Notice Norah O'Donnell glancing down? Although the screen graphic refers to the Lewinsky scandal, the MSNBC anchor was at that moment discussing the Democrats's $1 trillion tax proposal with Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). As Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rangel is the key mover behind the tax plan.
O'Donnell, obviously reading from a document, described the proposal as a plan "to eliminate the alternative minimum tax and ease the tax burdens of most Americans by asking the rich and some corporations to pay more."
My ears immediately shot up. "Asking" some taxpayers to pay more? My foot! I was set to nail O'Donnell for reading verbatim from what I assumed was a DNC or House Democrat press release. I Googled the offending phrase to confirm its provenance and was stunned to find that, rather than emanating from an official Dem source, it came from an unofficial one -- the Associated Press. Here's the phrase in full from this article by the AP's Jim Abrams:
The House's top Democratic tax writer on Thursday outlined a $1 trillion plan to eliminate the alternative minimum tax and ease the tax burdens of most Americans by asking the rich and some corporations to pay more. -- "House Democrats Propose Tax Overhaul," AP, 10-25-07.
Let's try to explain things to the AP. When the cashier at the supermarket inquires whether you'd like to add $1 to your total to help Feed the Hungry, that's "asking" someone to pay more. When Congress raises taxes, under penalty of fine and imprisonment for non-payment, that isn't asking -- it's telling.
What does it say about the AP that it would use a euphemism that might have made a Democrat blush to help soft-soap a massive tax increase?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Must have been
October 25, 2007 - 15:40 ET by dervisha student of Ring Lardner. (At the AP? Don't I wish.)
"Shut up," he explained.
by asking the rich and
October 25, 2007 - 15:50 ET by motherbeltby asking the rich and some corporations to pay more
Asking???? And what if they say "No, I don't think so."?????
See my quote
October 25, 2007 - 15:54 ET by dervishabove.
LOL.
October 25, 2007 - 16:45 ET by motherbeltLOL.
The parsing of words and
October 25, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Gat New YorkThe parsing of words and facts in communicating this tax proposal indicates the media knows the danger of telling the truth. But what it does clearly show, as with every action taken by this Democrat majority, is that Rangel is incompetent to head House Ways and Means. He is abusing his chair to bring back the welfare state to his constituents.
It is also worth noting his close relationship with Hillary and that this should be viewed as her proposal as well.
Regardless whomever is the GOP candidate the GOP must stop cowering and conduct an aggressive campaign to expose the motives and actions of the new socialist left.
AP...MSNBC...DNC...is there
October 25, 2007 - 16:00 ET by fitzfongAP...MSNBC...DNC...is there a difference?
$1 trillion dollar plan to
October 25, 2007 - 16:04 ET by dscott$1 trillion dollar plan to get rid of the AMT? Now this is right up the leftist's alley, class warfare, penalizing the people who are the most effective at creating the bulk of the wealth and jobs. Real genius! Of course there are fewer wealthy people than poor and middle class, so their pockets are easy pickings.
But then again, pay close attention to who really escapes the AMT with this manuver as Dems rarely want to screw over their own monied interests. The upper middle class missed out on the Bush tax cuts because of the AMT, guess what the demographic base of the Dems are???? Common, guess? No? Hint, even TNR figured that out a while back... http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070409&s=sawicky041307 Once again, the Dems are absolutely shiftless in their behavior, this is just another clever ploy like Nancy Pelosi wanting to exempt American Somoa from the minimum wage because her husband invested in Del Monte, i.e. Star Kist Tuna. The Dem Party is the party of SLEAZE.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Asking? Are you kidding?
October 25, 2007 - 16:18 ET by Army BratSince when do the Dems "ask" for anything? They "demand" constantly...
Happy Trails...
Any suggestions for lowering
October 25, 2007 - 16:35 ET by mgerardnAny suggestions for lowering the deficit or paying down the debt...
Cut taxes, thus increasing
October 25, 2007 - 17:52 ET by fitzfongCut taxes, thus increasing revenues to the treasury. Reduction of taxes creates investment which leads to job creation...adding taxpayers to the tax rolls. Works every time.
Then cut frivolous spending on bogus social programs and pet projects that drain the treasury. Remove Robert Byrd from the Senate...I think he's spent enough taxpayer funds getting every puddle in West Virginia named after him. Censure Clinton and Scumer (misspelling intentional) for stealing taxpayer funds for that disgraceful Woodstock museum. Quit subsidizing the corrupt failure that is the Mexican government with benefits for illegal aliens. Rid the country of the negative influence of public employee unions...they're useless anachronisms and drains to the system.
That's a start...
2002 - 2006 Republican led
October 25, 2007 - 18:03 ET by mgerardn2002 - 2006 Republican led House, Senate, Presidency - any of the above things happened - righties love playing armchair quarterback, yet in 4 years, when there could've been massive spending cuts, none of this happened - how do you defend an administration that has created the biggest government in history - these are all nice things to say on campaigns, but look what happened, nothing, bigger deficit/debt - so much for the Republican promise of less government. Taxes were cut, as your first suggestion states, however we still have larger deficits...so that apparently isn't working.
Do try to keep up.
October 25, 2007 - 18:21 ET by dervishI wouldn't defend the spending habits of the current crop of Repubs, but the increased tax revenues and decreased deficit are simple matters of fact.
(.pdf file, if it matters to anyone)
I know you weren't trying
October 25, 2007 - 18:36 ET by fitzfongI know you weren't trying to make my point for me, but you did. Republicans run on cutting taxes and reducing spending. Then they get to Washington, and they allow the Democrats to set the spending agenda. Allowing a scumbag like Ted Kennedy to write the education bill, partnering with that same drunken scumbag in writing the illegal alien amnesty bill...these are things that Republicans in Congress, with the help of the President, allowed to happen. However, we Republicans have started holding our representatives to account. That illegal alien amnesty bill was stopped dead by REPUBLICANS. You race-baiting opportunists on the left tried to ram that sham bill down the country's throat...but the Republicans got wise to your game and stopped it. We will hold our candidates to account when it comes to taxes and spending...notice that the Republican Presidential candidates are all trying to exhibit their conservative bona fides. Are the Democrats trying to stand out as more liberal than the others? They are, like hell. The principal of cutting taxes and reducing wasteful spending is the only way forward. Just because Republicans in the past have not kept up their end on the reduction of spending does not mean that the reduction in spending is wrong...it means that the unwillingness to do so is wrong. And the left's "solution" is a laughable disaster.
Look at the anger! When
October 25, 2007 - 18:44 ET by mgerardnLook at the anger! When Republicans are in control, stop blaming Democrats for pushing through the big spending bills...that's ludicrous. Call your administration out for what it is - if they're not going to cut spending than we have to pay higher taxes - no one wants to pay higher taxes, I know you on the right like to claim that democrats love to pay higher taxes, but that's completely phony - that's equivalent to me telling you that you want soldiers to keep dying because Republican's want to continue the war - but since there is a war that you support that you don't want to pay for, it becomes very hypocritical, and typical Ted Kennedy is drunk comments add less merit to anything you have to say. You're living with a bunch of liberal big spender stereotypes when you can't admit that your own Republican controlled house/senate/congress did nothing to curb spending. How sad.
The answer again, genius, is
October 25, 2007 - 20:56 ET by fitzfongThe answer again, genius, is cutting taxes and reducing spending. Republicans believe in it, Democrats do not. That Republicans failed to reduce spending is the fault of the Republicans for not sticking to their principles of cutting waste. The solution is to elect Republicans, then hold their feet to the fire to make sure they CUT TAXES and REDUCE WASTEFUL SPENDING. The solution is NOT to elect Democrats who will increase taxes and spending because they're greedy, power hungry socialists. You call it a stereotype to claim that liberals are big spenders. Guess what? Liberals are big spenders. And Ted Kennedy is a drunk. By the way, since you started this thread with your rhetorical, what's your solution?
Taxation/Stealing
October 26, 2007 - 02:30 ET by UnsaneYou're living with a bunch of liberal big spender stereotypes when you can't admit that your own Republican controlled house/senate/congress did nothing to curb spending. How sad.
It seems you have forgotten the balanced budgets proceeding 2001, which only happened because Mr. Greatthings had his hands tied by the Republican Congress.
And you can talk about the administration ALL you want, the fact of the matter is that when the Democrats reach a lelev of power (such as getting both Houses of Congress), the FIRST thing they do is satisfy their insatiable urge to STEAL as much as possible from America's producers. And from the looks of your posts, you suffer the same kleptomania.
After all, why should "the rich and some corporations" pay more when "the rich" are already footing 99.94% of the tax bill? Did you know that the top 60% of wage earners pay 99.94% of the bill? Hardly seems "fair" to me...but apparently is to a Leftist.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
What Deficits . . .
October 25, 2007 - 21:40 ET by KpajWhat deficits are you talking about? The last time I checked the national deficit was down by more than half than it was just four years ago. This is despite the massive amout of spending this government/congress has done. I believe there are one or two others that are up but the main one, the national deficit, is down. I think the WSJ has something on it.
"I'll take that money!"
October 25, 2007 - 16:53 ET by vrwc13"I'll take that money!" hrc
v
be afraid, be very afraid - NB blogger
I propose the AHT..
October 25, 2007 - 17:04 ET by pepsiman127I propose the AHT.. alternative harlem tax..for anyone who lives or works in harlem to ease the tax burden of middle class America..it would only affect a small number of minorities and ex-presidents...
How to reduce the deficit?
October 25, 2007 - 17:10 ET by rdw1961We have record revenue to the treasury. Why not slow spending on pet projects!! It's never how much you earn, it's how much you save......
Asking . . . What A Concept
October 25, 2007 - 19:40 ET by Junk Science SkepticLet's add a page to the tax forms and start doing some "asking."
Feel free to add your own questions.
Thompson/Giuliani 2008
tax
October 25, 2007 - 20:30 ET by Emma GrumpThe critical question is: what is rich???? I remember it started at 1 mil, then 500k, then 200k, then 150k. The bottom limit is whatever Charlie thinks it should be.
At 150K,
October 25, 2007 - 20:42 ET by dervishthis surtax will bite senators, too, their public salary being a part of their incomes that they can't hide. 5 will get you 10 that, unless there is a brazen exemption for "government service," Congress will mysteriously be the beneficiary of a 4% pay increase immediately following the next election.
THE BOTTOM LINE...
October 26, 2007 - 05:06 ET by danybhoyHere is the IDEAL Demacrat/Liberal/Progressive tax plan...
1.Your income...2.Send that amount to IRS...3.This is your tax bill.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Can there be a better
October 26, 2007 - 08:04 ET by USA4freedomCan there be a better example for tax reform? Flat tax, Fair tax, I dont care!!!!
These jerks gets to pick who gets screwed.
No one in his area, Harlem.. will be hit and if they are they are so few that he can ignore them.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
I'm rich, man. I work 1
October 26, 2007 - 11:04 ET by kathleenirishI'm rich, man. I work 1 1/2 jobs and my husband works 2! Penalize me! I have it too good! Married, working, parenting my own children-that's something to go after if you're a scum-sucking liberal Democrat. You should be paying ME, you traitors! Instead, we get to subsidize the further breakdown of the American family and culture!!! Super-duper, DEMS! And, don't forget the wussy RINOs. Blech!!
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.