After Denying Obama Would Raise Taxes During Campaign, NYT Calls for Increases

After Denying Obama Would Raise Taxes During Campaign, NYT Calls for Increases

By Clay Waters (Bio | Archive)
September 4, 2009 - 13:53 ET

A long lead editorial in Friday's New York Times, "Once and Future Taxes," called on Barack Obama to accept the inevitable and raise taxes to fight the $9 trillion budget deficit. Does this mean Times editors and reporters will now apologize to John McCain for claiming that Obama would only raise taxes on "the rich"?

The Times made a full-throated call for a broad tax hike:

So far, the Obama administration's plan for dealing with the budget deficit -- an estimated $9 trillion over a decade -- is to not dig the hole any deeper. That's an important first step. President Obama deserves credit for proposing ways to pay for his two big initiatives to date: health care reform and energy legislation. Reducing the growth in health care costs, in particular, is vital to curbing future deficits....But, sooner than he may prefer, Mr. Obama will have to face up to what he has so far avoided: the need to raise taxes broadly to rein in deficits....Neither economic growth nor spending cuts will be enough to fix the projected shortfalls. Nor is there enough to be gained by confining tax increases only to families making more than $250,000 a year, a campaign promise that Mr. Obama still says he will keep.

During the campaign the Times consistently guarded Obama's vulnerable left flank on taxes, insisting Obama would not raise taxes on the middle-class, only "the wealthy," -- the wealthy as determined by the liberal New York Times, anyway.

Reporter Steven Greenhouse, October 31, 2008: "Independent analyses of the presidential candidates' tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama's plans."

Reporter Jim Rutenberg, October 16, 2008: "Mr. Obama's plan would raise taxes on filers earning more than $250,000 a year, a category that includes some small businesses, but would cut taxes on households earning less than $200,000 a year."

An Oct. 16, 2008 editorial: "Mr. Obama would cut taxes for low- and moderate-income families and raise them for richer Americans."

Perhaps Obama's most vociferous defender was reporter Larry Rohter, who wrote on Sept. 30, 2008: "Under his plan, only individuals making $200,000 or more and families earning more than $250,000 a year, accounting for less than 2 percent of the population, would pay additional taxes, and more than 90 percent of the population would receive a tax break of some sort."

—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

The NYT has spoken...O will

September 4, 2009 - 13:58 ET by bigtimer

The NYT has spoken...O will do their will.

'Go Green...Recycle Congress'

nyt

September 4, 2009 - 14:09 ET by rockyracoon

I'm shocked...shocked that the Slimes would NOW call for tax increases. Perhaps they are looking for a bailout??

Why not this plan...

September 4, 2009 - 14:12 ET by c5then

Raise the taxes only on those individuals who are registered democrats and leave the rest of us out of it?

Throw 'da bums out!!!

no incumbent re-elected, with very few exceptions!

www.loyaltoliberty.com

It's the Spending Stupid

September 4, 2009 - 14:14 ET by mattm

It has already proven that increasing taxes does not generate more revenue - in fact, cutting tax rates does more for revenue generation than increases do.

Therefore we only have a certain amount of revenue: if we spend more than that amount, we have a deficit; if we spend less, we have a surplus.

What is so difficult to figure out here?

"An optimist sees the glass as half full. A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. I see the glass as too big." - George Carlin

taxes

September 4, 2009 - 14:15 ET by seven

He has already raised many taxes. Cap and trade is huge tax increase. Teddycare is tax increase. McCain and the conservatives knew taxes would go up. He is collecting income tax on cash for clunkers.

THE NYSLIMES IS RIGHT...

September 4, 2009 - 16:39 ET by danybhoy

The Slimes is right, there should be tax hikes. We should tax welfare, heavily. Many on welfare do nothing for the money, piss on them, tax them, make 'em have some skin in the game. If you get taxed on Social Security, which you already paid into in the form of taxes, you can tax welfare. Throw in a tax on food stamps as income & you are cooking with gas.

Tax the nonworking poor(not the disabled), or strip those on welfare of the vote. You should not be allowed to vote yourself someone elses money.

"...How blind can you be, don't you see...

...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."

Nightwish

Let Me See If I Understand This

September 4, 2009 - 14:17 ET by Bourbeau

The NY Times, currently running a sea of red ink from NY to Boston, as the astute owners of the Times and the Boston Globe, now feels qualified to offer the Deficit President advise on how to contain the deficit. Hmmmmmmmm, this is sweat. Maybe the NY Times reporters, who have demonstrated such astute capabilities in the past, might consider looking for work elsewhere since their corporate employer is driving right off the proverbial cliff. Regarding their recommendations on taxation, it's hard to get too excited about anything they write when most third graders have a better grip on economics than the President, or the Times.

Let Me See If I Understand This

September 4, 2009 - 14:17 ET by Bourbeau

The Times can feel free to.....

September 4, 2009 - 14:20 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnson

Donate 200% of their yearly gross profit to the coffers of the government they elected.

The same with the rest of the media.

As soon as they learn that elections have consequences, the better.

http://gjresult.com

will we get a weepy speech?

September 4, 2009 - 14:21 ET by katainkent

at how hard he tried to avoid this? At least give us the weepy speech.

Politicians and their lackeys disgust me.

Yeah, let's raise our already confiscatory taxes even more...

September 4, 2009 - 14:26 ET by R D Helm

...then stand back and watch as our already failing economy spirals into a deep depression.

-That is assuming we aren't already in one.

-Dave

Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz

Another lie--who would notice?

September 4, 2009 - 14:27 ET by StarAZ

They might run into a blood from a turnip deal, though--we are running out of rich people and unemployed people are running out of everything. Say we didn't get or have one of those jobs he "saved," well, we are through. And have no tax money.

Speaking of which, how in

September 4, 2009 - 14:36 ET by lsudolemite

Speaking of which, how in the hell do you quantify a "saved" job? Seriously, no other human being on this planet would be able to get away with this BS, not even Clinton.

Saved jobs

September 4, 2009 - 14:51 ET by rockyracoon

That's a great point. How does one calculate, or quantify that statistic if there is such a thing as a "saved job index."

Easy, it's however many jobs

September 4, 2009 - 14:54 ET by lsudolemite

Easy, it's however many jobs Obama says it is, and it'll be repeated ad infinitum as fact by his MSM enablers. Remember how Obama trumpeted how the stimulus would "create or save" X number of jobs, and NO ONE outside of FNC even bothered to question how they arrived at this number?

well

September 4, 2009 - 14:59 ET by katainkent

it certainly doesn't look like this. And actually the WSJ wrote an article crying foul about a month or two ago.

Thanks

September 4, 2009 - 16:29 ET by rockyracoon

Thanks for the link katainkent. I gotta run for now I'll print it and read it as soon as I get back home. At just a quick glance it looks a little like what isudolemite was just referencing about the SRM.

Good find

September 4, 2009 - 16:56 ET by lsudolemite

and this is data back when unemployment was hovering around 9%, much less 9.7% now.

Gotta love NYT logic

September 4, 2009 - 14:32 ET by lsudolemite

"President Obama deserves credit for proposing ways to pay for his two big initiatives to date"

Huh?! Come again?! Obama deserves credit for trying to get us out of the enormous hole that HE dug??

"need to raise taxes"

September 4, 2009 - 14:38 ET by Edhenry

"need to raise taxes" or

Cut government spending?!! anyone....anyone? Beuller...Beuller?

Crickets.....

I told you so

September 4, 2009 - 15:06 ET by candance

is becoming almost cliche with these people.

Repeat After Me

September 4, 2009 - 15:11 ET by sic721

Paying taxes is patriotic, paying taxes is patriotic, paying taxes is patriotic..All of you, keep repeating this to yourselves, and look

RIGHT HERE

"Life's tough.....It's even tougher if you're stupid."--John Wayne

OH NO! NOT THE FLASHY THIN-

September 4, 2009 - 15:13 ET by katainkent

*fip*

Barack Obama & Van Jones: Two peas in a pod

September 4, 2009 - 15:30 ET by R D Helm

That’s all right. Once Jones lands under Obama’s bus, Obama will just
punch up the number for Commies-R-Us on his Blackberry, and get another
one just like him.

-Dave

Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz

What planet is the NY Times on?

September 4, 2009 - 15:39 ET by Gary Hall

What planet is the NY Times on?

The opening words of this editorial, as noted in the post, are:

So far, the Obama administration’s plan for dealing with the budget deficit — an estimated $9 trillion over a decade — is to not dig the hole any deeper. That’s an important first step.

Wow! That is a very creative way of explaining what spending trillions of additional taxpayer dollars actually represents.

Red = Black. The new math.

(;~/ gary

I too, want to see a TAX INCREASE!

September 4, 2009 - 15:46 ET by Kingfish17

The 50% or so of all Americans who pay no taxes, or receive welfare in the form of "Earned Income Credits", should pay, at the minimum, a 5% tax on their income. Everyone has to have some skin in the game or we repeat the history of the Soviet Union.

I actually believe that this would incent people in lower income brackets to seek ways to increase the income they make, instead of being trapped in a cycle of relying on government.

"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails

I agree wholeheartedly.

September 4, 2009 - 22:59 ET by GregE

I agree wholeheartedly. For nearly 50% of Americans to pay no federal income taxes, is absurd and theivery on the part of the federal government to allow it. You're right, everyone needs some skin in the game. If 50% of Americans pay no federal income taxes, then to me, those 50% should not be voting.

And since I mentioned voting.........same for welfare recipients (most, if not all are are in that 50%). If you're on federal welfare, you shouldn't be voting for federal govt officials until you are off of it.

All to plan kids. He has a

September 4, 2009 - 15:49 ET by ninerdog

All to plan kids. He has a plan and is executing it flawlessly. What plan you say. Try this on for size. He is going to completely collapse the private sector through 80 to 90% tax rates putting everyone on the government tit. He will force us to all be reliant on the government. Then the republicans will take over the house in 2010 and the senate. He will then burn the senate building down and blame the republicans. He will then have them arrested for treason and take doctoral control through declaring martial law. After that if you think its bad now think on the lines of food rationing. Due to the banks being owned by the government they will now hold the paper on your mortgage. If your bank took a bail out they are already in the door. If you own your house out right well can you say eminent domain. They will be telling you what you can do in your own home. Think I am paranoid. 6 months ago it was unconstitutional for the government to own a car company, Bank, or any other private business. Read how Hitler came to power and learn about how it is done. He is doing exactly the same thing.

Do you realize that the the "Tax Cuts for the Rich"

September 4, 2009 - 17:32 ET by TheHistorian

Do you realize that the the "Tax Cuts for the Rich" by Bush were $1.6 trillion over 7 years. So reversal of the hated Bush tax cuts sure won't even make a dent. Besides, I would expect that the income from the taxes would go down even further, the opposite of what happened when Bush cut the taxes.

The whole economy right now is in the $15 trillion range. These doofuses want a 5-10% tax increase on the total economy of the country to pay for only part of the Obama debt. Why not raise taxes to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? They are in the $100 trillion combined price over 50 years.

Why can't the same NYT complain about liberals like Rangel and Geithner who write the tax law and then don't pay their taxes?

"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."

G. W. F. Hegel

Bunch of idiots. The

September 4, 2009 - 22:54 ET by GregE

Bunch of idiots. The whole "Tax Cuts for the Rich" was politicking too. I'm not rich, and I got a nice drop in my marginal tax rate. Those in the 15% brackets aren't rich, but some of them got a drop to 10%.

Yea, tax cuts for the rich. Go ahead and try to reverse those, Mr. I-Love-Playing-President

But, sooner than he may

September 4, 2009 - 22:52 ET by GregE

But, sooner than he may prefer, Mr. Obama will have to face up to
what he has so far avoided: the need to raise taxes broadly to rein in
deficits ...........that he's causing!