Between Tuesday and Wednesday this week, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell has been pushing Democratic spin during discussions of the Republican tax cut plan as she has wrongly claimed that tax cuts on individuals expire in "a couple of years," and characterized it as a tax increase if some taxpayers choose not to purchase health insurance and therefore intentionally reject Obamacare subsidies.
Additionally, she claimed that an "increase in economic activity" after tax cuts "has never proved to be the fact," and MSNBC contributor Josh Earnest misleadingly asserted that individual taxes would "go up" in 10 years when, more accurately, rates would merely return to current levels if tax cuts are not renewed.
On Tuesday's Andrea Mitchell Reports show, Mitchell posed:
Let's talk about this tax bill -- winners and losers. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, look at this distribution table. What we have is that -- if you earn between $67,000 and $112,000 -- one in 12 Americans are going to see a tax increase even short-term. We're not even talking about the, you know, down the road after the individual tax cuts expire. So how is that a middle class tax cut?
Republican guest and former Jeb Bush advisor Michael Steel -- not to be confused with former RNC chair Michael Steele -- smacked down her claim of an immediate tax increase on the middle class as he argued:
The joint committee does not account for -- it's a cockamamie system that actually scores eliminating the individual mandate as a tax increase because if you don't require people to buy health care coverage, you don't then have to give them a subsidy to do that.
Host Mitchell pressed further as she characterized consciously choosing not to purchase health insurance as "losing" insurance: "Well, then, okay, so let's talk about the fact that 13 million people are going to lose their health insurance."
Steel responded: "They will not be required to buy health insurance, which is a different thing, but that will also create new opportunities, and we're going to look into that."
New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters then jumped in to also press from the left, making Steel outnumbered 2:1:
The premiums are going to go up, too. it's not just people who won't have to spend money on health care -- the people who want health care who are now going to have to buy it on their own are going to have to pay a much higher price for that. And middle class families who live in states like New York, New Jersey, California, Virginia, are going to see their taxes go up. Like this is not a tax bill that is equitable by any stretch of the imagination.
After her Republican guest argued that economic growth would improve, Mitchell dismissively responded: "Well, I would just argue with you, increase in economic activity because I think that is notional, but it has never proved to be the fact. I mean, this just does not happen."
On Wednesday, during another discussion of the tax cuts, Mitchell turned to correspondent Garrett Haake and misstated that the individual tax cuts would expire in "a couple of years." Mitchell:
One of the reasons why this has all taken place ... why it is so unpopular, is that the message has been delivered to people. People are taking in the fact that the corporate tax deduction, which is pretty dramatic going from 35 to 21 percent. It's going to be permanent, but the individual tax cuts that effect you and, you know, everybody else that we, the individual rates, those are going to expire in a couple of years.
A bit later, Mitchell suggested that it would be difficult to argue that the tax cuts are "fair" as she recalled calculations by the Tax Policy Center:
But if you take a very conservative estimate from the Tax Policy Center, 54 percent of people in the lowest -- the lowest income level -- 54 percent will receive a tax cut -- which means that almost half would not get a tax cut. But when you get to the highest earners -- the people in the, you know, 91 percent of the people in the top one percent of income earners would get a tax cut. So it's hard to imagine how -- if that becomes apparent to people -- how that will be fair, how that can be advertised as a middle class tax cut.
Earnest -- formerly of the Obama administration -- further dumped on the tax cut plan and did not clearly state that tax rates might return to current levels in 10 years rather than actually increasing beyond current levels:
Yeah, look, substantively, there's no debate here, though, that people -- working people, middle class families, working families, families that have to work for a living in order to pay the mortgage and put food on the table -- their lives get harder because of this bill, the vast majority of them. Certainly, over time, by the end, we know of the 10-year window here, taxes on those people go up.
Below are transcripts of relevant portions of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports from December 19 and December 20:
From Tuesday, December 19:
12:07 p.m. ET
ANDREA MITCHELL: Let's talk about this tax bill -- winners and losers. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, look at this distribution table. What we have is that -- if you earn between $67,000 and $112,000 -- one in 12 Americans are going to see a tax increase even short-term. We're not even talking about the, you know, down the road after the individual tax cuts expire. So how is that a middle class tax cut?
MICHAEL STEEL: Look, facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that middle class families are going to start seeing money in their paychecks starting in February if we pass this law by Christmas time. The joint committee does not account for -- it's a cockamamy system that actually scores eliminating the individual mandate as a tax increase because if you don't require people to buy health care coverage, you don't then have to give them a subsidy to do that.
MITCHELL: Well, then, okay, so let's talk about the fact that 13 million people are going to lose their health insurance.
STEEL: They will not be required to buy health insurance, which is a different thing, but that will also create new opportunities, and we're going to look into that.
MITCHELL: And premiums going up.
JEREMY PETERS, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, that's exactly right. The premiums are going to go up, too. it's not just people who won't have to spend money on health care -- the people who want health care who are now going to have to buy it on their own are going to have to pay a much higher price for that. And middle class families who live in states like New York, New Jersey, California, Virginia, are going to see their taxes go up. Like this is not a tax bill that is equitable by any stretch of the imagination.
STEEL: I actually think it's important we unpack that a little bit. The idea that people in high-tax states will lose the ability to itemize their state and local tax deduction does have an impact. However, there's also lower rates for those families and an overall increase in economic activity. So I think that most people in those states -- not the governments in those states, but most people in those states -- actually wind up much better off.
MITCHELL: Well, I would just argue with you, increase in economic activity because I think that is notional, but it has never proved to be the fact. I mean, this just does not happen.
(...)
From Wednesday, December 20:
12:27 p.m. ET
MITCHELL: One of the reasons why this has all taken place, Garrett Haake, why it is so unpopular, is that the message has been delivered to people. People are taking in the fact that the corporate tax deduction, which is pretty dramatic going from 35 to 21 percent. It's going to be permanent, but the individual tax cuts that effect you and, you know, everybody else that we, the individual rates, those are going to expire in a couple of years.
And so the argument from Republicans on the Hill is they'll be extended, but that defeats their argument about it not having that huge an impact on the deficit because, if they are extended, then that would increase the deficit from $1.5 trillion to $2.2 trillion, so there's sort of a no-win argument from them on that perspective.
(...)
JOSH EARNEST, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: It's going to be bad for the country -- it's going to be bad for the economy.
MITCHELL: But short-term people will see a benefit in their pockets because the individual tax cuts will effect a lot of people -- the repeal is down the road. So before the midterms, there will be some political benefit from it. In terms of distribution, it's hard to compute. If we take the effect of the individual mandate out of the picture because there have been speculative computations saying how much more this will cost people.
But if you take a very conservative estimate from the Tax Policy Center, 54 percent of people in the lowest -- the lowest income level -- 54 percent will receive a tax cut -- which means that almost half would not get a tax cut. But when you get to the highest earners -- the people in the, you know, 91 percent of the people in the top one percent of income earners would get a tax cut. So it's hard to imagine how -- if that becomes apparent to people -- how that will be fair, how that can be advertised as a middle class tax cut.
EARNEST: Yeah, look, substantively, there's no debate here, though, that people -- working people, middle class families, working families, families that have to work for a living in order to pay the mortgage and put food on the table -- their lives get harder because of this bill, the vast majority of them. Certainly, over time, by the end, we know of the 10-year window here, taxes on those people go up.
