‘Lost Revenue’ for Government in Tax Rate Deal Distresses NBC's Williams and Todd
Brian Williams adopted a liberal framework as he opened Monday's NBC Nightly News by declaring “it’s a fair question to ask and for a while now Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off.”
Then, after Chuck Todd outlined the Obama-GOP compromise to maintain income taxes at their current rates for two years while extending unemployment benefits and implementing a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, Williams fretted the deal contradicts how “the fight has been over anything in government that isn't paid for,” yet, as Todd despaired in filling in Williams’ regret, “none of this is paid for. In terms of lost revenue for the government next year, it's $450 billion.”
From the Monday, December 6 NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Good evening. It's a fair question to ask and for a while now Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off. It's all part of the fight between the parties, the President and the Republicans, the fight over what the midterm elections meant. They've been talking tonight at the White House where word arrived late in the day of the makings of a deal, and then the President stepped before the cameras.
....
CHUCK TODD: Here's the outline of the compromise, Brian. A two-year extension of the so-called Bush tax cuts or Bush tax rates. None of those will go up for anybody, including wealthiest Americans. A 13-month extension of unemployment insurance benefits, not just for the month of December this year, all of next year, as well. And then a new twist, a two percentage point drop in the payroll taxes, essentially a payroll tax holiday. To put this inn layman's terms, a family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year will see a $1,000 tax break next year. So this is actually a new tax cut.
Now, the reason we're calling this an imminent deal and not quite a done deal is that Democrats, congressional Democrats, Brian, have not yet signed off on this. Republicans have, the White House has. But they're waiting for Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats, particularly on the House side, to sign off on this deal. When it does, it gets on his desk and what does that mean? Clears the decks for a foreign policy victory for the President, including perhaps ratification of that arms deal with Russia, Brian.
WILLIAMS: And yet, Chuck, one more word on this. The fight has been over anything in government that isn't paid for, anything that costs government more money.
TODD: Brian, none of this is paid for. In terms of lost revenue for the government next year, it's $450 billion, nearly half a trillion dollars. To compare this, in comparison, the stimulus that President Obama put in, enacted back in early 2009, that cost on an annual basis, approximately half a trillion dollars. So the deficit in the short term is going up. Whether it's on Social Security or all sorts of things, none of that has been dealt with with this plan.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What could be more dishonest...?
Submitted by NeoKong on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:00am.
Tax cuts are not some sort of govt. giveaway that has to be " paid for ". To speak about it in those terms is to imply that all money belongs to the govt. first and that through some act of benevolence they allow you to keep some. Liberals just can never get past the fact that the govt. has no money unless they confiscate it. It never occurs to them that maybe govt. is too big.
ya mean that
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:02am.
Taxpayer supported "Ants on Jesus" exhibit ain't a vital, national security matter?
roflmao
YEP
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:23am.
They haven't figured out yet that we're onto them!!!
Geez, Flat Tax already
Ronald Reagan
Well Said
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:05am.
That's exactly how these Dunzels think in DC but the problem is we have those that chose to live off of our welfare believe It's Gov't money first but the reality is there's not one person here or elsewhere that can show me/you there pay stub where there check is written form the Gov't/US !!!
The Liberals need to understand that if you have to barrow money to pay for shit you can't pay for your operating in the RED, now wouldn't it be nice if we could just keep barrowing & Barrowing but common sense tells us there not a Bank in this world that is dumb enough to keep barrowing to someone whose spending is totally out of control. Maybe China should reconsider…..?
Hey nuckle heads
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:00am.
Why ain't ya cry'n over the 3.1 TRILLION dollars the GubRmint is give'n up by let'n people that make less that 250k keep a lil more of their money.....Hmmmmm
roflmao
'Lost revenue'???? Have these
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:03am.
'Lost revenue'???? Have these morons checked the deficit or the debt lately??? Personally, I'm all FOR 'lost revenue', as it relates to the Federal Government.........because it might mean that I get to keep MORE of my own meager income!!!
Poor soul.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:55pm.
You are mistakenly laboring under the misconception that you are a "wage earner". You are actually a "revenue resource", don' cha know.
So Much About So Little
Submitted by writestuffla on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:10am.
All things considered, Brian and company need to take a chill pill. It just gripes their rumpuses that something with the word Bush is still in the vernacular. http://www.libradex.com/viewArticle.aspx?id=98&affil=jh
Too many ignore tax policy effect on behavior
Submitted by OffTheLows on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:13am.
If the idea was we could just raise taxes 3% and have no impact on spending behavior, investing behavior, GDP growth, equity valuations, or jobs, how about just raising taxes by 30% on the wealthy and collect an extra $600 billion a year to the government instead of $60b? Everyone knows it doesn't work at 30%, they should realize it doesn't at 3% either. The question is what tax rate funds a government the people want while providing optimum economic growth and competitiveness. Considering we have the highest corporate tax rate besides Japan, there's a lot we can do on that front.
The solution is simple
Submitted by Samshile on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:34am.
Raise taxes on all registered Democrats 10%.
Lower taxes 10% on all registered Republicans and Independents.
lol
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:26am.
Now that would be funny!!!
Ronald Reagan
Not a chance.
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:35am.
10% tax taken where it should be, at the cash register, for EVERYTHING excepf for food and medical supplies. If the states want to add taxes, fine, they do so at their own peril.
NO MORE INCOME TAX.
NO MORE EARMARKS.
And if at the end of the collecting year, it isn't enough to covef non-defense spending, trim spending by an equal percentage across the board til it DOES balance.
How's THAT grab everyone?
NVCon... reminding minority Pelosi... BUCKLE UP, BUTTERCUP. YA AIN't seen $#!+ yet!
Add no taxes for those who do
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:42am.
Add no taxes for those who do not register as either?
The GOP blinked, they should
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:44am.
The GOP blinked, they should give no concessions.
Your right Dan
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:06am.
Looks like the elitist in DC havent gotten the message!! Time to re-double our effortsI
I encourage everyone to call and write their Reps, pronto
Decreased taxes = Increased revenue and vice-versa
Submitted by ChrisMills on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:48am.
Morons abound in the media and among our elected representatives! These people really need to read Thomas Sowell's articles. The treasury web site clearly shows that decreasing taxes on the rich brings in more revenue to the gov't. It's happened time and again (check the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 2.0 tax cuts on the top rates). The reverse happened when top rates were increased under Wilson, Roosevelt, and Clinton. The rich don't want to pay more in taxes and typically choose one of four options: 1) Move themselves and their companies out of the country, 2) Find tax shelters to hide their money from greedy gov't agents, 3) Save costs by dumping their employees off the pay rolls, or 4) pass the burdens of higher rates onto the consumer with higher prices. Can't blame them either. It's their property and they should try to save it or compensate for its loss.
Revenues decreased?
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:39am.
How sure are you of your claim that revenues decreased when the top rate was increased under Clinton? This article from the Wall Street Journal suggests otherwise:
If I might jog your memory, the foregoing was a product of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 which not a single Republican member of Congress supported and induced the noted economic wizard, Rush Limbaugh, to wager a million dollars it would be financially ruinous to the country.
[note: Even though the linked website is left-leaning, the WSJ from which the above piece and a couple of other articles were reprinted at the site is certainly no bastion of liberalism.]
Jer
Yep, ol' Rush don't know nothin' 'bout money---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:50am.
'ceptin how to make a lot of it.
Now, that prize winnin' Obama butt boy economist Paul Krugman, on the other hand, really knows his stuff, economically speaking, right, Jer?
Lucky for us, that the Wall Street Journal article, which says, "Now there's growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.", has been such an incredible benchmark for both economic prognostication and practice at the federal level for all the ensuing years, right Jer?
MD
Please, Matthew... Feel
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 9:47am.
Please, Matthew...
Feel free to submit whatever contradictory data you can locate. I have no idea how Krugman is relevant to the WSJ articles in question, but I'm certainly willing to entertain evidence which would counter the claims contained in the items I linked.
Jer
One minor mistake
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:49am.
I think you made a mistake, or at least an incorrect statement, but I think we know by now Krugman is irrelevant to anything.
How do we know this? He's a Nobel Memorial Prize "winner." (I use that term loosely since we know the Nobel Prize Committee is a joke)
-Jon
I'm not sure what statement
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:25am.
I'm not sure what statement you have in mind.
Jer
You said....
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:12pm.
You said you have no idea how Krugman was relevant. I was saying he's irrelevant.
-Jon
jon...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:22pm.
I never mentioned Krugman. The WSJ articles never mentioned Krugman. For some strange reason known only to him, Matthew decided to mention Krugman, to which I replied I had no idea how Krugman was relevant to the articles I linked. You say I made a mistake because Krugman's irrelevant.
I have no idea what your point is.
Jer
I was pointing out, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 4:10am.
that a WSJ article, in 1997, about economic manuevers in 1993, that might possibly give Bill Clinton any credit, simply cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
You had stated to Unsane in another thread that Bill Clinton really didn't receive any laudatory press from the MSM , so I was wondering how that computed.
Since the article referenced economics, I threw Krugman in as an example of an economic nimrod who has too much media exposure related to giving out economic advice that not all economists agree with, i.e, 1993 vs. 2010.
Apparently I was not too clear on that.
MD
From the article you
Submitted by Par for the Course on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 8:11am.
From the article you referenced Jer (bolding mine):
I can make a similar inference - it appears the tax cuts of 1997 pushed the federal budget to a record $124.6 billion surplus for the month of April, 1998, again to a $159.5 billion surplus in April, 2000 and again to a $189.8 billion surplus in April, 2001, more than double the $93.94 billion budget surplus in April, 1997.
Source: The Treasury Department's history of receipts/outlays from Oct 1980 to Oct 2010 (PDF)
I think the following article is relevant to this discussion :
Blather, blather, tax cuts, cost the government, blather... ACA
Submitted by acaiguana on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:49am.
All this blubbering and no basis in fact. The assumption is insane. If the government doesn't tax you then it 'costs' the government money. Who ever thought up this wonderful idea? If society doesn't pay me $200K a month, I'm losing $200K a month. Now isn't that a pickle.
Using accrual accounting my net worth is about $200 billion as I haven't received payment on my invoices to society (government).
These people are true maroons.
How not getting tax revenues from a tax that doesn't exist yet will 'cost' the government money and therefore is touted as an aggregate number of 'lost' revenues I'll never understand that will add to the deficit (buck up cowboys, there is hope that Pelosi will balk and the deal will fail and the tax HIKE will go into effect anyway in January) .
I predict that Pelosi will balk and will shut down this insane idea of free money for half the taxpayers (backdoor welfare payments) and free money for the unemployed (back door welfare payments) and not soaking the rich.
Of course soaking the rich will be her stated reason; but the reality is that Republicans have screwed the pooch on the rest of the junk in this so-called compromise package.
The best thing would be to simply make the current tax RATES permanent.
Then if these idiots want to raise taxes - do it on the up and up. That's what this fight should be about. Congress once again has created a trigger and then are yelling 'Its not my fault! It is going to expire. IT's NOT a TAX INCREASE - it is the end of TAX CUTS!'
How stupid do they think we are?
Pretty much stupid, I guess.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
My Lost Revenue
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:15am.
“none of this is paid for. In terms of lost revenue for the government next year, it's $450 billion.”Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/12/07/lost-revenue-government-tax-rate-deal-distresses-nbcs-williams-and-todd#ixzz17QIzzln2 These idiots, led by Pelosi, Frank, Reid, and Dodd destroyed our economy with the housing mess. The fact that they've destroyed 750 private businesses a month [Including mine!], doesn't register on their "Lost Revenue Scale" because we're the ones whom they super-crewed!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Because Obama doesn't want a
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:08am.
Because Obama doesn't want a nationwide riot on his hands. Can't keep 5% of the population on unemployment benefits forever. We're running out of other people's money. Socialism doesn't work. Neither does bailouts.
Todd and Williams
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:12am.
They love to plead with the government to tax them even more.
If it were that important to these two losers, they would take the first step and start contributing more.
Hey turd and willy
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:18am.
Feel free to donate your entire incomes but keep your slimy hands out of my pocket!This is not about lost revenue...
Submitted by packman on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:36am.
This is really a libtard's lament over not being able to screw rich people...really has nothing to do with any lost revenue. They never seem to think about the fact that many successful (aka rich) people actually have talent, abilities, leadership qualities, etc., i.e. a lot of attributes that are necessary to becoming a success at business or perhaps simply life in general, and it is often these very qualities that make them...well, rich. And for this the libtard brain always wants to devise ways to screw them even more - because of their success. (maybe its some kind of twisted penis envy?) And we see this philosophy played out in the election of our witless president - clueless, lacking talent or experience at pretty much anything and only being successful in saying "present."
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Brian Williams should be fired
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:49am.
This business of "lost revenue" is false, and Brian Williams should be fired for dishonestly representing this issue.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Re-writing the dictionary
Submitted by Nonanon on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 9:24am.
Liberals, left-wingers, progressives, democrats, whatevers keep redefining words in their attempt to take over America. One more example is to define that paying the same in taxes next year as you paid this year is a tax cut. They lie and decieve so quickly and so much it is difficult to keep up with them, especially when you have to keep going backward to establish what a word means so you can be on the same page.
Again, as others have mentioned, how many of these Ds have not taken every deduction available on their tax returns or have paid more than they are required to when they write the check? I'm sure they are arrogant enough that they would trumpet something like that if they did it. But we know they are simply trying to make someone else pay for the things they want. And they define that as moral and right.
Brian, WE DON'T WORK FOR THE
Submitted by rbosque on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 9:57am.
Brian, WE DON'T WORK FOR THE GOV'T. They shouldn't be entitled to people's money JUST because they make more than $250K or any amount for that matter. The gov't is supposed to help us prosper, not the other way around.
Stupid ass-wipe.
Scrooge vs unemployment benefits
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:55am.
The libnuts are trying to make conservatives (aka Scrooge) feel guilty about cutting jobless benefits during the Christmas season. WTF? The take-home message is that the US is extending benefits to 155 weeks by borrowing more money from China so that the unemployed can buy Christmas presents. Obamanomics. As Scrooge might surmise: what does Christmas have to do with unemployment benefits?
On another note, shouldn't tax breaks be extended to all Americans? Why should we discriminate, Mister Obama?
Williams reports on What Americans have been wondering
Submitted by krendler on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:11am.
Williams: “it’s a fair question to ask" (according to Brian) and for a while now Americans have been wondering (How does he know what we've been wondering? Nice reporting, Brian) how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans (or, as a more objective rational person might put it: Keep tax rates for everyone in the country the same without penalizing any particular group) while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off.”Missing The Point
Submitted by Dfryer36 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:19am.
I think the real story here is that the cost of extending the Bush era tax rates. It went from $7 billion before the deal was made to $450 billion now. Apparently the left's new strategy is if at first you don't scare the public, increase the number.
And I love this bizzaro phrase "how do we pay for the tax cut?"
Submitted by krendler on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:19am.
...that the Obama admin-media keep repeating.
So for the better part of a year, they never ask the question "how do we pay for all of these entitlements that Obama/Reid/Pelosi are spawning?", but when it comes to singling out and penalizing the rich, they say "How are we gonna pay for not increasing their taxes?"
They (Obama + media) must think Americans are idiots. Keep it up, Barry. Lose even more of the independent vote.
2012 is going to make the hammering of 2010 look mild in comparison.
Todd despaired in filling in
Submitted by kscheuller on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:27am.
Todd despaired in filling in Williams’ regret, “none of this is paid for. In terms of lost revenue for the government next year, it's $450 billionAs d
As Dr. Evil would say, "Boo, frickedy hoo!"
Was the porkulous that didn't do a thing paid for?
Was the bailout to GM paid for ("no, but it was paid back")
Was or is Obamacare paid for?
Well since nearly 40% of the
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:13pm.
Well since nearly 40% of the bill was in the form of targeted tax relief generally favored by the GOP, would you say that portion of the stimulus legislation so designated was paid for or not? If so, then the numbers that have been bandied about with respect to the size of the package have been vastly overstated.
So what say you? Paid for or unpaid for?
Jer
Jer, you dont pay for tax
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:44pm.
Jer, you dont pay for tax cuts. If your income is cut, do you continue to spend at the current level? If you do, then you might be a liberal congressperson...
Only a liberal would equate a person keeping the money they earned as unfair.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Understood, bass...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:47pm.
I'm simply looking at how an aggregate cost is derived--i.e. total price tag--with respect to a stimulus package comprised of both spending/investment and tax relief components. It appears that some critics are either unaware of the significant tax relief provided for in the legislation, or fail to understand how or why it increases the bottom line figure.
Jer
Avoiding the S-word
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:26am.
In an attempt to turn the Tea Parties around on the GOP, the Dems and MSM never mention the S-word (spending) when they cry about the 'lost revenue' of tax cuts.
But the Tea Partiers know full well how to adjust to any level of tax revenues: Don't spend more than you take in.
I just bought a $1.5 million house I can't afford...
Submitted by krendler on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:37pm.
I just bought a $1.5 million house I can't afford. But that's not the issue!!!
The question is: How am I going to pay for the salary increase my boss refuses to give me? (Try this on your boss sometime and see what kind of look you get before he fires your ass).
That's the level of stupidity and un-parseable gibberish that Dems are currently spewing. It's nearly impossible to understand what the hell they're saying. They're forced to do it, though, because their position, if stated simply and logically, is indefensible. So we get stuff like "How are we going to pay for this tax cut?"
I know....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:24pm.
We tried to hire a lady to come feed our horses (2) 2X a day while we went on vacation. She wanted $60/day. I asked, "$60/day for, literally, 10 minutes of work?" She said, "I have to drive out here and that takes a 1/2 hour and my truck (a Ford F350) uses a lot of gas". I responded, "you know, when I got my job, my employer didn't adjust my pay just because I had a gas-guzzler or because I had to drive an hour or because I had a mortgage payment and child support. So, if you think I'm going to pay you $360/hour because of your lifestyle, you're crazy". She didn't take the $100/week I offered her.
Wait a minute....
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:45pm.
Wait a minute, here. I thought the left's talking point on tax cuts was that they do not stimulate job creation or economic growth. Correct?
Then what about this little "sound bite" from Obama's speech last night, talking about the proposed one year 2% reduction in the FICA tax:
"This agreement would also mean a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut for workers next year — a tax cut that economists across the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth."
So, "Bush tax cuts, bad. Obama tax cuts, goooood!"
Or am I missing something?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Model850
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:27pm.
Silly Model850! First, sit down, have a nice sip of this lovely Kool-Aid. Relax. Let me explain this.
The Bush Tax Cuts only helped the evil rich for years and years and years.
But now that Bush is out of office, and Obama is going to "allow" them to continue, for the middle class (note, he's pissed about not being able to raise the rates on those evil rich, you know, the only one's who were helped originally by Bush)...these not-to-be-increased tax rates will be a great boon for the middle class, merely because Obama is allowing it.
See how that works? Isn't that better? More easily understood? Now take another sip of that kool-aid, everything will become clear momentarily.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Mmmmm. Tasty.
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:28pm.
Thank you so much, Blonde.
That was a refreshing pick-me-up! Their Kool-Aid is sooooo delicious!!
Here's all you need to know, Model
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:08pm.
This joke of a president is a liar. If his lips are moving, he's lying to you. He lies even more than Bill Clinton, and Bill was impeached for it.
The Bigger Pile
Submitted by IrateNate on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 9:42pm.
Compare actual federal revenue from 1993 thru 2000 (clinton, higher tax rates) and you see a range between $1.1 trillion and $2.0 trillion. Federal revenue between 2001 and 2008 (bush, lower tax rates) ranged between $1.9 trillion and $2.5 trillion.
Just a guess, but it does seem that more actual dollars for Uncle Sam to squander under Bush's low tax rates than with Clinton's higher rates.. Call it basic human nature, or corporate greed, but when its cheaper to pay the taxes than to pay lawyers not to, more taxes get paid.
Many wish to skew the numbers, factoring in GDP percentatges, population growth, unemployment, or do whatever it takes to convince everyone that higher taxes are good. But, stack the two piles of money next to each other, and it's easy enough to see which is bigger.