser for the Hannan interview, Carlson claimed, "Some Democrats want Americans to pay 70 percent of their income in taxes to cover the deficit -- 70 percent? A member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, who already knows higher taxes are not the answer, he's here with a new plan."
Doocy: "Steny Hoyer says the only solution is probably to raise taxes." During the interview with Hannan, co-host Steve Doocy asked: "So how does Congress plan to cut [the deficit] down? Well, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says the only solution is probably to raise taxes -- maybe on the wealthy. But if you do the math, that means raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000. If you're in that category, your taxes would go up to about 70 percent. Is that kind of huge tax hike really necessary?" Doocy cited a Hill article that reported Hoyer's comments at a March 1 speech, and asked, "Why would I want to get up in the morning if I'm going to be working 70 percent of my day for Uncle Sam?"
Hoyer proposed a "balanced approach" that "avoid[s] extremes" to deficit reduction
Hoyer: "The only solution that can win the support of both parties is a balanced approach." On March 1, Hoyer appeared at the Brookings Institution and gave a speech entitled, "Building Momentum for Fiscal Responsibility." During the speech, Hoyer expressed support for both increasing revenue and reducing spending, saying, "[I]t seems to me that the only solution that can win the support of both parties is a balanced approach: one that cuts some spending and raises some revenue while avoiding extremes in either direction. A balanced approach would spread the effects of change across American society, rather than concentrating them on seniors." From Hoyer's speech:
But it seems to me that the only solution that can win the support of both parties is a balanced approach: one that cuts some spending and raises some revenue while avoiding extremes in either direction. A balanced approach would spread the effects of change across American society, rather than concentrating them on seniors.
What are our options for a budget agreement? On the side of entitlement spending, an agreement might recognize that Americans are living longer lives and raise the retirement age over a period of years, or even peg the retirement age to lifespan. Another option is to make Social Security and Medicare benefits more progressive, while strengthening the safety net for low-income Americans. That could preserve those programs as a central part of our social compact, while protecting their ability to help those of us in the greatest need.
On the side of revenues, President Obama was correct in refusing to take any options off of the commission's table. No one likes raising revenue, and understandably so. But if you're going to buy, you need to pay. In 1993, President Clinton proposed an economic plan aimed at accomplishing fiscal balance, and he paved the way for the greatest American prosperity in a generation. The bipartisan tax compromise in 1986 also showed the importance of a simplified, more efficient tax code. If need be, I am hopeful that both parties will agree to look at revenues as part of the solution -- not as a gateway to higher spending, but as part of a compromise that cuts spending and balances the budget.
None of this, to put it mildly, will be easy. It will take bipartisan trust, presidential leadership, and a public spirit that many assume is beyond America's reach in the year 2010. But I do not share that cynicism, because America has made a career of proving it wrong.
Hoyer made no mention of increasing top tax rate to 70 percent. In his speech, Hoyer made no mention of increasing any specific tax rates, but rather spoke broadly of the need to "spread the effects of change across American society." At no point did Hoyer suggest reducing the deficit by mandating "Americans ... pay 70 percent of their income in taxes," as Fox & Friends suggested.
70% tax rate Fox & Friends referenced comes from a report by the Tax Policy Center, not Hoyer or congressional Democrats
The Hill: TPC report found that "to hit the deficit target relying only on tax increases on the rich ... income tax rates for those earning more than $250,000 would have to be increased to more than 70 percent." A March 1 article in The Hill, which Doocy cited, reported on Hoyer's Brookings speech and went on to report, "President Barack Obama has promised he will not raise taxes on families with incomes less than $250,000, which could further limit the government's ability to deal with a fiscal crisis." The article added that, according to a recent Tax Policy Center paper, "To hit the deficit target relying only on tax increases on the rich, as identified by Obama, the income tax rates for those earning more than $250,000 would have to be increased to more than 70 percent." At no point did The Hill attribute the 70 percent tax rate to Hoyer or cite it as a proposal being floated by congressional Democrats, as Fox & Friends suggested.
Tax Policy Center report analyzed five options at deficit reduction, one of which would required top tax rate of 77 percent. In a January 29 report, "Desperately Seeking Revenue," the Tax Policy Center analyzed "five possible ways in which we could raise the additional revenues needed to reach the goal of bringing down the five-year average deficit to either 2 percent or 3 percent of GDP." One of the options was to "raise tax rates proportionately on single taxpayers with income over $200,000 and married couples filing jointly with income over $250,000." The report concluded that, if only that option were implemented, the top tax rate would have to be set at 77 percent.
As a proud liberal, I believe that government exists to serve the public's needs and that government should reflect the intrinsic spirit of equality, empathy and responsibility we all share as Americans. We care about each other here. When our neighbors hurt, we hurt.
I believe it is the moral mission of government to protect and empower her people. That means building the infrastructure that enables us all to live in safety and security. It means putting people to work when the market has been allowed to behave like a reckless individual and destroy our economy instead of making the market a tool that we use to create a just and egalitarian prosperity.
The fundamental disagreement I have with conservatism lies in how government is viewed by the right. Conservatives think that governing will disappear if government shrinks. It's a delusion, of course, for as soon as government is removed a corporate entity will step in to take over that role of governing. The only difference is, Shell and ADM, for example, don't care about your freedom, they don't care about democracy. They care about profit, not the public good and they have no accountability to the people.
All of this deficit spending was made necessary by radical conservative tax cuts for corporations and wealthy elitists. When you cut taxes that pay for public needs, like funding for public universities, you shift the tax to students in an increase in tuition. Higher tuition creates fewer students who can afford an education (a scenario that again favors the wealthy) and our country as a whole suffers because we eliminate the creative potential of a better educated society.
People can carp about money but this spending bill is about distributive justice. It's about caring about your fellow citizens, which leads to the principles of freedom and fairness for all.
What their function is is to remove barriers that impede opportunity and create and foster an environment where everyone has equal opportunity. Opportunity, that word that never seems to make it in your posts.
Nobody is due economic equality, or due a job, or entitled to bear the fruits of somebody elses labor. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit, another word that is always missing from your posts.
Pursuing opportunity and personal responsibility. Personal responsibility, two more words missing from all your posts.
I just don't happen to think it's a government function to monitor or instill that moral compass within me, that is my responsibility. Nor do I think anyone else is entitled to some sense of economic fairness, it is up to the individual to pursue their own. We value and celebrate individual achievement in this country, always have.
No we have always done better as a nation when we all work toward the common goal of a better future and a greater, more just society.
Everyday.
Impossible obstacles? So you agree with me that economic playing field is tilted to impede the progress of the disadvantaged.
"I just don't happen to think it's a government function to monitor or instill that moral compass within me, that is my responsibility. Nor do I think anyone else is entitled to some sense of economic fairness"
All politics are moral. All politicians believe they are on the side of right. No politician believes their policy choices are evil. In that regard, all legislation, all functions of government have moral foundations.
Also, economic fairness is a fundamental human right.
If you'd like to take issue with what I said about opportunity, or say it never happens, fine. Do so. The "economic playing field" or so you call it is not supposed to level. That is what you don't seem to accept. It is about opportunity and the pursuit, not the end result being level.
And there is no fundamental human right for economic fairness, that is ridiculous. You can say it all day long, but that doesn't make it so.
The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal. Did I miss something? There are no subsequent qualifications restricting equality. You can skip over those words, but that won't make them go away.
And what do you think was the the reason for The Declaration of Indepenence, if not for the lack of fairness in the treatment by King George III of England to the colonies? There are at least (25) specific citations in the Declaration of unfair treatment of the English Crown towards the colonies as reasons for the colonies to proclaim their independence.
Maybe in your universe, the reason we became the United States of America had nothing to do with unfair treatment from the King, but somehow it's difficult to imagine our independence borne from unaccepted and unappreciated kindness, equality and fairness.
If you get that from all men are created equal, the brain dead affliction is your own.
And, please excuse my "brain dead" expression. That behavior was disrespectful and I apologize for it.
I also agree, but it seems as of late they are due scorn and are not due assistance when they can't find one.
I agree on this as well. No one who builds their own financial empire "with their bare hands" should expect to get police protection, fire protection, military protection, transportation infrastructure, and an educated workforce for free.
If you know of someone who is in that boat, let us know.
Corporations pay no income tax...
But many of the companies the report found had paid no tax were likely small businesses that pay other taxes. Generally, many small firms, because they do not have shareholders, are able to shift corporate income to individual income.
The officials of that empire can no longer claim they built the financial empire, they are gaining the fruit, but they didn't pay the price to grow the tree.
A person who owns a business should feel free to take from that company anything they want. The CEO of a publically traded company does not deserve these same privaleges.
Abolition of Slavery
Women's Suffage
Trust Busting
Child Labor Laws
Voter's Rights
Civil Rights
Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act
Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Equal Pay Act
Don't make me break out the list of corporate malefeasance again.
I misread your post.
"Personal responsibility, two more words missing from all your posts."
Not so.
I value that all-American principle of fairness. It is inherently unfair to create impediments to opportunity by passing tax cuts that choke our ability to serve public needs. It is my responsibility to strive for excellence by making myself better, my family better, my community better, and my nation better. As I prosper it is my patriotic duty, my responsibility, to give back in equitable proportion to the vital institutions that enables all of us to prosper. Things like public education, libraries and highways.
I know you'll never agree with me on this; I simply take comfort in the fact that more Americans value fairness and equality than there are people who value tax cuts above all else.
Thanks for the great idea, Fox! We'll include that along with the other "gimmicks" you suggested for the health care bill!
Considering historical top tax rates, one wonders if people today truly have a sense of enormity of crisis that was acutely felt by past generations.
It is republican rule that has failed time and again throughout history. Our founding fathers knew that whenever maldistribution of wealth grew out of control in a society, that society tumbled.
I also need to re-read America: Who Pays The Taxes?
Any why stop there? Maybe they could take it to 95%.
the middle class including income averaging,deductions for state sales taxes, and interest on credit cards. There are other breaks as well which affected many but not all middle class Americans. His endorsement of this law is an extremely conservative one and gives me extreme pause. From the late eighties teh tax laws were designed to give the more of the tax burden to the middle class and lower taxes for the rich.