Washington Post reporter Lori Montgomery must not be reading Newsbusters.
Because this is the second time she painted the Democrats as the saviors of the middle-class for wanting to reform the alternative minimum tax, but neglected to inform her readers that they are the same Democrats who voted against the full repeal of the AMT in 1999.
Her June 8 story referred to House Democrats as “looking to spare millions of middle class families from the expensive bite of the alternative minimum tax …”
In it, Montgomery cited five Democratic congressman and one left-wing think tank, but only one Republican congressman. Two of those Democrats: Reps. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) and Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) were in the House in 1999 and voted against the repeal, which passed in both houses, but was vetoed by President Clinton.
The June 8 piece strongly resembled Montgomery’s earlier April report, in which she also cited Leonard Burman of the liberal Tax Policy Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Another item(in the long li
June 8, 2007 - 17:08 ET by general companyAnother item(in the long list of items)most folks want but the knuckleheads in DC refuse to do anything about.
If any tax reform makes it to the floor during the Bush administration these same dolts would claim it only benefited the rich.
Gee it's a simple answer
June 8, 2007 - 17:13 ET by c5thenWhy not get rid of the complicated tax system with all it's loop holes and unintended consequenses that created the "need" for an AMT in the first place and replace it with a simple flat tax that affects every income earner equally?
Then no one would be able to use the class against calss, "us against them" argument. Oh, wait, class struggle against class is a tenent of marxism/socialism. How would the socialists be able to describe people if they couldn't pigeon-hole them into "classes"?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
...and take the money from p
June 8, 2007 - 17:17 ET by bigtimer...and take the money from people that do pay hard earned dollars for the socialist programs for the lazy non working people.
Yup...that's been fair in their commuistic eyes.
WAIT! Are you telling me we s
June 8, 2007 - 17:33 ET by UnsaneWAIT! Are you telling me we should hit everyone with the same tax rate, with zero loopholes or deductions??? What a novel idea!!!
THIRTEEN DOWN, THREE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
Ironically, the AMT if done r
June 9, 2007 - 11:23 ET by dscottIronically, the AMT if done right would be a fairer form of income tax. But here we go again, who is it that's making an issue out of the AMT? Liberals, why is that? Could it be more and more liberals are finding themselves paying the AMT? At this point only 4 million tax payers are affected by the AMT paying about $50 billion. Here's a hint here folks why the AMT is coming up on the radar screen and it has little to do with someone with too many deductions or kids. 5% of the population (15 million people) own 70% of the country's personal wealth. Liberals are whining because their benefactors, the rich, will have to pay their fair share under the AMT.
Just to point out how ridiculous whining over the AMT is, general income tax revenue taken in is around $3.5 trillion compared to $50 billion under the AMT.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
They can't survive with less revenue
June 8, 2007 - 18:06 ET by c5thenDems are proposing a 4%+ surtax on the evil rich to offset the AMT reductions that they are toying with. In this case they are talking a family making more than $200k a year. Here.
It is laughable to include those making $200,000 or more as rich.
How much you want to bet they enact the surtax and then never quite get around to the AMT reductions?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Also missed on the AMT issue is...
June 8, 2007 - 19:56 ET by Gary HallAlso missed on the AMT issue is... time and time again, is a bit of history which would answer a great many misconceptions by your average MSM reader or viewer.
The AMT tax when proposed by the Johnson admin., and signed into law by Richard Nixon, although deeply flawed because it did not address the problem of inflation, is surely a law which the left (and our tax loving MSM) would cheer - would have cheered, OK.
The ongoing omission of an accurate history of the issue, combined with the re-write of history as we go (as Julia is documenting here) is creating another one of those "blame the Bush administration (or the R's) for all of our problems. Go ahead, ask your typical Bush hater on the street about the AMT. My guess is that the generic angry answer will be something along the lines of, "they cut taxes for the rich, and now Bush is coming after the middle class and using "his" AMT to do it."
Here was a good piece from 2002, which gives the history quite well. It's a keeper. http://www.nationalr...
Last time I checked, no one w
June 9, 2007 - 01:39 ET by jdhawkLast time I checked, no one was passing out high incomes to those that don't deserve it. The high income earners in our country are the most productive amongst us.
Let's do whatever to ensure that we deincent them to continue their drive and resourcefullness. Yeah, that's a great plan dumbocrats.
Why did we sit on our hands and let them take over Congress again?