About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Did the GOP commission Fox to rewrite the history books?

June 10, 2010 2:20 pm ET — 73 Comments

Appearing on Fox & Friends, purported business expert Stuart Varney made extensive revisions to U.S. economic history, among them: the false suggestion that President Obama has not cut taxes; the false suggestion that President Bush presided over strong job growth; and the false claim that after President Clinton took office, the economy did not improve until Republicans took control of Congress.

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

Erasing $288 billion in tax relief, Varney falsely suggests Obama has not cut taxes 

Varney: When Reagan took office, "he cut taxes"; when Obama took office, "he raises taxes." From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:  

VARNEY: Yes, well look. What happened when President Reagan took office in January 1981? We had double-digit unemployment. He cut taxes, set off a growth of prosperity for a generation. Now we've got President Obama in; he inherits a nasty recession, he raises taxes and raises spending. He has not cut unemployment. There's a difference in reaction to a nasty situation. One works, one doesn't work. I'm very partisan. I'm very clearly partisan. Sorry, ladies and gentlemen. 

In fact, Recovery Act included significant tax relief for individuals, families, and businesses. As Media Matters for America has noted, the Recovery Act contained $288 billion in tax relief, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, which is a two-year annual credit of $400 per individual or $800 for families. In addition, the Recovery Act included a temporary increase in the earned income tax credit, a temporary increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit, an increase in the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and tax incentives for businesses. 

Bruce Bartlett: "[F]ederal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president." Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and a Treasury Department economist under President George H.W. Bush, wrote on March 19 that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year":

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800. 

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies. 

AP: "Americans are paying lower taxes this year." The Associated Press reported on April 14, "You wouldn't know it by the Tax Day rhetoric, but Americans are paying lower taxes this year, even with increases passed by many states to balance their budgets." While noting that in future years some taxes may increase for some Americans, the article said that "Tax Day rhetoric," i.e. complaints by some of being overtaxed, does not match the reality of Americans' current tax burdens. From the article:

Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Barack Obama took office, dwarfing the $28.6 billion in increases by states. 

[...] 

The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.

The most generous was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars.

Tax-cut amnesia is News Corp.-wide phenomenon. In response to Obama's State of the Union assertion that "we cut taxes," Fox Forum columnist Peter Roff wrote, "We cut taxes? How did I miss that?" Columnist S.E. Cupp similarly wrote, "Cut taxes?!  WHAT?" The New York Post also asked if Obama was in "Opposite Land" when he "claimed to have cut taxes and saved 'millions' of jobs." In July 2009, Stephen Moore said on Fox News that "[t]he one thing this administration won't do is cut taxes," when, in fact, it already had cut taxes.

CBS: "Poll Reveals Most Americans Don't Know They Got a Tax Cut." A February 5-10 New York Times/CBS News poll found that only 12 percent of respondents "think the Obama Administration has ... decreased taxes for most Americans." CBS wrote that "[o]f people who support the grassroots, 'Tea Party' movement, only 2 percent think taxes have been decreased, 46 percent say taxes are the same, and a whopping 44 percent say they believe taxes have gone up." 

Accusing Dem of "cherry-picking," Varney does just that to claim "Bush created 8 million new jobs"

Varney: From "2003 to 2007, George Bush created 8 million new jobs." From the June 10 edition of Fox & Friends:

VARNEY: What you're quoting there is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat, who said on my show on FBN, she said, look, you take the first four months of this year, extrapolate out, and we've created more jobs in that year than Bush did in his eight years. Well, you're cherry-picking time frames. You're making a prediction of a trend, which simply isn't there, and you're ignoring reality. The reality is that in the middle of Bush years, and you've spoken about this, Brian [Kilmeade], 2003 to 2007, George Bush created 8 million new jobs. And that's ignored here.

By cherry-picking just four years of Bush's administration, Varney erased two recessions; in fact, only 1 million new jobs were created during Bush presidency. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of nonfarm jobs increased from 132.5 million in January 2001 to 133.5 million in January 2009, an increase of only 1 million jobs. By contrast, employment increased by 22.7 million under Clinton, 16.1 million under Reagan, 10.3 million under Jimmy Carter, and 2.6 under George H.W. Bush.

By including only data from 2003 to 2007, Varney erased the job impact of the recessions that began in 2001 and in 2007. The Washington Post reported in January 2009 that "economists, including some former advisers to Bush" say the expansion during the period Varney highlighted "was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets," which "have proved unsustainable."

employmenthours

Bush employment growth worst of all post-WWII administrations. The New York Times reported on January 23, 2009, that during the Bush administration, "Employment grew at a compound annual rate of only 0.3 percent, half the 0.6 percent rate that his father had recorded in what had previously been the worst post-World War II performance."

Fox & Friends makes misleading, apples-to-oranges comparison of unemployment rates

Doocy: "Obama is in a bad spot." From the June 10 edition of Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: We're looking at U.S. unemployment over the last 12 years -- 12 months, that is to say. But when you look over the last number of decades, Obama is in a bad spot because when you look at, starting with LBJ, he had unemployment at 4 percent. Ike was under 5, Nixon 5, Clinton 5, Bush 43 5, JFK 6, Bush 41 -- and just read along. Obama's at the bottom with over 9 percent.

Fox compared unemployment rate of Obama's first year-and-a-half, which came during the midst of a deep recession, to the average unemployment rates of past presidents. In two on-screen graphics, Fox & Friends prematurely compared the average unemployment rate over less than 1.5 years under Obama -- who took office in the midst of a deep recession -- to the average unemployment rates over the full presidencies of Bush and other former presidents. Fox & Friends listed the average unemployment rate under Bush as 5.3 percent. When Bush left office in January 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent and had been increasing for more than a year.

unemploymentchyron

unemploymentchart

Varney falsely claims that after Clinton took office, "economy was not stimulated" until "the Republicans swept in"

From the June 10 edition of Fox & Friends:

VARNEY: Look, when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, 2002, that was in a recession. It got us out of the recession --

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Fifty-one consecutive months of growth --

VARNEY: And gave us 51 consecutive months of economic growth. That was the direct result of tax cuts, which stimulated the economy. Now, I know you're gonna refer to President Clinton. First thing he did when he comes into office, he raises taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners. The immediate result of that was not to stimulate the economy. No, the economy was not stimulated until 1994, when the Republicans swept in, put a collar on government spending, and made sure that we were fiscally sound. Then the economy took off, and revenues took off.

Clinton's 1993 budget plan also included spending cuts, as well as expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, Head Start, and other programs. Varney stated: "First thing [Clinton] did when he comes into office, he raises taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners. The immediate result of that was not to stimulate the economy." According to the Brookings Institution, the 1993 package also "included significant spending reductions" and "concentrated the tax increases on upper-income taxpayers, while substantially expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, Head Start, and other government programs aimed at lower earners."

Economy was recovering before Republicans took control of Congress. Contrary to Varney's claim that "the economy was not stimulated until 1994, when the Republicans swept in, put a collar on government spending, and made sure that we were fiscally sound," the economy had, in fact, been recovering before that point. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP increased 4.1 percent in 1994, before the Republicans controlled Congress, and had been recovering since 1991, when GDP fell .2 percent. The economy continued to grow throughout the 1990s.

realgdp

Varney falsely claimed "we had double-digit unemployment" when "Reagan took office in January 1981"

From the June 10 edition of Fox & Friends:

VARNEY: Yes, well look. What happened when President Reagan took office in January 1981? We had double-digit unemployment. He cut taxes, set off a growth of prosperity for a generation.

In fact, unemployment reached double digits 20 months into Reagan's term. According to BLS data, the unemployment rate was 7.5 in January 1981, when Reagan took office. The unemployment rate increased steadily over 20 months and passed 10 percent in September 1982.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (June 10, 2010 2:24 pm ET)
      12 1
      Revising history is FOX's Prime Directive.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 10, 2010 5:10 pm ET)
        10 1
        FOX+GOP= one big lying machine.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (June 10, 2010 7:52 pm ET)
        9 1
        To understand unemployment under Obama just look at unemployment under Ford and Carter; the recipients of the Nixon Great Recession.

        and ... ain't it funny that unemployment actually went up during Reagan's term?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mikelartist (June 10, 2010 2:33 pm ET)
      9 1
      Varney has a history of just making things up. Over and over again. He should be tested on his citizenship again. I bet he fails.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RobertSeattle (June 10, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
      6 1
      I can recall Varney when he was on CNN in the 80s where he seemed like a pretty straightshooter. But then they get hired by Fox and got on the Fact-Free diet.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (June 10, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
        6 2
        When they are overseen by editors, publishers or producers who are reasonable, they are forced to be non-partisan. That's why Britt Hume looked so reasonable for years on ABC. Once they're unleashed on FoxNews, they feel free to express their own rightwing political feelings.

        And this is why it's totally bogus to claim that there's liberal media bias if journalists report that their won personal political philosophy is a little left of center on average!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 3:17 pm ET)
          1 21
          Brit Hume was a straight news reporter on ABC, he was a commentator on Fox - that is why he didn't broadcast his opinions on ABC, and he did on Fox.

          Apparently you don't know the difference between news reporters and commentators. If you did, you wouldn't have made such an erroneous statement above.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Disputed Zone (June 10, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
            16  
            Until recently Hume was a Fox News anchor.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Disputed Zone (June 10, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
              11  
              And now he's an analyst.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
                1 20
                He anchored an opinion show, he did not do straight news reporting as he did on ABC, so to compare his non-opinions there with Fox is a mile apart.

                Analyst/Commentator = same thing.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by all your eyes (June 10, 2010 3:58 pm ET)
                  16  
                  Um.. Hume's role for years on Fox was as the news anchor of Special Report, which if you listen to the Fox defenders, is part of their "straight news" programming. And he wasn't absolutely terrible at that most of the time, until they pushed him out of the way for Baier on January 1, 2009...
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
                    1 15
                    The reason Hume was non-partisan at ABC and did offer his opinions on Fox has absolutely nothing to do with his editors or bosses. His job at each network was decidedly different, when you straight news report you are supposed to give facts not opinions. When you host a show mixed with stories by reporters and anchoring commentators who give their opinions, yours is free to be expressed as well.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mary59 (June 10, 2010 4:11 pm ET)
                      12 1
                      Sheesh. You do set a record for not getting, whether deliberately or not, the point. the so-called "liberal" press is anything but.

                      Instead, you derailed into what his roles were as if that was in dispute.

                      THE original point you responded to was that when on traditional corporate media, somehow Hume assumed a neutral stance. Now unleashed by Fox, he's free to show his colors, which are definitely not liberal.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 4:16 pm ET)
                        1 16
                        Huh? Hume was a straight news reporter at ABC, hence his neutral stance. Do you get that? On Fox, his role was not a straight news reporter or merely a straight news anchor, he hosted a show that offered stories by straight news reporters and moderated a group of commentators who freely exchanged their opinions, one of which was his. Do you get that also?

                        Talk about not getting it.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Disputed Zone (June 10, 2010 4:23 pm ET)
                          12  
                          The roles of reporter, anchor and analyst all require same level of objectivity. Except at Fox.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 4:26 pm ET)
                            3 11
                            I am not defending Fox, I have called them crap here several times. I was merely correcting Sue's erroneous post above. She got it completely wrong.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by mary59 (June 10, 2010 6:32 pm ET)
                              9 1
                              Groan. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by DellDolly (June 10, 2010 9:52 pm ET)
                              8  
                              Nope, I'm still not Sue, and I did NOT get anything wrong. I used Britt Hume as an example, but there are several others I could have found.

                              You're the only one here who gets anything completely wrong, and you do it all the time!
                              Report Abuse
                • Author by Disputed Zone (June 10, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
                  12  
                  Special Report is considered straight news.

                  I think analysts are supposed to be objective like reporters. Maybe not at Fox.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Disputed Zone (June 10, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Special Report is considered straight news.

                  Analysts are supposed to be objective like reporters. Maybe not at Fox.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
                    1 13
                    So the part on Special Report with all the commentators giving their opinion is straight news? Wow, who knew?

                    You can call analysts whatever you want, I don't mind them giving their opinions when they analyze stories. Analyzing often requires judgments and opinions, how can it not?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Disputed Zone (June 10, 2010 4:18 pm ET)
                      9  
                      Analysts can use their judgment and offer opinions, but they are supposed to be non-partisan. Unlike commentators.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
                        1 13
                        If they offer their opinions how can they then be free of some partisanship? They might be, but clearly they could very easily show some bias as they are as you said, their opinion.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Disputed Zone (June 10, 2010 4:26 pm ET)
                          9  
                          If they offer their opinions how can they then be free of some partisanship?

                          Training, effort and oversight.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by SMTDL (June 11, 2010 1:17 pm ET)
                          5  
                          It would help if they base opinions on established facts then analyze/expound,clarify..whatever!If they just repeat distorted views based on the"some are saying" type of info or leave out relevant data or claim to analyze by reading minds and telling you what "it really means"/That's not analysis of news ,that's propaganda.Here's a Hume example."To Tiger Woods..drop being Bhudist..become a Christian..because I say its the only way to redemption". His opinion..sure ...but based on such personal bias it was offensive!!What other News networks let analysts spew such propaganda.Dick Morris is a walking propaganda machine of nonfact-based innuendo and "opinions"!!!
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by stevensm (June 13, 2010 9:55 am ET)
                    1  
                    Yeah, sure it is. That's why Hume's "Political Grapevine" was constantly taking shots at Democrats and all things liberal. That's why the reporters who were supposed to be doing straight news on Hume's show (such as Cameron and Angle) got caught injecting pro-right wing bias into their reports (which Hume didn't challenge and often even expounded upon as if the bias was fact). That's why Hume set up his All-Star panel conservatives with purposely leading questions which enabled them to get out the right wing talking points while the lone liberal on the panel was out-numbered. Straight news? Puh-leeeze.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (June 10, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
            8  
            Maybe FOX should drop the "News" from its name, so people don't get confused. Fox Opinion Network might work, or since they are in the "ratings" business, they should go the way the WWF did and call themselves Fox Entertainment Network.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (June 10, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
            8  
            Maybe FOX should drop the "News" from its name, so people don't get confused. Fox Opinion Network might work, or since they are in the "ratings" business, they should go the way the WWF did and call themselves Fox Entertainment Network.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (June 10, 2010 4:17 pm ET)
            6 3
            Brit Hume was a straight news reporter on ABC, he was a commentator on Fox - that is why he didn't broadcast his opinions on ABC, and he did on Fox.

            Nope, Britt Hume was a straight news reporter on FoxNews too, and AS a supposedly straight news reporter, clearly leaned right. That same bias was NOT apparent when he was on ABC. And he is just one example I could have given of the bias of MANY FoxNews "reporters".

            Apparently you don't know the difference between news reporters and commentators. If you did, you wouldn't have made such an erroneous statement above.

            Apparently YOU can't control your personal animus, and so YOU had a kneejerk reaction to the absolute truth I posted and you went off the rails in response to it! If you hadn't allowed your personal animus to control your fingers on the keyboard, you wouldn't have made such an erroneous statement above!

            And thanks for utterly failing to address the final paragraph of my post, thereby exposing your inability to dispute a word of it!

            And this is why it's totally bogus to claim that there's liberal media bias if journalists report that their won personal political philosophy is a little left of center on average!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
              4 12
              Nope, fail Sue. You clearly do not know the difference, or you wouldn't be whining about being questioned. Nice try though. yawn.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (June 10, 2010 10:48 pm ET)
                7  
                Yeah, the failure is yours, and that's why there was a personal attack from you, because you had no factual rebuttal you could conjure up.

                We all see it - you got three thumbs up from you and your troll/sockpuppet buddies.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by mdey (June 11, 2010 5:51 am ET)
            5  
            Special Report, according to Fox News is straight news. Hume may be an analyst now, but he was "supposedly" a straight reporter for several years.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by rtejon (June 10, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
      5  
      This sort of thing was one of the top most-vilified Soviet practices. Now we see it almost every day and aren't even surprised.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kydem09 (June 10, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
      3 17
      I really wish liberals would stop equating a tax credit with a tax cut. They are not the same thing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ro (June 10, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
        12 2
        LMAO!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivevoicedaily (June 10, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
        17 1
        The right is stupid. PERIOD
        Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (June 10, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
        3 14
        You're right kydem. A tax credit is still a monetary outlay, a tax cut is not.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mrahen (June 10, 2010 3:50 pm ET)
        14  
        The stimulus package had a mixture of tax credits and tax cuts. I really wish conservatives would start looking at the whole picture.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kydem09 (June 10, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
          2 14
          Please point to one actual tax cut, not a credit, but a cut. The much touted "Making Work Pay Credit" is not a cut. As the name specifically says, it's a credit. This means that although I have less taxes taken out of my check every pay period, I still have the same tax liability. So, if I'm not paying what I owe through tax deductions from my payroll, then I owe more come April 15th. Again, a credit is not a cut. As for looking at the whole picture, let's go ahead and do that. According to the CBO, President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020. There's the whole picture.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MidnightWriter (June 10, 2010 4:39 pm ET)
            9 1
            PoltiFact.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kydem09 (June 10, 2010 4:44 pm ET)
              1 12
              Fail. That link discusses the Making Work Pay Credit. Please try again.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MidnightWriter (June 10, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
                12 1
                You apparently didn't click the link towards the bottom that said, "94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut." Which took you to this page.

                Now, just what were you saying about your failure?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by kydem09 (June 10, 2010 4:53 pm ET)
                  1 14
                  Well, I would say you still fail since this explosive piece of evidence you're relying on is dated BEFORE Obama even took office. You know what they say though, third time's a charm.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MidnightWriter (June 10, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
                    12 1
                    Dude, what are you looking for? Something from Fox News?

                    Well, okay then.

                    Call it credits, call it cuts, call it what you will. Be it from higher rebates or lower withholding rates. The bottom line is tax bills for 2009, as measured by percentage of income, were the lowest they've been in decades.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by kydem09 (June 10, 2010 5:17 pm ET)
                      1 13
                      I just want a little intellectual honesty about this. Call it what it is. A tax CREDIT. It is an absolute lie to call it a tax CUT. Don't make people think their tax liability has been reduced when it hasn't. If people are going to jump all over someone for disputing the widely misreported notion that the Making Work Pay Credit was a tax cut, then they need to be prepared to back up what they say. And you obviously can't back it up. Your latest link is to an article that says half of Americans don't pay income taxes because of entitlement CREDITS.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MidnightWriter (June 10, 2010 5:31 pm ET)
                        11 1
                        Ah, so it's all about the semantics?

                        You're hooked on "credits." Someone else might prefer, "deductions." Someone else might go with, "elimination of liability."

                        Nevertheless, as the Fox article showed, those Making Work Pay credits meant more people ended up paying less in taxes.

                        Of course, if still want to insist that these credits aren't cuts you're welcome to ignore them and donate the money you would have received back to the government.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by blk-in-alabam (June 11, 2010 7:23 am ET)
                          7  
                          It is about trolling and chasing rabbits.Rabbits always run in circles
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by SMTDL (June 12, 2010 12:52 pm ET)
                          2  
                          This is really semantics,tax cut or credit,you end up paying less tax before or after the fact,the result is the same!..Why should this be contentious ..it is what it is!!!
                          Last I heard as a nation, WE are paying lower taxes than ever before!!!
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by ConstanceRifleII (June 10, 2010 5:31 pm ET)
                        12 1
                        Also, This might be something you would be interested in reading:

                        Tax deductions and tax credits can both reduce an individual’s income tax liability, but they do it in different ways. Tax deductions reduce taxable income; their value thus depends on the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate, which rises with income. Because deductions cannot reduce taxable income below zero, their value is limited to the filer’s tax liability before applying the deduction. In contrast, tax credits directly reduce a person’s tax liability and hence have the same value for all taxpayers with tax liability at least equal to the credit. In addition, some credits are refundable; they are not limited by the taxpayer’s tax liability. As a general rule for policy, tax deductions make most sense for items that represent reductions in ability to pay tax, such as casualty losses. Credits are more appropriate for subsidies provided through the tax system.


                        Kind of makes your "Don't make people think their tax liability has been reduced when it hasn't" sentence a little absurd now, doesn't it?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by funnymanpants (June 10, 2010 5:32 pm ET)
                        11 1
                        >>I just want a little intellectual honesty about this. Call it what it is.

                        Who's being dishonest here? Do workers pay more or less in taxes? Give me some sources and numbers to back up your claims, please.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 10, 2010 6:57 pm ET)
                        6 1
                        It is an absolute lie to call it a tax CUT

                        "In a way this reminds me of Clinton's 'It depends on what your meaning of is is' comments," said Rosanne Altshuler, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "It depends on what you mean by tax cuts."

                        "These are all provisions that cut your taxes," she said, "but most of them are temporary," designed to stimulate a floundering economy.

                        Each of the tax provisions in the stimulus could have been broken into separate bills, said Bob Williams, also of the Tax Policy Center, and on their own could have rightly been billed as separate tax cuts.

                        "They packed an awful lot into that bill," Williams said. "I think it's fair to say that various tax provisions in the stimulus could be considered tax cuts. I don't think that's being deceptive."
                        We agree.


                        "We passed without, frankly, the help of the Republican caucus, we passed 25 tax cuts last year, mostly aimed at the middle class and small businesses."...
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by eb (June 10, 2010 7:24 pm ET)
                          8  
                          Notice how calling a tax credit a tax cut is considered misleading yet it is somehow OK that Fox news is giving everyone the impression that they are paying the government more when they are not.

                          Of course, what do you expect when they blame Carter for double digit unemployment 20 months into Reagan's first term.
                          Report Abuse
          • Author by ConstanceRifleII (June 10, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
            8  
            According to the CBO, President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020. There's the whole picture.


            I would really like a link on that, not because I don't believe you, I just believe there is more than what you have said here.

            You see, this all would be a terrible thing, IF the President was tied to his budget from the previous year. But he's not. He can propose any budget he wants from year to year.

            Also, "cumulative budget deficits" might as well be "fantasy unicorn paprika-pants" because it means exactly as much. Why? Again, Obama's not tied to his budget from the previous year.

            One last thing. The only reason Obama's budget is so large is because he is including the cost of TWO WARS that former President Bush never did. Bush's fiscal budget for 2009 contained a larger deficit than Obama's budget for FY 2010, and FY 2011. In other words, he is REDUCING THE DEFICIT.

            Really, whatever right-wing site you pulled those little "facts" from were selectively taken from any actual CBO scoring, then multiplied to absurd outcomes.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (June 10, 2010 5:25 pm ET)
            10  
            >>President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020. There's the whole picture.

            You copied this from a Washington Times article. From the CBO, the figures are re-markedly different:

            http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=465

            Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting: Projected deficits average about $600 billion per year over the 2011–2020 period. As a share of GDP, deficits drop markedly in the next few years but remain high—at 6.5 percent of GDP in 2011 and 4.1 percent in 2012, the first full fiscal year after certain tax provisions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 are scheduled to expire. Thereafter, deficits are projected to range between 2.6 percent and 3.2 percent of GDP through 2020.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ConstanceRifleII (June 10, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
              7  
              Ahhh, the Moonie Times. Of course.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (June 10, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
              6  
              You're not suggesting that kydem09 is a slimy, disgusting plagiarist, are you? Simply because he lifted someone else's work in full without giving attribution?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (June 10, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
            8  
            >>This means that although I have less taxes taken out of my check every pay period, I still have the same tax liability. So, if I'm not paying what I owe through tax deductions from my payroll, then I owe more come April 15th.

            That makes no sense. Does a worker making 30,000 pay more or less that he paid before in taxes at the end of the year under Obama's proposal? Are you actually saying such workers are paying the same? And if so, then why if polifact and virtually every other fact checking agency wrong?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (June 10, 2010 4:35 pm ET)
        6 2
        I wish folks like John Boehner wouldn't say that it is the responsibility of the American taxpayer to foot the bill for the clean up of an environmental and economic catastrophe created by a British corporation [and a couple of American ones]. As a conservative, I find that DISGUSTING. How about you, kydem? Are you supportive of Boehner's comments today [which were later walked back a bit]? Do you really want taxpayer dollars assisting the fourth largest company in the world with its financial responsibilities with regard to this mess?

        If so, please tell me why?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (June 11, 2010 7:20 am ET)
        4  
        Koch Industries gets billions of dollars in tax credits.Their paper mills because of a governmevt slip up,has taken a big chunk of bio-fuel tax credits for doing nothing.Paper mill have produced extar paper with-out regard for paper demand.They wer making more money on the tax credit than selling paper.Then Koch uses donations to their heritage foundation for further tax credits
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Don Quixote (June 10, 2010 3:27 pm ET)
      4  
      Crafty devils!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 10, 2010 3:47 pm ET)
      8 1
      Wow. I'd love to hear the RW apologists try to explain this one away!

      ------------------------------------------
      Unbelievable
      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (June 10, 2010 4:17 pm ET)
      7 1
      Bum facts...

      All that fact-from-ass-pulling has gotta leave the FOX NEWS hosts and the hired gums with major anal paper cuts.

      Every dressing room at their studios must be equipped with a caulking gun full of Perparation H.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (June 10, 2010 5:29 pm ET)
      9 1
      If I say that the sun is composed of sour cream, that is my opinion, but it is also a lie. Get the difference? Super right-winger like to accuse the "liberals" of not being able to accept a different "point of view". An outright falsehood is NOT a point of view, it is simply a LIE. The Republicans have always counted on the general public's gullibility. Just saying the word, "liberal" sends them into a state of shock and hatred, not even knowing what that means. Rupert Murdock is a one-man falsehood machine and one of his engines is the News Corporation. Buying up hundreds of "news" organs gives him complete control of ideas. Therein lies his power and our weakness.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eb (June 10, 2010 7:36 pm ET)
        6  
        Imagine if there was a lefty 24 news channel that blatently made stuff all day!!! These conservatives would think its the end of the world. Maybe ACORN and Soros could fund it... Their heads would explode...

        Meanwhile Fox takes its audience for idiots.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rumpleteasermom (June 10, 2010 5:52 pm ET)
      9 1
      Did the GOP commission Fox to rewrite the history books?


      Normally MMfA gets things right. In this case, they have it backwards. Fox is not acting at the behest of the GOP. Fox is rewriting history to keep the GOP in power for very self-serving reasons. If the intellectual elite of the nation were to regain control of the culture and people begin to believe that accurate information is more important than information that agrees with one's own worldview regardless of it's veracity . . . well, Fox would be out of business.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by T.M. Finney (June 11, 2010 1:47 am ET)
        2 1
        I agree. The headline is very misleading. The facts were interesting in and of themselves but I was looking throughout the article for any information pertaining to the GOP commissioning ANYONE to "rewrite history books." I appreciate MMfA, but the headline needs to be changed to reflect the material. "Varney and FOX Rewrite Recent Economic History" would be fine, or did I miss the part about evidence of actual GOP involvement. If you are going to be a fact-checking organization, then you have to be careful how you frame the issues.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (June 10, 2010 7:31 pm ET)
      8  
      Fox has been doing this all of the time. Cavuto constantly and very selectively links the success or failure of Democrats to the stock market even though a quick look at the Dow shows his theory cannot be true. Just look at the 8 years for Bill Clinton and compare it to 8 years under Bush. No contest. George W. Bush had the worst economic performance by just about every generally accepted metric for his 8 years than any post Hoover president. It just does not fit into Fox "News'" little ideological fairy tales so they just make up something that does.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (June 10, 2010 10:52 pm ET)
        13
      Totally off topic :)
      I guess that there weren't any primaries in the US this week for MMFA to whine about. The one I love is that Greene guy from SC - even an unknown is better than whoever the Dems suggest - and he turns out to be a likely felon!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (June 12, 2010 1:29 pm ET)
      2  
      History books does not pay your bills or help putting people back to work.... beckie boy has a line of BS, it's only making his money belt heavier...... beckie boy bitches about the unions, i wonder if beckie boy would tear up his contracts', HOW LONG WOULD he LAST ON RADIO OR TV??? ( AT MINIUM WAGE he WOULD BE GROSSLY OVER PAID) WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!
      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.