10 Republican Lies for Tax Day    
By Shahram Vahdany     
The truth may set you free, but not if you're a Republican and the subject is 
taxes. After all, 95% of American families as promised received a tax cut from 
the Obama stimulus package. And while three-quarters of Americans support 
President Obama's proposal to roll back the Bush tax cuts for those earning 
over $250,000 to their Clinton-era levels, it turns out that affluent voters, 
too, chose Barack Obama over John McCain. Making matters worse, a Gallup poll 
Monday revealed that Americans' "views of income taxes among most positive 
since 1956." 
So as their furious followers head off to their April 15th orgy of tea-bagging, 
the leadership of the GOP and its amen corner in the right-wing media have 
instead turned to tall tales on taxes.

Here, then, are 10 Republican Tax Day lies:

President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses. 
The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms. 
40% of Americans pay no taxes 
Tax cuts always increase revenue. 
The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline. 
Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time. 
FDR caused the Great Depression, or at least made it worse. 
Obama's cap-and-trade plan will cost each American family $3,100 a year. 
Obama's tax proposals will undermine charitable giving. 
The rich pay too much in taxes already.
Lie #1: President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.

John McCain introduced this fraud along with Joe the Plumber during the 2008 
campaign. McCain proclaimed Obama's plan to restore 1990's tax rates for 
taxpayers making over $250,000 meant "the small businesses that we're talking 
about would receive an increase in their taxes right now." In February, Senate 
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) regurgitated the long-debunked talking 
point:

     "I don't think raising taxes is a great idea, and when our good friends on 
the other side of the aisle say raising the taxes on the wealthy, what they are 
really talking about is small business."
Of course, they're not talking about small business. As CNN concluded in 
October, "fewer than 2% of small business owners would pay more under Obama's 
plan." But in case there was any doubt about the Republicans' deception on the 
point, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center quickly put it to rest:

      Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 
479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of 
projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. 
      The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's 
proposed rate hike.
Lie #2: The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms.

This Republican scam over the so-called "death tax" is as bogus now as it was 
when President Bush first perpetrated it eight years ago. The House GOP budget, 
fittingly unveiled by Rep. Paul Ryan on April Fool's Day, would eliminate the 
estate tax altogether. While Nevada Senator John Ensign recently griped, "It 
destroys a lot of small businesses and a lot of family farms and ranches in 
America," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) groused:

      "People who aren't wealthy, who may have built up value in land over 
generations and many family farms find themselves in situations where they've 
got to sell the farm in order the pay the taxes."
But as the Washington Post explained, under President Obama budget, 99.76% of 
estates would pay no taxes whatsoever:

      The estate tax is scheduled to disappear in 2010, only to be resurrected 
the following year at its 2001 level, when it applied only to estates worth 
over $2 million per couple at a rate of 55 percent. In fact, no one expects it 
to return to that level -- although letting it do so would be a far more 
rational response to the current crisis than the Lincoln-Kyl approach. Rather, 
President Obama has proposed holding the tax at this year's level: an exemption 
of $7 million per couple, with a 45 percent rate for amounts beyond that; this 
would cost $484 billion over 10 years. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max 
Baucus (D-Mont.) has endorsed this solution, with indexing for inflation. This 
would hardly be punitive. At that level, 99.76 percent of estates would incur 
no tax whatsoever. Those who owe would pay, on average, $2.25 million less than 
they would have paid at the 2001 exemption level. Why in the world should these 
folks get more of a tax cut?
Why? Because even in a time of national economic calamity, the Republican Party 
remains committed to dramatically shifting the tax burden away from the 
wealthiest Americans. (And unfortunately, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and nine other 
Democrats are aiding and abetting that transfer by supporting a lower tax rate 
of 35% for estates starting at $10 million per couple. The price tag? $250 
billion.)

Last week, the Tax Policy Center quantified just how few family farms or small 
businesses are actually impacted by the estate tax proposals under 
consideration:

      We estimate that under the Obama proposal, 100 family farms and 
businesses would owe tax. (We define such estates as those where farm or 
business assets are valued at under $5 million and comprise the majority of 
estate assets.) The Lincoln-Kyl proposal would cut the number to 40. Even under 
current law, fewer than 2,700 family farms and businesses would owe tax.
Lie #3: 40% of Americans pay no taxes.

This canard, too, has been in circulation since last summer. Parroting 
right-wing papers including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and 
Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune Review, the McCain campaign argued, 
"Obama raises taxes on seniors, hard working families to give 'welfare' to 
those who pay none." While Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani echoed the "welfare" 
charge in January, on Monday, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer kept up 
the drum beat, deeming Obama's middle class tax cuts a "moral problem" when 
"50% of the country gets benefits without paying for them."

Alas, they do pay for them. As FactCheck among others noted, Republican 
conveniently ignore sales, excise and most of all, payroll taxes. Starting with 
the first dollar they earn, virtually all American workers pay the 6.2% Social 
Security tax (on income up to $97,000) and another 1.45% for Medicare. An 
analysis by the Tax Policy Center concluded, "three quarters of filers pay more 
in payroll taxes than in income taxes."

That millions of hard working American families pay no income taxes is due in 
large measure to the Earned Income Tax Credit. Created in 1975, the EITC "a 
refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and 
families" that results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the 
credit when the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed. As the Center for Budget 
and Policy Priorities detailed in 2005, the EITC has not only been extremely 
successful in reducing poverty, it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. None 
other than Ronald Reagan called it, "the best anti-poverty, the best 
pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

As a new Gallup poll released today suggests, the American people seem to 
agree. In the wake of the new Obama tax cuts, Gallup found, "more say 
low-income Americans paying fair share of taxes."

Lie #4: Tax cuts always increase revenue.

Thanks to supply-side snake oil salesman Arthur Laffer and his magical Laffer 
Curve, conservatives have been peddling this myth since the age of Reagan. Tax 
cuts, which GOP doctrine now claims is the universal cure-all for surpluses and 
deficits, male pattern baldness and erectile dysfunction, are at the center of 
every Republican economic program. As John McCain put it during the campaign, 
"tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues." And in 
February, Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison offered the purest 
statement of Arthur Laffer's fantasy:

      "Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue."
As it turns out, not so much. The claim, as ThinkProgress neatly summed it up, 
is empirically and historically false:

      The notion that cutting taxes somehow - magically - increases government 
revenues is a myth that won't die. "The claim that tax cuts pay for 
themselves...is contradicted by the historical record," reported the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in 
the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. 
FactCheck.org called a claim like Hutchison's "highly misleading" and stated 
the obvious fact that "we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government 
coffers."
Lie #5: The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.

Back in February, AP reporter and John McCain donut server Liz Sidoti wrote of 
beaten and battered Republicans trying to find their way back from the 
political wilderness in a piece titled, "GOP tries to restore image of fiscal 
discipline."

Of course, that would constitute a return to a time that never was. Far from 
the deficit hawks of Republican legend, the modern Republican Party from Reagan 
forward devastated the U.S. treasury, leaving mounting debt and hemorrhaging 
red ink for as far as the eye can see. As it turns out, U.S. national debt 
tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again under George W. Bush. As this 
eye-popping chart shows, under recent Republican presidents the debt exploded 
as a percentage of GDP, interrupted only by the all-too-brief fiscal sanity of 
the Clinton years.

"Reagan," Dick Cheney once famously declared, "proved that deficits don't 
matter." Apparently, that rule only applies when a Republican is sitting in the 
Oval Office

Lie #6: Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time.

Through thick and thin, this hagiography of Ronald Reagan is central to 
Republican identity. But as Steve Benen rightly noted, it is President Obama 
whose stimulus plan delivered the largest two-year tax cut in history. And as 
it turns out, what Saint Ronnie giveth, he also taketh away.

As predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 
quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his 
rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets 
he promised, but record-settings deficits. Even his OMB alchemist David 
Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Ultimately, Reagan was forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial 
catastrophe (a fact John McCain learned the hard way from Tom Brokaw last 
October). By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan nonetheless more 
than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of 
American history.

Lie #7: FDR caused the Great Depression, or at least made it worse.

Desperate to change their miserable present, Republicans are traveling back in 
time to rewrite the past. Despite the easily debunked claim (for example, here 
and here), Republican leaders including John McCain and Mitch McConnell still 
insist FDR made the Great Depression worse. Others, such as Rep. Steve Austria 
(R-OH) went so far as to blame FDR's programs launched four years after the 
1929 stock market crash for causing it in the first place:

      "When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a 
Great Depression," Austria said. "He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use 
the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's 
just history."
Of course, that's not history. As Jonathan Chait documented in his devastating 
demolition of conservative propagandist Amity Schlaes' revisionist attack on 
the New Deal, FDR slashed unemployment by more than half and largely restored 
industrial production and GDP growth even before the onset of World War II. 
Only when Roosevelt wavered in the face of conservative pressure in 1937 did 
his New Deal temporarily falter.

Lie #8. Obama's cap-and-trade plan will cost each American family $3,100 a year.

Having failed to either block President Obama's middle class tax cuts or to 
successfully demagogue his proposals for upper income and estate taxes, the 
Republican leadership turned to a new scare tactic. John Boehner, Mitch 
McConnell and at least 17 other Congressional Republicans falsely claimed that 
Obama's proposed $650 billion cap-and-trade system constitutes a $3,100 a year 
tax on every American family. As Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) put it:

      "The Democratic budget is proposing a national energy tax which according 
to studies at MIT could pose a $3,128 burden on every working family in 
America."
But as MIT professor and co-author of the study Assessment of U.S. 
Cap-and-Trade Proposals John Reilly pointed out, the research "has been 
misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican 
Congressional Committee." As he wrote in a letter to John Boehner:

      "The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family 
of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed 
in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate 
which is approximately $340. [...] Our Report 160 shows that the costs on lower 
and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance 
revenue to these households."
For his part, Boehner responded by insisting he would stand by his discredited 
talking point. As they show time and again, the utter falsehood of a statement 
is no barrier to Republicans repeating it.

Lie #9. Obama's tax proposals will undermine charitable giving.

In his budget, President Obama has proposed raising $318 billion over the next 
decade by trimming wealthier taxpayers' deductions for charitable giving to 28% 
from its current 35%. Predictably, Republicans (joined by some Democrats) 
forecast an apocalypse for donations to charities. As John Boehner ominously 
warned:

      "It will also deliver a sharp blow to charities at a time when they are 
hurting during the economic downturn."
But as Bloomberg and The Chronicle of Philanthropy each reported, Obama's 
proposal for 2011 would likely have little to no impact on charitable giving. 
As Bloomberg noted:

      Not necessarily, say tax and philanthropy experts. They say altruistic or 
religious motives outweigh tax-shelter considerations among such donors, and 
cite previous limitations placed on deductions for high earners that they say 
haven't hurt donations. 
Among those previous limitations, as OMB director Peter Orszag among others 
recalled, was the same upper income 28% deduction during Ronald Reagan's first 
term. As Orszag told reporters on February 26th, the record shows that "what 
drives charitable contributions is overall economic growth."

Ironically, what might have a more serious impact on charitable giving is 
Republican plans to scrap the estate tax. As then CBO head and later chief 
McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin wrote in a 2004 study by the agency:

      Furthermore, the estate tax provides an incentive to make charitable 
contributions during life. The paper finds that increasing the amount exempted 
from the estate tax from $675,000 to either $2 million or $3.5 million would 
reduce charitable giving by less than 3 percent. However, repealing the tax 
would have a larger impact, decreasing donations to charity by 6 percent to 12 
percent.
Lie #10: The rich pay too much in taxes already.

While 60% of Americans in recent Gallup polls believe upper-income people are 
"paying too little" in taxes, it is an article of faith among Republicans that 
the reverse is true.

In one variant of this argument, Arthur Laffer claims Barack Obama will have to 
raise taxes on lower and middle income Americans because "it cannot be done at 
the high end because those people can get away from it." That assessment echoes 
George W. Bush, who similarly argued in 2004, "The really rich people figure 
out how to dodge taxes anyway." (They are right in one sense; thanks to the 
GOP's gutting of the IRS in the 1990's, by 2007 the amount of federal revenue 
lost to fraud and unpaid taxes catapulted to $300 billion.)

Leave it to Bush's former flunkie Ari Fleischer to make even more comical Tax 
Week plea on behalf of the nation's bedraggled wealthy. The top 10% of 
taxpayers, Fleischer argued, are "supporting virtually everyone and everything" 
and "their burden keeps getting heavier." As he put it:

      "It's also what's called redistribution of income, and it is getting out 
of hand."
Oh, it's gotten out of hand all right, just not in the direction Fleischer 
claims.

As the Center for American Progress noted, the Bush tax cuts delivered a third 
of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. And to be sure, 
their payday was staggering. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities 
detailed, by 2007 millionaires on average pocketed $120,000 from the Bush tax 
cuts of 2001 and 2003. Those in the top 1% stashed an extra $45,000 a year. As 
a result, millionaires saw their after-tax incomes rise by 7.6%, while the 
gains for the middle quintile and bottom 20% of Americans were a paltry 2.3% 
and 0.4%, respectively. (Another CBPP study demonstrated that the Bush tax cuts 
accounted for half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure in the White 
House.)

And as the New York Times revealed in 2006, the 2003 Bush dividend and capital 
gains tax cuts offered almost nothing to taxpayers earning below $100,000 a 
year. Instead, those windfalls reduced taxes "on incomes of more than $10 
million by an average of about $500,000." As the Times revealed in a 
jaw-dropping chart, "the top 2 percent of taxpayers, those making more than 
$200,000, received more than 70% of the increased tax savings from those cuts 
in investment income." So it should come as no surprise that the income share 
of the 400 richest Americans doubled over the past decade.

There is, of course, one final GOP meta-myth for Tax Day. Despite their best 
efforts to portray Republicans as the best economic stewards for America, the 
record clearly shows that the stock market and the economy over all almost 
always do better under Democratic presidents.

Source: http://www.perrspectives.com/

Recommend this article...

 

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/29923&Itemid=1
 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"WebTV Dawgs/Dittos" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/WebTV-Pals
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to