Shocking media honesty alert!!!
Here's something you don't see every day: a major American press outlet speaking ill of a campaign proposal from presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Yet, there it was moments ago in an Associated Press piece amazingly titled "Obama's 'No income Taxes On Seniors' Draws Critics."
Maybe even more surprising than the AP actually reporting critical assessments of the junior senator's plan to exempt from federal income taxes seniors who make less than $50,000 a year was the authors not citing anyone that supports Obama's proposal...not one single person.
Now, I know what you're thinking: this was either a Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily article. Think again (emphasis added, photo courtesy AP):
"If you work hard and pay into the system, you've earned the right to a secure retirement," says a description of the plan on the Obama campaign's web site. "But too many seniors aren't getting that security, even though they've held up their end of the bargain. Lower and middle income seniors are struggling as their expenses on health and energy skyrocket while their incomes do not keep pace."
[T]ax policy experts in Washington are giving [Obama's plan] bad reviews. They see it as another subsidy for senior citizens, who already get federal help through Social Security and Medicare and often have economic advantages over other demographic groups. [...]
Some of Obama's allies in Washington think he's onto a bad idea.
"Most low- and moderate-income seniors already owe no income tax. Among seniors with incomes below $50,000 who do owe income tax, a significant number have modest incomes because they are retired but possess substantial assets," said Robert Greenstein, who heads the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "Given all the problems and needs the nation faces, targeting relief to this group isn't a priority."
The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, gave the idea bad grades in a recent study of the two presidential candidates' tax plans. [...]
"The proposal would exempt comparatively well off, though not affluent, senior citizens from taxes and give them a benefit not generally available to working Americans," said the Tax Policy Center paper. It "helps only those low-income seniors who currently pay income taxes. Those too poor to owe any tax - arguably those most in need - would get no benefit."
Even the powerful seniors' lobby doesn't seem excited about Obama's idea. An AARP bulletin on the presidential candidates' tax plans barely mentions it, noting that Obama's proposal could partly offset additional taxes that Obama would impose on seniors through higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
Certainly, it's no surprise that the more people look at what Obama is proposing, the less they like it. Yet, what IS amazing is how folks in the press that have enabled this man's campaign are suddenly telling readers the truth.
Why might that be?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liberal ideas
August 11, 2008 - 18:37 ET by HippopaulimusOnce again, liberal ideas that look good on paper and in speeches, but just don't work in the real world.
White - does not mean racist
Heterosexual - does not mean homophobic
Male - does not mean sexist
"Why might that be?"
August 11, 2008 - 18:51 ET by Indiana JoeWell, strictly blue-skying, Noel, a thought did occur to me. This tax-cut targets a demographic that Obama doesn't need, and probably won't get: middle-income seniors. It also runs the risk of alienating those who won't benefit. Younger workers (who Obama does need) could resent having to shoulder more of the tax burden to compensate for the perceived "free-ride" the seniors are going to get. So, politically, it might carry more risks than benefits.
Maybe this is the MSM's way of telling Obama "ix-nay on the ax-cut-tay."
hussein-
August 11, 2008 - 19:05 ET by cocodrieI suppose there are not enough votes in the ashamed of America and racist sections so you have to buy the elderly votes. Well, I ain't selling. Try the wetback section and show us your birth certificate - the real one.
Pity poor obie. He's
August 11, 2008 - 20:56 ET by MidAmericaPity poor obie. He's really having to dig to find a class of tax-payer to pander to. All the good tax reductions to buy votes have already been done.
How ironic! It was
August 12, 2008 - 01:25 ET by jdhawkHow ironic! It was clintoon that imposed taxes on Social Security for the first time shortly after he was elected. Think about that for a minute, these seniors had already paid taxes on any given paycheck several times over (federal taxes, states taxes, social security and medicare). Yet, without a peep from most seniors he screws them over and imposes federal income taxes on their Social Security income.
bambi (aka 57 states) is proposing to reverse that. It will never get past any congress - lib or conservative. This is just another of many red herrings. The reason is that Social Security (aka ponzi scheme) is fast going into the toilet. In just a few short years, there will be two workers paying into Social Security for hundreds (the boomers) that are drawing on it.
What bambi (aka "I see nothing wrong with $4 dollar gasoline; the price just went up too fast.") or any president must do and soon is reform Social Security. That will come in two forms - yes, an investment element is off the table - massively higher Social Security taxes and a greater age until one can receive full benefits.
Already, Social Security and Medicare are taking 15.3% of every dollar earned up to $102,000 of earned income. Maybe its just me, but that is outrageous. If you were born after 1960, you will have to wait until you are 67 years old to receive full benefits.
Oh, by the way, your federal representatives (Representatives and Senators) don't pay either of these taxes. Yeah, that's right. They don't pay into either Social Security or Medicare. They have their own plan and they don't pay a dime for it!