Journalists Denounce Ryan for Not Raising Taxes: ‘Rich Get Off Like Scoundrels,’ Slam Tea Party as ‘Far Right’ Impediment
A round-up from over the weekend of journalists denouncing Republican Congressman Paul Ryan for not including a big tax hike in his deficit-reduction plan and discrediting the Tea Party’s pressure on House Speaker John Boehner as a “far right” impediment to good government.
“He doesn't deal with the revenue side at all,” despaired Newsweek veteran Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, arguing: “We cannot survive on 18, his goal is to do 18 percent of GDP as revenue. That's not enough. We're going to have to raise some taxes...”
On HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night, Katty Kay, anchor of BBC’s World News America, echoed, “He does nothing on the revenue side,” fretting: “There is this allergy, amongst Republicans, about saying ‘you know what, we actually do have to deal with taxes too.’”
Juan Williams charged “the rich get off like scoundrels,” complaining on Fox News Sunday that Ryan is “not doing anything in terms of raising taxes.” Williams also worried: “John Boehner now has the Tea Party wrapped around his neck like an albatross.”
Interviewing Ryan on Meet the Press, NBC’s David Gregory challenged him: “Do taxes at some point have to be raised if you're really going to get into the realm of asking something of the American people, shared sacrifice, not just helping upper earners?”
In a front page article on the Tea Party’s role in pressuring Boehner, Washington, DC-based Boston Globe reporter Matt Viser asserted in Saturday’s newspaper: “For those outside the movement, it put on full display the uncompromising principles of the far right, showing that Tea Party-aligned lawmakers are so ideologically rigid they will throw sand into the gears of government to prove their point.”
Hours later, ABC anchor David Muir, who used to work at Boston’s ABC affiliate, picked up on the “far right” characterization, asking on World News about how “Michelle Bachman, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who have said this still doesn't get us down the path of fixing the debt, so Boehner will still hear this from the far right.”
Evan Thomas, on Inside Washington:
It was a brave, bold thing he did and he deserves huge hero points, I think, for actually saying, “okay, we’ve got to deal with entitlements.” Nobody else was saying it. He said it. He deserves credit for it. On the other hand, he’s got some problems. He doesn’t deal with the revenue side at all. We cannot survive on 18, his goal is to do 18 percent of GDP as revenue. That’s not enough. We're going to have to raise some taxes and we're going to have to face up to that, but he doesn't.
Katty Kay, anchor of BBC’s World News America, on HBO’s April 8 Real Time with Bill Maher:
He does nothing on the revenue side. There is this allergy, amongst Republicans, about saying “you know what, we actually do have to deal with taxes too.” And you may have to, God forbid, raise taxes and that it is not a hideously un-patriotic or un-American thing to do to suggest we need more revenue. And what does Paul Ryan do? He actually cuts taxes for the wealthiest, he raises taxes for the very poorest in America.
From the April 10 Fox News Sunday:
JUAN WILLIAMS: When you look at what Paul Ryan did, the first thing you have to do is give him credit. You have to say “hats off to Paul Ryan for actually saying what he plans to do and here's how we would cut entitlements.” That’s the big challenge the whole country faces and it needs to be done. But then you get into the details of what Paul Ryan offers, you have to say, wait a second, this is like a three to four percent difference in terms of what President Obama offered versus what he is offering over the next ten years. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't balance the budget-
CHRIS WALLCE: Wait a minute, he is cutting $4 trillion over ten years and Obama’s cutting $1 trillion.
JUAN WIILIAMS: No, but you’ve got to look at the entire budget, Chris.Story Continues Below Ad ↓
WALLACE: That is the entire budget.
JUAN WILLIAMS: You look and you look at the percentage, and it’s not that big of a difference and, guess what, Paul Ryan is doing it on the backs of poor people and seniors, and, says to the seniors oh no you are grandfathered in, if you’re over 55. But you know what, he wants to make proposals that are going to put more pressure on domestic discretionary spending. He’s not doing much about defense spending in this country. He’s not doing anything in terms of raising taxes to compensate and say, “you know what, the sacrifice is going to be shared across all areas of our economy.” The rich get off like scoundrels. They’re happy, they’re like the executives on Wall Street this week who are getting all these big bonuses, despite all the talk-
WALLACE: Because it’s shameful to make money?
WILLIAMS: Oh, get out of town.
WALLACE : You said the rich are making out like scoundrels.
WILLIAMS: You know what, you should be ashamed to use that language as host of this show.
WALLACE: What are you talking about?
WILLIAMS: Because you should be more impartial. You know what, leave that to Brit Hume. Brit Hume can make these outrageous....
[Laughter]
If you don't think that those Wall Street guys are scoundrels, then you must be-
WALLACE: You didn’t say Wall Street guys, you said the rich are making out like scoundrels.
WILLIAMS: The Wall Street guys that got those big breaks this week and now are going to get more breaks from Paul Ryan – I know everyone says we got to have tax cuts, we got to have sacrifice for this country – oh it’s just for the middle class and especially those despicable poor people.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments






JUAN WILLIAMS: You look and you look at the percentage, and it’s not that big of a difference and, guess what, Paul Ryan is doing it on the backs of poor people and seniors, and, says to the seniors oh no you are grandfathered in, if you’re over 55. But you know what, he wants to make proposals that are going to put more pressure on domestic discretionary spending. He’s not doing much about defense spending in this country. He’s not doing anything in terms of raising taxes to compensate and say, “you know what, the sacrifice is going to be shared across all areas of our economy.” The rich get off like scoundrels. They’re happy, they’re like the executives on Wall Street this week who are getting all these big bonuses, despite all the talk-









Comments
Soak the Rich
Submitted by libBuster on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:24am.
For a progressive, the definition of rich is anyone who make more money than you do. Hold onto your wallet when you hear the words "fair share".
You stay classy, Juan!
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:35am.
I see Juan Williams is still using his liberal tactics, making the argument personal, and even dragging Brit Hume into it!
Let's hear again how Williams has "sold out" by appearing on Fox. Oh, wait! He's just their token, and it's a rare thing that he's allowed off the porch.
$2 million dollar contract over 3 years.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:44am.
Yep, Juan sold out. He's another poor reporter concerned for the common man.
What mind?
Submitted by russedav on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:52am.
"Liberals have the mind of a child trapped in an adult's body." -- me.
What mind?
Hmmmm
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 11:11am.
I'll have to rethink that.
SIMPLE plan & solution to this!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:40am.
Pass a law that enforces the Democratic "CODE." Any person voting Democrat MUST adhere by law to the party plan of 75% taxation. All assets over $1M shall be confiscated. All homes over $250K must be sold and the profits spread to the poor. This will be strictly enforced by those DEMs benefiting from redistribution. The money will then be redistributed to DEMS only, such that the mean "income" of everyone is in a very tight slot. They can have all the "plans" and "ObamaCare" they want! Go to it! NOT to DO IT would by hypocritical.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
jealousy drives the left
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:34am.
The "rich" pay 50% of the income taxes in this country. How much more do you want them to pay? Before you answer, remember that 90% of the jobs created come from the after-tax money of the "rich".
The "rich" refers to the top 5% of income earners in this country. The IRS defines that as those earning $250,000 or more. That group includes about 85% of the small businesses in the country.
Fact: even if we confiscated 100% of all the assets of the "rich" it still would not cover the current $1.5 trillion deficit for this year. Then what would we do next year?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
I don't know if 18% is the
Submitted by inquiringmind on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:49am.
I don't know if 18% is the correct percent of GDP number or if it should be 20% or 15%. I do know that if we keep finding more places to spend money on then no number will be enough.
I don't understand what the liberals don't understand about that concept. We can raise taxes but if we are spending at a faster rate then we are taxing it is still a losing game.
And at our current rate of spendig no econimic growth rate will produce enough taxes to pay the debt off.
inquiringmind,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:54am.
The actual percentage is not as important as general trends and the level of confidence those trends are going to continue. Confidence has a lot more to do with economic growth and therefore federal revenue growth than the actual tax percentage itself. However, the tax rate can not be envisioned as punitive or it erodes confidence in the entire economic structure.
So boring. So repetitive. So Predictable.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:40am.
Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Soak the rich! Soak the rich!
We want other people's money.
I don't hate rich people. Hope to be one someday before it becomes illegal.
Why don't we be a truly fair country and tax everyone 10 cents of every dollar they earn, period, even the poor, even the 50% of the country that doesn't pay anything.
Then the government should be made to survive on just what it collects. No deficits.
Hey! Many of you journalists are wealthy!
Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:55am.
From the People who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones Dept:
I have news for you pompous journalists who want to "soak the rich": Many of you are wealthy, too! Quite a few of you make much more money than "Ears" does, especially you folks on the tube. So shut up and report news for a change, not make it!
I guess Juan did not read the budget
Submitted by octavioj on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:54am.
THe tax rates are indeed modified but the revenues remain the same. How is that a tax break? THe simple truth is Congressman Ryan is trying to broaden the tax base by eliminating tax breaks and deductions. By doing that he can then lower the rates. For years liberals have complained about tax loopholes and even president Obama is trying to go after the elusive "rich tax evaders". The fact is that the tax code is so complex that these people pay less taxes LEGALLY. Congressman Ryan is just changing the dynamics and making sure they can claim less deductions and credits while reducing the rate they report. So when their income rises with economic growth so do the revenues of the government. Juan Williams should know better. As I promised every time I hear someone attacking the plan I will try my best to dispel myths.
Sad Juan is irrational and incoherent
Submitted by russedav on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:10am.
So sad. I'm a Walmart janitor, not known for being the richest employment in the world, but unlike Juan I'm not so bigoted as to discriminate against the rich for no good reason because they're thankfully far wiser in their dealings than I, without which wisdom I'd have no employment. The "richest" %1 are already paying MORE than the bottom 95%, so for Juan to imagine that's not enough is too brainwashed to imagine; hopefully he'll lose that derangement after spending more time around the adults he didn't have with the infantile deranged fascists where he was. However I could no more be a "conservative" than a "liberal" since both agree to never give God the credit He alone deserves for the Christian country (Rector, etc, of Holy Trinity Church v. U S, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)) founded in 1789, on the fumes of which we're barely surviving that alone can or will sustain us, as the Founders who early on ordered the printing of Bibles for the nation's benefit understood, despite the revisionist lies of deranged antiChristian bigot traitors Warren and Brennan & co.
Suppose you make $25,000/year
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:20am.
Suppose you make $25,000/year at the beginning, increasing to $50,000 when you retire 45 years later at 65. Over that time, you save a mere $150/month. At the end of 45 years, you'll have $287,000.
And then obama will swoop in, declare you one of the "evil rich", and demand that you share your money with someone else. Is that fair? Of course not -- but that's how these journalists are putting it. Instead, they're picking up on the arbitrary number obama has talked about, and are looking at a single instance of when someone becomes "filthy rich", and are invoking class warfare on anyone and everyone who has worked hard and saved over his lifetime.
And in the meantime -- obama has just declared anyone with $250,000 "fortunate" -- lucky -- and therefore can afford to "share" with the less fortunate.
The nation's so-called "journalists" are doing everyone a disservice by pushing their and obama's socialist agenda. And they all need to be called out on this, and fired from their jobs.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
wealth?
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:44am.
The government rarely goes after wealth while potential donors are alive. Politicians go after income because if they went after wealth there would be very few dollars rolling into the coffers during the election cycle (except of course from unions and mysterious individual donors from who knows where)
Let's pretend
Submitted by IgnatzJFahrquar on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:27am.
Okay, let's say I'm a company that makes "Nummy Baby Formula" and it has done very well providing excellent nutrition at a reasonable cost (and a nice profit, too). It's doing so well that I decide to add some employees.
Now along comes the Liberals and their ilk and get a tax the rich measure added. Hmmm, let's see. The added tax has lowered my profit levels so I'll just be a good little comrade worker and absorb the loss. Ha! Not likely.
I'll increase the price and if it's a big enough hit I may lay off a few workers. Bottom line is I still make my expected profits and the tax increase is actually levied on the end consumer ... us.
I resent these journalists characterizing this debate
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:27am.
as that the right being "impediments" to good government. The debate is always framed from the left as "the government needs more money".
No, the American people have the right to say, "ENOUGH, I don't care what else you want to fund, we're at our limit." Will some lower income people have less handouts? Sure, but that's just tough. Let them do without their cell phones and fifty dollar hooker-nails. Will there be less largess coming from the gub'mint? Yes, and I'm okay with that. At this point, if it comes down to funding continuous handouts at let's say, the cost of additional pizza night per month for me and my family, then I have no problem saying that I want to KEEP my pizza money. Hell, if it's one pizza a year, I want to keep it. I've seen the lifestyle of those on public assistance, and THEY need to cut back if they need to come to me for money to live. THEY need to feel bad that they've mismanaged their lives enough to where they cannot support their family on what THEY are able to EARN!
If you run a home budget, like we all do, at some point you know you need to say, enough, I can't spend anymore, no matter how much my kid wants karate lessons or how much he prefers his ice cream on the weekends. You don't have the ability to go to your boss and demand more money because you want it.
Didn't the Welfare Reform Act in the mid nineties teach these people anything about people's ability to survive without the gub'mint handouts?
Congressman Ryan and others
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:33am.
Congressman Ryan and others have said this before and it needs to be repeated again and again and again. This Country does not have a revenue problem, it has a SPENDING problem.
Going after the rich is not going to get rid of this problem. Time and time again Congress has shown that any revenue taken in is spent and if enough is not taken in it is still spent. The message has to be loud and clear, stop spending money you do not have and start cutting the size of this government. Anyone who does not heed this is voted out of office.
On a side note, I would like to see all the perks that Congress receives be abolished. Gold plated healthcare after you no longer serve? Gone. If I leave/lose my job or if I were to retire I have to pay, why should they be exempt? Pension, I think that should be cut down or done away with. Anyone have any other ideas of perks that Congress receives that should be cut or curtailed in some way?
I don't think the Republicans
Submitted by Smartypants on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 1:41pm.
I don't think the Republicans won what can be characterized as a sweeping victory last fall so they could go to Washington and raise taxes; I don't think that was the message at all. Only the left wing media sees that message. In truth, the people sent Republicans to Washington to get spending under control and to stop the Obama train that was running off the tracks (still is).
Did anyone mention that Queen
Submitted by Zippy on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 2:01pm.
Did anyone mention that Queen Nancy tried to figure a way to tax 401Ks?
This is an eye opener. And a good foil for your Libtard friends. I mean Defeatocrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ&feature=related
Sp. The Barry train can run
Submitted by Zippy on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 2:05pm.
Sp. The Barry train can run off the tracks. The voters don't want P.O.R. to run Our Train into a ditch.
We are just getting over the Clinton/gore recession. And don't want to go through a P.O.R. depression.