PolitiFact Whacks Maddow Again, This Time on Perry Tax Plan
By Jack Coleman | November 03, 2011 | 17:59
Rachel Maddow's "devotion" to the facts "borders on obsessive" proclaimed an MSNBC promo last winter that could have been produced by The Onion.
A dubious Maddow claim that didn't quite reach that level of obsession has caught the attention of PolitiFact Texas, part of a fact-checking project that originated with the St. Petersburg Times and won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009. (video after page break)
On her show Oct. 25, Maddow said this about Texas Gov. Rick Perry's newly-released tax plan --
So, tanking Rick Perry has now come up with his own version of a flat tax that accomplishes the same goal of huge tax cuts for rich people and big tax hikes for everyone else.
PolitiFact's W. Gardner Selby, a veteran reporter who began covering politics in Texas nearly 30 years ago, wrote yesterday why he rated Maddow's claim "mostly false" on the PolitiFact "Truth-O-Meter" that ranges from "True" to "Pants on Fire."
His thorough evaluation included responses from Maddow spokeswoman Lauren Skowronski, criticism of the Perry plan from a Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration, a "preliminary look" at the plan from an expert at the Tax Policy Center, followed by Selby citing from a more detailed analysis by the center.
In conclusion, Selby wrote --
Nearly all of the nation's wealthiest residents would see tax cuts if Perry's plan became law, in keeping with Maddow's claim. Will they be huge? That's an eye-of-the-beholder question, but some could be sizable by any definition.
Some other Americans -- including 45 percent of residents earning $19,343 to $39,862 -- also would see tax cuts, a projection suggesting that does not support the claim that the plan means big tax increases for everyone but the wealthy. Perry's plan allows every taxpayer to continue under the current system. No one would pay more unless he or she chooses the flat tax against their financial self-interest.
Maddow's statement, leaving the incorrect impression that Perry's tax plan hugely benefits the rich while everyone else pays more, rates Mostly False.
Back in February, in the middle of a contentious battle over public-sector unions in Wisconsin, PolitiFact took Maddow to task for her flat-out false claim that Wisconsin was on track for a budget surplus.
This marks the 15th time that Maddow's claims have crossed PolitiFact's radar. Of these, four were rated false, three as mostly false, three as half true, four as mostly true and one as true. None were deemed deserving of the lowly "pants-on-fire" designation.
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments




















Comments
I can't believe this
Submitted by dnlchisholm on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 6:58pm.
Today’s actions by President Obama’s Super PAC provided even more proof that Mitt Romney is the republican that scares democrats most. This anti-Romney ad buy is $100,000 and it’s far from the first anti-Romney attack ad President Obama’s Super PAC has produced. The continued paid attacks this early in the election illustrate a level of desperation from the Obama administration that makes sense considering President Obama’s record of accomplishment is so weak.
http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/11/02/president-obamas-super-pac-prior...
You must work for the DNC
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 7:55pm.
CAIN is the one they are witch hunting right now. Obama would love to run against Romney. Romney's policies did Massachusets no good, and that white rich man will make an easy target.
Obama and minions are working hard to get Romney as the candidate.
Huh?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 11:54pm.
You come in and post something that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Is this just a weak attempt to drum up support for Romney?
We Are The 53%
It's a miracle
Submitted by Marcus Porcius on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 8:02pm.
Politifact is well known for bending over backwards to claim Republicans are lying and liberals are telling the truth. I'd love to know what the motive really is for going after Madcow.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
www.theconservativereview.com
The Perry flat tax...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 8:25pm.
would be a big tax break for the wealthy, but unless I am miscalculating his tax, with my below 40,000 yearly salary and bymyself, I would end up paying a $1000.00 more a year.in income tax then the current tax system. I don't feel that the rich should pay more tax then they do now, but I don't like the rich getting a break when I don't
Are you making less than
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 8:55pm.
Are you making less than $34,500 a year? Because if you aren't then you are in the 25% bracket.
If you are making less than that you are in the 15% bracket.
From what I understand Perry's plan has a flat 20% tax rate for all income AFTER $12,500. Plus you get to subtract your mortgage, charity, state & local taxes and capital gains and dividends before you calculate how much you owe.
I would run your numbers again.
I know I would see my taxes go down since I am in the 28% bracket.
You must have missed this
Submitted by Snappy on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 8:57pm.
You must have missed this part of the plan......
"Perry's plan allows every taxpayer to continue under the current system. No one would pay more unless he or she chooses the flat tax against their financial self-interest."
So dont switch the flat tax, keep paying a grand less than you would under flat tax and understand that life isnt meant to be fair, sometimes people get breaks, bailouts and lavish golden parachutes and you and I dont. Thats the way things shake out sometimes. Dont wast your time whining about the breaks they get and spend more time figuring out how to get to where they are.
Figure 40,00 annual salary
Submitted by zenman1661 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 9:46pm.
my tax last year was about 4,235 (straight from IRS chart) with standard deduction. With Perry my tax woiuld be 20% of approx 28.000 minus his deduction which would come out to $5600. I know I don't have to use it but shouldn't a new tax plan help people who aren't rich or married with a lot of chlldren for increased deductions.
Not that I understand your numbers,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 10:00pm.
But the fact remains, you can stay in the old system if you choose to.
Your numbers do not make
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 10:31pm.
Your numbers do not make sense. The ones under Perry do but not the one under the current system.
$40,000 annual salary puts you in the 25% bracket. If you look at the link I gave you they say that you would pay $4,750 plus 25% of excess over 34,500. That means your total taxes would be $6,125.
Under Perry's plan you would only be paying $5,500.
All these numbers are with no deductions for mortgage, charity and others permitted under Perry's plan.
I would suggest rerunning your numbers.
People
Submitted by zenman1661 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 11:18pm.
This is is the 1040EZ form not Rocket Surgery. Take 40,000 gross income, subtract 9300 standard deduction for approx 31,000 taxable income. Go to the tax table chart. Look up 31,000 and the tax is 4200. These numbers are rounded abit but represent reality. The real question becomes do enough people see my point about his flat tax and the answer according to the polls is yes. Despite Cain's current issues, Perry is now 4th behind Gingrich in many polls. He got no bump whatsover from his plan like Cain did with his 9-9-9.
Not sure
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 11:57pm.
But I think the 20% would also include payroll taxes. So you have to tack on an extra 7.65% of your gross income.
But regardless, you wouldn't pay more. If the flat tax made you pay more, then you would go with the regular way and pay the same.
We Are The 53%
tax
Submitted by milootoole on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 12:49pm.
I am retired. Paid payroll tax for 47 years--now it looks like I pay payroll tax for others under Perry's flat tax? Do I then not pay that payroll tax portion if I stay with the old method??
Oh yes, and since my social security was paid with after tax dollars, why am I paying tax on that --under either the existing plan or Perry's plan??
Your SS was paid with after
Submitted by Snappy on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 8:27pm.
Your SS was paid with after tax dollars? How do you figure that one?
Sorry this is a few days later
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:54am.
I don't know the specifics about his plan, but as far as some of your other points.
SS is an insurance program, not a retirement program. You pay into it at a certain rate over the years, but your benefits are based on something different. Not on what you paid in. Basically the money you paid in is not the money you get back.
Since SS has been incorporated into the general fund and budget, the taxes that are paid from other sources also contribute to it, and money collected for SS is used for other programs.
We Are The 53%
What are you really concerned about, Zen?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 9:26am.
Judging from what you are writing, I don't think you are really concerned about what you will lose in taxes so much as you are trying to show your desire to have Cain versus Perry, especially with your mentioning of the polls, which are irrelevant.
You even cite a tax table chart which is also irrelevant because Perry's plan hasn't even been put into action and you act as if it were.
So what are you really trying to say, Zen?
-Jon
Ooh, so good. Do it again
Submitted by greydawg on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 8:23am.
Your headline says PolitiFact "whacked" Maddow. Isn't that the kind of stuff she really digs? Oooh, feels so good. Do it again. Pleeeze.
I guess Politifacts didn't
Submitted by HelloDare on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 7:49pm.
I guess Politifacts didn't check this bit of hard-hitting reporting:
Maddow Claim About Wisconsin Towns Named Union Looks Decidedly Dubious
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2011/07/25/maddow-claim-about-...