Network journalists have yet to meet a spending hike or regulation that they considered unwise, but any tax cut is always ill-advised and helps “the wealthy.” Living up to the pattern -- and illustrating how John McCain will earn media scorn for any conservative policy proposal -- NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams set up a Tuesday story on McCain's economic plan by emphasizing how “some critics say his economic plan, which centers on more tax cuts, doesn't add up.”
Reporting on McCain's plan outlined in a speech at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, reporter Kelly O'Donnell listed McCain's idea for a summer suspension of the gas tax, though that “tax is used to pay for highway repairs.” O'Donnell moved on to McCain's proposal to “double the income tax exemption for dependents to $7,000 a year,” hardly a boon to the rich, before getting to McCain's “core idea” to “lower taxes and make up lost revenue with cuts in government spending.” She then delivered the liberal line: “But critics and some economists argue McCain's math is wrong, that his plan would tilt toward the wealthy, swell the deficit, and not trim enough.”
O'Donnell concluded with how “there's extra scrutiny on his economic proposals today because in the past McCain has said he needs to learn more and that the economy is not his strongest subject.” How about just a little scrutiny on whether the massive new spending plans forwarded by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton really “add up” to a balanced budget?
The CBS Evening News limited coverage to a brief item read by anchor Katie Couric, but ABC's World News ran a full story from reporter Ron Claiborne, who concluded with the same criticism around which NBC had framed its story: “Critics question how McCain expects to pay for the war in Iraq, massive tax cuts and balance the budget. McCain says he can do it, but it will take until the end of his second term.”
Apparently, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax and not raising taxes when current rates expire in a few years constitute “massive” tax cuts to ABC and, for NBC, tax cuts tilted “toward the wealthy.”
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide this transcript of the story on the Tuesday, April 15 NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Most Americans don't need reminding this is tax deadline day, and John McCain used the occasion to give his second speech on the economy in two weeks' time. He is offering more specifics on how he would handle the economy and the federal budget. But some critics say his economic plan, which centers on more tax cuts, doesn't add up. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell is with the McCain campaign tonight in Pennsylvania.KELLY O'DONNELL: Going right for your wallet and your gas tank, today John McCain urged the government to drop the federal tax on gasoline, 18 cents a gallon, for three months this summer before the election.
JOHN MCCAIN: The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus, taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas.
O'DONNELL: That gas tax is used to pay for highway repairs. McCain advisors say they'd make up for that with money from the general fund. Another proposal, double the income tax exemption for dependents to $7,000 a year. McCain's core idea, lower taxes and make up lost revenue with cuts in government spending. But critics and some economists argue McCain's math is wrong, that his plan would tilt toward the wealthy, swell the deficit, and not trim enough. Beyond numbers, plain old politics. McCain claims Democrats will cost you more, and he tried to play off the title of Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope.
JOHN MCCAIN: They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars a year, they have the audacity to hope you don't mind.
O'DONNELL: McCain saved some of the heat for his own party, accusing Republicans of wasteful spending, and the President of failing to stop that with vetoes, while in a new ad, McCain ran for the middle.
CLIP OF AD: As President, John McCain will take the best ideas from both parties.
O'DONNELL: Turning to the Democrats, more on Barack Obama's comments about bitterness in small towns. Both Clinton and McCain have called Obama elitist, and today he was asked if that amounts to the racially charged word "uppity."
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: This term, the way it is being used against you, it isn't far from uppity.
BARACK OBAMA: I don't think there are racial overtones to the attacks going on right now. I think that, you know, it's politics.
O'DONNELL: While Hillary Clinton today said she thinks gender has been underplayed in this campaign.
HILLARY CLINTON: And it's inescapable that race and gender, which has gotten, I must say, much less attention, are part of who we are. But we both wish to be judged on the sum of our parts.
O'DONNELL: And the sum of those parts includes life experience and record. And for John McCain, there's extra scrutiny on his economic proposals today because in the past McCain has said he needs to learn more and that the economy is not his strongest subject.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





O'DONNELL: That gas tax is used to pay for highway repairs. McCain advisors say they'd make up for that with money from the general fund. Another proposal, double the income tax exemption for dependents to $7,000 a year. McCain's core idea, lower taxes and make up lost revenue with cuts in government spending. But critics and some economists argue McCain's math is wrong, that his plan would tilt toward the wealthy, swell the deficit, and not trim enough. Beyond numbers, plain old politics. McCain claims Democrats will cost you more, and he tried to play off the title of Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope.
O'DONNELL: McCain saved some of the heat for his own party, accusing Republicans of wasteful spending, and the President of failing to stop that with vetoes, while in a new ad, McCain ran for the middle.









Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Truth in
April 15, 2008 - 21:34 ET by Chris NormanTruth in references:
"Some critics, mainly us at NBC, say his economic plan..."
Gotta love "those" critics.
April 15, 2008 - 22:09 ET by Missouri Conservative"Some critics" say a lot, don't they? "women and minorities hardest hit"
Eliminating the gas tax is
April 15, 2008 - 22:18 ET by Dan The Man 2Eliminating the gas tax is unwise.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Care to elaborate?
April 15, 2008 - 23:52 ET by RESTLESS 1Care to elaborate?
Most of the money collected
April 16, 2008 - 00:02 ET by Dan The Man 2Most of the money collected is spent for highway or transportation project, given back to the states. Gas taxes are by and large easier to reduce by consumption. I favor a reduction in income taxes.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan
April 16, 2008 - 00:11 ET by RESTLESS 1I agree that it seems a hollow gesture and politically motivated. I must object to the statement that it would be a disaster if it were implemented for three months though.
Oh, and I'd much rather income tax cuts too, along with much curtailing of govt. waste. One can dream. ;>)
Edit: You said unwise, not a disaster. My bad.
Restless as you know
April 16, 2008 - 10:35 ET by Dan The Man 2Restless as you know political solutions quick fixes are most times problematic all we need to do is look at the "food shortage" caused by ethanol. The gas taxes are part of a big erquation and anytime we mess with the equation there will be ripples throughout lasting for years. The gas taxes are directly linked with the transportation which includes roads. Well mainly roads.
By cutting taxes on gas you may be causing project delays and infrastructure upgrades that are sorely needed. Remember the bridge collapse, while solely the problem of teh state the state gets revenues from gas taxes by way of the feds. Can you imagine the problems blamed on a GOP President because he suspended gas taxes for 3 months and prevented funds from being transfered to avert another bridge collapse?
Sometimes remedies are in fact nightmares.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Well, I don't know where you
April 16, 2008 - 13:42 ET by fitzfongWell, I don't know where you live, but here in California, the gas taxes are "intended" to cover transportation...but are more often stolen by the legislature to refresh the general fund so that the socialists can keep funding their job-killing pet projects and extensions of medical care and entitlement programs for, among others, illegal immigrants. One only need see the crumbling three lane I-5 between Anaheim/Buena Park and Downey in Los Angeles County, the ludicrous 405/101 interchange between West LA and the San Fernando Valley, the miserable 110/5 Interchange in Downtown LA or the third world conditions of the 710 to see that the gas taxes are not funding transportation...unless it's for busses and light rail that nobody will use. The only kind of roads that are being built anymore are toll roads...and even they're meeting with resistance from "environmentalists". In other words, the consequences of cutting gas taxes here in California would be unnoticeable with regard to road improvements and it would dry up the resource to extra entitlement programs...meaning that the legislature may have to face the prospect of cutting some spending to balance the budget. Win-win as far as I'm concerned.
you're not alone
April 16, 2008 - 15:53 ET by wizardjrHey, I thought the Peoples Republic of Minnesota was the only one that did all that. Sad to say, we're not.
The Government gets plenty of Money
April 16, 2008 - 20:21 ET by PopularTechYou could make up for any revenue loss by simply cutting the budget of any number of other wasteful places the government blows money on. It is all propaganda that they could not find the money.
The freakin states are raping us for on average another 29 cents a gallon.
I favor abolishing the gas tax, reducing the income tax and reducing spending.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"Tax cuts for the rich" just
April 15, 2008 - 22:29 ET by Scout Finch"Tax cuts for the rich" just shoots out of their mouths before they even give pause to think about what to say. It's a Pavlovian response that has no merit.
Right SF. I don't have any
April 15, 2008 - 23:56 ET by RESTLESS 1Right SF. I don't have any proof handy, and don't feel like researching it right now, but don't the poor have the most kids? Seems like doubling the credit per child would help the poor more than the rich. It would probably take quite a few off the tax rolls. More poor people would owe nothing.
And could someone PLEASE explain to these idiots that extending tax cuts is NOT a NEW tax cut?
It goes further than that
April 16, 2008 - 09:30 ET by Oscar GoldmanThe media have no clue as to how the tax system works. Reducing the tax rules to a few sentences and few sound bytes that ring with the proletariat is misleading at best. At annual income levels over $234,600 in 2007, personal exemptions are phased out. The 2001/2003 tax cuts, however, phases out up to 2/3 of personal exemptions in 2007 and 1/3 in 2008 and 2009. Personal exemptions are not permitted for computing alternative minimum tax. Bottom line, personal exemptions do nothing for the upper-middle income earners who pay alternative minimum tax and they do nothing for the super wealthy who usually have fewer children and receive little or no tax benefits from personal exemptions. Doubleing the personal exemption and eliminating the alternative minimum tax benefit middle income and lower income taxpayers.
Liberals cling to the myth
April 15, 2008 - 22:48 ET by motherbeltLiberals cling to the myth that lowering taxes reduces revenues. They really believe it's a static game, that differences in tax rates don't alter people's behavior.
McCain finally gets it! Get rid of the gas taxes!
April 15, 2008 - 22:55 ET by PopularTechNow he needs to make a big deal that states should follow the fed and suspend the state gas tax for a combined average total of 47.0 cents a gallon.
- The average amount of tax on gasoline in the United States is 47.0 cents per gallon (API)
I love how idiots in the media who either don't drive or make a ridiculous amount of money are against removing or even suspending the gas tax(s). I fail to see how it only helps the wealthy who can easily afford it?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"Both Clinton and McCain
April 15, 2008 - 23:50 ET by RESTLESS 1"Both Clinton and McCain have called Obama elitist, and today he was asked if that amounts to the racially charged word 'uppity.'"
???? Where the hell did that come from??? Uppity is used to describe someone who doesn't know their "place" by someone who sees themselves as superior. Uppity could be used by Obama against, say HRC, for going after him, but used to describe Obama??? Elitist fits. Uppity has nothing to do with it. Are there any requirements to get a job in the MSM anymore, say a high school diploma or GED? Sheesh!!!!
If some disagree...
April 16, 2008 - 01:20 ET by onlybeef42"But critics and some economists argue McCain's math is
wrong, ..."
2 keys IMO about her attempt to discredit tax-cut Math. 'Critics' -
obviously will disagree duh, nothing new here.
More importantly 'some' economists which to me is an admission that the
opposite of 'some' ( 'many') do agree his math is correct.
In truth, McCain's economic
April 16, 2008 - 01:40 ET by fitzfongIn truth, McCain's economic plan doesn't add up. I don't believe he is interested in doing the only thing that will stimulate the economy...cut taxes and out of control government spending. When he talks tax cuts after speaking of "greedy" Wall Street and falling in line with the cap and trade scam based on the global warming hoax, he doesn't sound credible.
He's going to try, but
April 16, 2008 - 05:39 ET by sarcasmoMcCain will not be able to out-Democrat the Democrats on a mortgage bailout for irresponsible homeowners now that we've bailed out a bunch of irresponsible bankers. Spend spend spend! The "choice" is only between tax and spend or borrow and spend.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
"Some critics.." Will NBC
April 16, 2008 - 06:29 ET by husbandtry"Some critics.."
Will NBC cite the some critics who disagree with man-made global warming?
At least they didn't call
April 16, 2008 - 08:45 ET by Free ThinkerAt least they didn't call them Economic Deniers
There will always be "critics."
April 16, 2008 - 10:02 ET by Oscar GoldmanThere will always be some critics against economic policies that favor capitalism over socialism. Does anyone really believe that the MSM will disclose who those critics are and what their political beliefs are? Doubtful. Most of the MSM would NOT want to live under a communist/socialist system where the media was state controlled. "Useful idiots" are the MSM and at least one-half the registered Democrats either failing or refusing to understand that being "liberal" is not modern progressive thinking. Modern "progressive" thinking is a communist/socialist poison implanted into the soil of liberal thought to manipulate voting behavior.
Our Founding Fathers were actually liberal. Individual liberty and free thought is a rather liberal concept. Compare individual liberty to the tyrannical conditions in much of the Middle and Far East. There is no free choice there. Most of what so-called "liberals" advocate such as legalization of drugs, prostitution, open borders, etc. are not only prohibited in these countries, but also carry stiff penalties including capital punishment. Capital punishment, another favorite liberal cause, is common for a number of crimes, not just homicide, in certain countries. Being a "conservative" in America -- individual liberty, limited government, moral values -- are rather "liberal" when compared with total government control, which is required for communism/socialism to exist.
"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." -- Ronald Wilson Reagan (1911 - 2004)
McCain making sense.
April 16, 2008 - 08:20 ET by Melodic_MetalFinally, the first Candidate to recommend something sensible. If everybody paid a flat 10%, that would be PLENTY of cash to go around. The freak show that has become our national tax system, is a disgrace. We never hear government say they have enough money. It's just take take take, and take some more. I agree taxes pay for some things that are very necessary, but if we did the flat tax, then Government would not be so obscene. If the Dems get in, there will come a day when the wagon pullers are the minority, and the bastard factories riding on the wagon sink us all. SLASH SPENDING NOW.
"To beat Violence, You must ignore the focus groups. You must send in the Mossad, turn off the BBC, CNN, and don't look back."
That gas tax is used to pay for highway repairs.
April 16, 2008 - 10:06 ET by YahooWatcherI doubt it. More likely the gas tax is going into the general fund to pay for some whack left wing entitlement program.
Well, when you have one segment of the population
April 16, 2008 - 11:20 ET by c5thenpaying 80% of the income taxes and a similar sized segment at the other end of the spectrum paying 0% of the income taxes, plain old math will tell you that if you cut taxes, then the segment paying 80% will naturally get a larger benefit than the segment paying 0%. This is nothing more than the typical liberal class warefare rhetoric that they learned from Karl Marx. To do it their way would have the top 25% of the earners paying 100% of the income taxes. Follow this scenario out to it's logical conclusion and you will see that most of these people would be able to restructure their compensation packages in such a way as to fall below the threashold, so in a couple of years, the income tax would be generating a small fraction of what it is today. This structure also violates the 14h amendment that dictates that all citizens must be treated equally regardless of any specific statistic which describes them like race, religion, gender, color, or income.
The surest way to cripple the economy and increase the deficit is to increase taxes on those who are best able to avoid paying them. The best way to boost the economy and reduce the deficit is to cut taxes on the high earners to make the system more fair and reduce government spending to 90% of the expected revenue.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
MY PROPOSAL
April 16, 2008 - 12:31 ET by mattmIn order to placate the Liberal leaning citizens of this country, I hereby propose a Liberal Tax.
A new column in the tax table will be added for Liberals only. This will be the equivalant of the "single" column multiplied by 1.75 up to taxable income of $35,000 (the amount Al Gore claimed was "rich"). For all taxable income over $35,000, the tax rate for the Liberal Tax is 100%. All other tax brackets will be permanently reduced by 25% from the Bush Tax Cuts levels.
I would add an accompanying proposal that any Liberal government expenditures, such as welfare, regulatory bureaucracies, etc. will receive funding only from revenue generated by the Liberal Tax.
This should satisfy all those who believe taxes and spending should go up ad infinitum, and also satisfy those who support low taxes and limited government, because their taxes will go down.