-
FactCheck.org tax
You are viewing a feed that contains frequently updated content.
When you subscribe to a feed, it is added to the Common Feed List.
Updated information from the feed is automatically downloaded to
your computer and can be viewed in Internet Explorer and other
programs. Learn more about feeds.
Subscribe to this feed
How Much Is the Mandate Tax?
Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 12:05:18 PM | Lori Robertson
On Connecticut Public Broadcasting, Managing Editor Lori
Robertson explains how much individuals will pay if they refuse to
have health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The minimum
tax will be $695 per person, but no more than $2,085 per family in
2016. But that amount can be higher, depending on the taxpayers
income.
For more on the health care laws mandate penalty, see our June
28 Ask FactCheck, How Much Is the Obamacare Tax?
Comments (0)
how_much_is_the_tax.mp3
How Much Is the Obamacare Tax?
Thursday, June 28, 2012, 4:18:11 PM | Brooks Jackson
Q: How much will the tax penalty be for going without health
insurance?
A: The minimum assessment will be $695 per person (but no more
than $2,085 per family) in 2016, when fully phased in. The amount
can be higher depending on income. But there are exemptions for
low-income persons and others.
FULL QUESTION
-
For once, were asking this question of ourselves, knowing that
our readers will be curious about it now that the Supreme Court has
upheld the key portions of the Affordable Care Act. Well also ask
and answer these questions:
Is it a tax or a penalty? If I choose to go without health
coverage, how much will I have to pay? Who will collect it? What if
I am covered for only part of the year? What if I refuse to pay?
Are there exemptions? How many people will pay?
FULL ANSWER
Lets take those questions in order.
Is It a Tax or a Penalty?
We will be using the terms interchangeably from now on. Whatever
you call it, its the functional equivalent of a tax, and the
Supreme Court has ruled that it is an exercise of the taxing power
of Congress.
The law labels the assessment a penalty (see Section 5000A) and
avoids using the term tax. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing
for the five justices in the majority, said the penalty can be
considered a tax that is within the power of Congress to
impose.
His reasons are set out starting on page 33 of the opinion.
Among other things, Roberts concluded that the penalty was not
intended to be a criminal fine, because those who choose to pay it,
rather than honor the mandate to obtain health insurance, would be
in full compliance with the law. He also noted that the amount is
not prohibitively high:
Chief Justice John Roberts: [F]or most Americans the amount due
will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it
can never be more.
How Much?
The minimum amount per person will be $695 once the tax is fully
phased in. But it will be less to start. The minimum penalty per
person will start at $95 in 2014, the first year that the law will
require individuals to obtain coverage. And it will rise to $325
the following year.
Starting in 2017, the minimum tax per person will rise each year
with inflation. And for children 18 and under, the minimum
per-person tax is half of that for adults.
However, the minimum amount per family is capped at triple the
per-person tax, no matter how many individuals are in the taxpayers
household. So, for example, a couple with one child over
-
18 (or two children age 18 or under), and no coverage, would pay
a minimum of $285 in 2014, $975 in 2015 and $2,085 in 2016. And
that would be the minimum no matter how many uninsured dependents a
taxpayer has.
The tax would be more for persons with higher taxable incomes.
When phased in, it will be 2.5 percent of household income that
exceeds the income threshold for filing a tax return. For 2011,
those thresholds were $9,500 for a single person under age 65, and
$19,000 for a married person filing jointly with a spouse. So, to
give a rough calculation, a couple with $100,000 of income might
pay a tax of $2,025 if they choose to go without coverage.
But the penalty can never exceed the cost of the national
average premiums for the lowest-cost bronze plans being offered
through the new insurance exchanges called for under the law. We
have no way of knowing what that average rate might turn out to be
in 2014, but there is reason to think it could be quite high. For
example, the total cost of a basic Government Employees Health
Association plan currently offered through the Federal Employee
Health Benefit program (the model for the state insurance
exchanges) totals $9,459 per year for a family plan, and $4,159 for
individual coverage.
Update, June 29: The cost of a bronze plan could be higher,
however. In January 2010 the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office issued this estimate:
CBO, Jan. 11, 2010: Overall, CBO estimates that premiums for
Bronze plans purchased individually in 2016 would probably average
between $4,500 and $5,000 for single policies and between $12,000
and $12,500 for family policies.
CBO has not issued any new estimate since that one, according to
spokeswoman Deborah Kilroe.
Who Collects?
The penalty will be collected by the Internal Revenue Service,
which is one reason the chief justice cited for considering it to
be a tax. In fact, the penalty is spelled out in Title 26 of the
U.S. Code the Internal Revenue Code under Subtitle D Miscellaneous
Excise Taxes.
Partial Coverage
A tax is assessed for each month that a person is not covered.
It is pro-rated, so that a person who is not covered for only a
single month would pay 1/12th of the tax that would be due for the
full year.
So, for example, the minimum tax per person for failing to get
coverage would be $7.92 for each month of 2014, $28.75 for each
month of 2015, and $57.92 for each month of 2016, when fully phased
in.
Refusal to Pay
-
The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or
seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law
says specifically that taxpayers shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay, and also that
the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things
as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a levy (seizure of
property or bank accounts).
The law says that the IRS will collect the tax in the same
manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68 of
the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an
additional penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or
not collected. It also requires written notices to the taxpayer,
and provides for court proceedings.
So it may turn out that the IRS will be suing those who fail to
pay the tax for double the amount. But so far, the IRS has not
spelled out exactly how it will enforce the new penalty with the
limited power the law gives it.
Whos Exempt?
The law makes a number of exemptions for low-income persons and
hardship cases.
Individuals who cannot afford coverage: If an employer offers
coverage that would cost the employee more than 8 percent of his or
her household income (for self-only coverage) that individual is
exempt from the tax.
Taxpayers with income below filing threshold: Also exempt are
those who earn too little to be required to file tax returns. For
2011 as previously mentioned those thresholds were $9,500 for a
single person under age 65, and $19,000 for a married person filing
jointly with a spouse, for example. The thresholds go up each year
in line with inflation, so those cut-offs will be higher in 2014,
when the tax first takes effect.
Hardships: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is
empowered to exempt others that she or he determines to have
suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain
coverage.
Other exemptions: Also exempt are members of Indian tribes,
persons with only brief gaps in coverage, and members of certain
religious groups currently exempt from Social Security taxes (which
as weve previously reported are chiefly Anabaptist that is,
Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite).
How Many Will Pay?
In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts cited an estimate from the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that 4 million would pay,
and cited that as a further reason to consider the assessment a tax
rather than a penalty. Congress did not think it was creating four
million outlaws, he suggested.
-
However, since then, CBO has increased its estimate. In an
estimate released in March of this year, CBO projected that the tax
would yield $6 billion for the government, up from the $4 billion
it estimated two years earlier. Thats a 50 percent higher total,
and would seem to imply that CBO now expects about 6 million will
be paying. But CBO didnt give a specific figure for the number of
persons it now expects to pay.
Brooks Jackson
Sources
Pettit, Carol A. and Edward C. Liu. The PPACA Penalty Provision
and the Internal Revenue Service. Congressional Research Service.
30 Apr 2010.
United States Supreme Court. National Federation of Independent
Businesses et al. v. Sebelius. 28 Jun 2012.
26 USC 5000A Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. Undated.
Accessed 28 Jun 2012.
Internal Revenue Service. Table 1: 2011 Filing Requirements
Chart for Most Taxpayers Publication 501. Undated. Accessed 28 Jun
2012.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Non-Postal Premium Rates
for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Undated.
Accessed 28 Jun 2012.
26 USC 6672. Failure to collect and pay over tax, or attempt to
evade or defeat tax. Cornell University Law School Legal
Information Institute. Undated. Accessed 28 Jun 2012.
Henig, Jess. Dhimmitude and the Muslim Exemption. FactCheck.org.
20 May 2010.
Congressional Budget Office. Payments of Penalties for Being
Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 22
Apr 2010.
Congressional Budget Office. Updated Estimates for the Insurance
Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act. 13 Mar 2012.
Comments (0)
Health Care Law and W-2 Forms
Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 2:36:24 PM | Brooks Jackson
-
Q: Does the new health care law require workers to pay income
tax on the value of employer-provided health insurance?
A: No. The value will appear on employees W-2 forms for
information purposes, but will not be considered taxable
income.
FULL QUESTION
I would like to know how accurate the following e-mail claim
is:
You really need to read thisstarts next year
This is supposed to be part of the new Health Care Bill.
The originator of this notice contacted his Congressman about
House bill HR3590 the health care bill, that just passed, and asked
for a summary of changes. An aid directed him to go to www:
thomas.gov ; enter HR3590 in the search Box and look for
summaries.
Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W 2 tax form sent by
your employer Will be increased to show the value of what ever
health insurance you are Given by the company. It does not matter
if thats a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If
youre retired ? So what; your gross Will go up by the amount of
insurance you get.
The dollar value (cost of what the company pays for your
insurance) will be considered income and added to your gross pay.
You will be taxed on the total.
Click to expand/collapse the full text
You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that
you have never seen.
Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or
$20,000 Additional gross does to your tax debt. Thats what youll
pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket
so its even worse.
This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15 %
that dont Have insurance and its only part of the tax
increases.
Not believing this I researched the summaries and heres what I
read:
On page 25 of 29 :
TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET
PROVISIONS-(sec . 9001 , as modified by sec. 10901)
-
Sec.9002. "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each
employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group
health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross
income."
Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters.
Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect
you. Number 3 is what I just told you about.
Why am I sending you this ?. The same reason I hope you forward
this to every single person in your address book.
People have the right to know the truth because an election is
coming in November
FULL ANSWER
Heres another one to add to the list of false claims about the
new health care law.
Its true that the value of employer-paid health insurance will
be added as an information item on W-2 forms. But contrary to this
widely circulating chain e-mail, it definitely will not be
considered taxable income.
Readers who followed the 2008 presidential campaign may recall
that it was Republican candidate John McCain who proposed to make
the value of employer-sponsored health insurance taxable. Democrats
hated that idea; Barack Obama ran an ad claiming, falsely, that it
would be the "largest middle-class tax increase in history."
So it is ironic that some of President Obamas critics now claim
that the bill he signed would do what his opponent proposed and he
denounced. Ironic, but false.
The e-mails author correctly quotes a Congressional Research
Service summary of the bill that became law (H.R. 3590), noting
that Section 9002 "Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of
each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored
group health coverage." But the author then goes on to conclude
quite incorrectly that this amount will be "added to your gross
pay" and that "[y]ou will be taxed on the total." The CRS did not
say that, and neither does the legislation itself. In fact, the
value will continue to be untaxed, just as in the past.
The e-mails author also claims that an article written by Joan
Pryde, a senior editor of the Kiplinger letters, backs up the
claim: "Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could
affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about." But the truth
is that the Kiplinger letters actually contradicts the claim.
Prydes article is dated April 5 and is headlined "Health Care
Reform: Tax Hikes on the Way Here are 13 changes in the massive
overhaul that could impact your tax bill, for better or worse."
Among them:
-
3. A requirement that businesses include the value of the health
care benefits they provide to employees on W-2s, beginning with
W-2s for 2011. The amount reported is not considered taxable
income.
The author of this false e-mail seems to have missed the second
sentence in that paragraph the part that says the amount "is not
considered taxable income."
Brooks Jackson
Sources
Pryde, Joan. "Health Care Reform: Tax Hikes on the Way."
Kiplinger letters. 5 Apr 2010.
United States. Cong. Senate. 111th Congress, 2 nd Session. H.R.
3590, "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." (Enrolled
as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate). accessed 26 May
2010.
Comments (0)
Privately Owned Gun Tax?
Sunday, June 07, 2009, 2:13:59 PM | Brooks Jackson
Q: Would Senate bill 2099 put a yearly $50 tax on each privately
owned firearm?
A: There is no such bill. A chain e-mail containing bogus claims
refers to a bill that died more than eight years ago.
FULL QUESTION
Is this one legit?
Subject: IRS GUN CONTROL BILL
Click to expand/collapse the full text
Senate Bill SB-2099 gun control via IRS? Yes! Thats what they
are doing
GUN Control via IRS Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put
on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It
may require fingerprints. And a tax of $50 per gun. This
-
bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will Become public
knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law.
This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This
means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate
voting on it at all. The full text of the proposed amendment is on
the U.S. Senate homepage, http://www.senate.gov/ You can find the
bill by doing a search by the bill Number, SB-2099. You know who to
call; I strongly suggest you do.
FULL ANSWER
S. 2099 (not "SB" 2099) was introduced Feb. 24, 2000, by
Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He called it the
"Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000," and as the title
implies it would have applied only to handguns, not to "all guns
you have or own."
Its true that the bill would have required owners of handguns to
register them with the federal government within one year, under
the 1934 National Firearms Act (which is part of the Internal
Revenue Code). That law requires a federal permit to own a machine
gun, a sawed-off rifle or shotgun, or a silencer. Reed said in a
news release that in practical terms, handgun owners would need to
fill out a registration form, get fingerprinted by local law
enforcement officials and obtain a local "Law Enforcement
Certification." These would be sent to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, along with a recent photo (2 inches by 2
inches) and a $5 registration fee.
False Claims
The bill would indeed have required a $50 tax on each handgun,
but it would have been a one-time tax, not an annual tax. And it
would have been imposed on the manufacturer, not on the owner as
erroneously claimed in the e-mail. That cost would no doubt have
been passed on to buyers in the form of a higher price for each new
handgun, but handgun owners would not have been required to record
their guns on their annual federal income tax forms, as wrongly
claimed in the e-mail.
Another false claim is that the bill "will become public
knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law." In fact, it was
public knowledge as soon as Reed introduced it and announced that
in the Congressional Record. The claim that the "Finance Committee
can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all" is nonsense,
as any high-school civics student should know. It would have become
law if passed both by the full House and Senate and signed into law
by the president.
That didnt happen. The bill was referred to the Senate Finance
Committee, and it eventually attracted two cosponsors. But when the
106th Congress adjourned at the end of 2000, the bill died without
getting so much as a subcommittee hearing, let alone a vote. Reed
has not reintroduced the bill since then.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources
-
U.S. Senate. "S. 2099, Handgun Safety and Registration Act of
2000." (as introduced 24 Feb 2000.)
United States Code. "Title 26, National Firearms Act. 6 Jul
2009.
U.S. Congressional Record. 24 Feb. 2000: S812.
Comments (0)
Rahm Emanuel Property Taxes
Wednesday, March 04, 2009, 8:23:49 AM | Jess Henig
Q: Does Rahm Emanuel pay property taxes?
A: The presidents chief of staff does pay taxes on his home.
Failed attempts to find his records are the fault of shoddy
research.
FULL QUESTION
Any idea if this is true?
Chain e-mail text: Why doesnt Rahm Emanuel pay property
taxes?
Click to expand/collapse the full text
According to the Cook County Assessors website, the Chicago home
of four-term Democrat Congressman and new White House Chief of
Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesnt exist. While the address of 4228 North
Hermitage is listed as Emanuels residence on the Illinois State
Board of Elections website, there seems to be no public record of
Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home.
The Cook County Assessors and Cook County Treasurers online
records indicate Emanuels Chicago neighbors pay between $3,500 and
$7,000 annually. However, Illinois Review has been unable to locate
any evidence that the former Clinton advisor and investment banker
is paying his fair share of Cook Countys notoriously high tax
burden.
Why wouldnt 4228 North Hermitage property owners Rahm Emanuel
and wife Amy Rule pay property taxes?
One reason may be because Emanuel and Rule declared their 4228
North Hermitage home as the office location for their personal
non-profit foundation called the "Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule
-
Charitable Foundation". As the non-profits headquarters, their
home could be exempt from paying property taxes.
In January 2007, USA Today reported on Emanuels foundation:
The Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Trust was formed in
2002, when the Chicago lawmaker was first elected. The former
Clinton White House aide and his wife, Amy Rule, are its only
donors. Emanuel was an investment banker after serving in the White
House.
The trust reported having $2,900 on hand at the end of 2005
after receiving $34,000 from Emanuel and donating more than $31,000
During the past three years, Emanuels charity gave nearly $25,000
to the Anshe Emet synagogue and school [a private school that the
Rahm/Rule children attend], and $15,000 to the foundation run by
former president Bill Clinton. It also gave $14,000 to Marwen, a
Chicago charity that provides art classes and other educational
help to low-income children. Rule is on Marwens board.
(He doesnt pay any property taxes and he gets income tax
write-offs by donating $25,000 to the Synagogue and other amounts
of money to his Foundation. This allows his kids to attend school
tuition-free and allows him to expense a lot of personal expenses.
What a racket!
Take all your income and donate it back to yourself via tax
exempt orgs. where you can spend it on things such as expenses to
operate your car, pay the electric and water bills, etc.
(Apparently if you are a hypocritical "liberal" democrat who
advocates raising taxes on everyone else, this is all
permissible.)
Emanuels 4228 North Hermitage home is one of the largest in the
neighborhood, with a side yard that appears to be a vacant lot,
making the Emanuels property the largest portion on the block.
Other North Hermitage homes on Emanuels block are valued in the
$500,000 plus range. According to Cook County Treasurers website,
the Chicago owners of nearby 118 year old 4222 North Hermitage pay
almost $6800 annually. The family at 4224 North Heritage pays $6000
each year in property taxes.
President Obama himself a connected, Chicago insider, who has
benefited from questionable land deals may find it difficult to
explain why his very own Chicago-based chief of staff doesnt pay
property taxes like the "little guy" he claims to represent. Or
perhaps allowing his wealthy friends to avoid taxes is part of
Obamas trickle down redistribution economics. Its certainly the
kind of "change" we Illinoisans can believe insince were quite
familiar with it here in the federal indictment land of Daley,
Blagojevich, Madigan, Jones, Cellini, Rezko, .and maybe, soon ..
Burris.
FULL ANSWER
-
Not only does White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel pay his
property taxes, but he pays them in advance. Property taxes for the
first half of 2008 were due on Tuesday, March 3, 2009. Emanuel paid
his on February 23. Last year, he paid $13,022.60 in taxes on his
home.
The e-mail above is taken from a post made by the conservative
blog Illinois Review on Nov. 6, 2008 (the site has now removed the
post, but it lives on in chain e-mail form). It says that there is
no record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on his home in
Chicago and cites a number of sneaky ways that Emanuel could have
gotten out of paying the taxes. But the very premise of the post is
wrong: Illinois Review bloggers needed to do a little more
reporting before jumping to conclusions. The reason they didnt find
tax records is that Emanuels mailing address is different from his
official property location in the Cook County tax records.
"His house sits on two lots," said Eric Herman at the Cook
County Assessors Office. Its not at all unusual, Herman told us,
for combined lots to use one address for mail even though a
different address is associated with the propertys permanent index
number used in tax records. Cook County assesses homes using PINs
for exactly this reason; addresses can change when lots are broken
up or combined. "The bottom line," says Herman, "is that its the
same property. Two lots, one PIN number." In fact, tax records for
Emanuels house show both addresses one for the property location,
and one for the mailing address. Anyone can access the tax
information with the PIN (14-18-408-035-0000), and weve posted a
pdf of the record here so you can see for yourself.
Herman said that the Illinois Review bloggers had searched the
Cook County records by address, not by PIN, using the mailing
address from Emanuels financial disclosure form. He notes that they
didnt call the assessors office or make any attempt to verify the
information. In fact, Herman told us he posted comments on the blog
alerting IR to the error, but his comments were deleted. IR took
the entire post down a day later, citing "government intimidation."
The site also posted a follow-up reasserting that Emanuels mailing
address had no associated tax records, but acknowledging that
"Emanuels foundation has no impact on his property taxes."
The follow-up closes by saying, "Where there is smoke, there is
usually fire." No word on whether this applies when the smoke is a
mirage. -Jess Henig
Sources
Office of the Cook County Treasurer. 2008 and 2007 tax year
information for 4232 N. Hermitage Ave. Accessed 4 Mar. 2009.
Illinois Review. "Where Theres Smoke" 6 Nov. 2008.
-
Comments (0)
Spread the Tax Hooey!
Sunday, October 26, 2008, 1:41:02 PM | Viveca Novak
Summary
Republicans are misrepresenting Obama's tax proposals right down
to the bitter end. New radio ads from the McCain campaign and a TV
spot from the pro-Republican group Let Freedom Ring are targeting
voters nationwide with some of the same tax deceptions we've been
hearing all fall, rolled in a bundle and flung through the
airwaves. One of the radio ads features Hank Williams Jr., the
other Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. But new packaging doesn't make
the charges any less false.
Taxes wouldn't have gone up on "families" making as little as
$42,000 under the budget resolution passed last spring, as the
Charlie Crist ad says. Try $90,000 for a typical family of four.
And anyway, that measure doesn't at all resemble what Obama's
actually proposing to do.
The Let Freedom Ring ad claimed that Obama has "voted to allow
the Bush tax cuts to expire," meaning "our income taxes will
actually go up." But Obama only voted to let some of the tax cuts
expire, and at any rate nobody's taxes are going up as a result of
that vote. The group yanked this ad off the air rather than try to
defend it.
Echoing a recent McCain theme, Crist says, "McCain knows that
people don't want to 'spread the wealth,' " condemning Obama's use
of the phrase when he talked to "Joe the Plumber." Actually, McCain
has supported taxing high earners more than low earners. Not so
long ago McCain said, "Wealthy people can afford [to pay] more."
Obama's tax plan would "spread the wealth" more than McCain's, but
it's not as though McCain wants to do away with the progressive tax
system we currently have.
Analysis
The McCain-Palin campaign and Republican National Committee are
running the Charlie Crist radio ad in Florida, while the Hank
Williams Jr. version is running in Virginia, Colorado, Missouri,
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio and several other states, according to
Politico. Let Freedom Ring was airing its TV ad in battleground
states as part of a million-dollar ad buy, but pulled the spot from
the airwaves because the group felt it couldn't stand behind the
ad's assertions. Nevertheless, the ad was still prominently
displayed on the group's Web site, neverfindout.org, as of Oct.
25.
"Folks"-y Deception
-
Listen to McCain-Palin 2008/RNC radio ad.
Click to expand/collapse the full transcript
McCain-Palin 2008/RNC Radio Ad: Hank Williams Jr.
Hank Williams Jr.: Hello, this is Hank Williams Jr. When Barack
Obama said folks like you and me were bitter, and clinging to guns
and religion, I knew he just doesnt understand small-town America.
We love our God, and we love our guns, especially handed down from
our grandfather. We resent it when liberals like Obama question our
way of life. Dont be bitter. Vote McCain.
Announcer: Congressional liberals want to increase spending by
nearly a trillion dollars. And raise taxes on folks making $42,000
a year to pay for it. Congressional liberals call it taxing the
rich. We call it out of touch. No wonder they criticize our values,
but expect us to accept theirs. Congressional liberals: Out of
touch with our America. Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the
Republican National Committee. Im John McCain and I approve this
message.
The radio ads present us with a slight variation on an old
theme, telling us that to pay for new programs, "congressional
liberals" want to raise taxes on "folks" making $42,000 a year, in
the case of the Williams ad, and "American families" making that
amount, in the case of the Crist ad.
The claims refer to the budget resolution that Obama and others
voted for earlier this year, which we've written about over and
over. First off, a budget resolution is a kind of rough budgetary
blueprint that Congress passes each year. Its specific provisions
can't take effect without further legislation, and lawmakers have
taken no action to implement this one, which in theory would have
allowed Bush's tax cuts to expire for people in the 25 percent tax
bracket, allowing their tax rate to revert to 28 percent.
Even if it had been enacted, though, there would have been no
tax hike for "families" (as one ad says) making $42,000 a year.
(The other ad says "folks," a somewhat less precise phraseology).
No, nyet, non, nein. We have nightmares about our very own version
of the film "Groundhog Day," in which we wake to Sonny and Cher's
"I Got You, Babe," then stagger to our laptop and type these
sentences: While it's true that a single taxpayer making $42,000 a
year would have seen his or her taxes go up by about $15 if this
provision had been followed up and enacted, a family of four would
have had to hit an income level of $90,000 before experiencing a
tax hike. For couples, the figure would have been $83,000.
And, once again, Obama himself proposes tax cuts for 95 percent
of families with children. Only families with more than $250,000
annual income would see an increase.
We could say that we didn't think the McCain campaign had heard
a word we've said over these long months, but we know it has: It
cites our work in its back-up for the Crist ad. The article it
quotes from though "The $32,000 Question" doesn't support what the
radio ad says. What we said is this: "The resolution Obama voted
for would not have increased taxes on any single
-
taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or
any couple making less than $83,000."
Maybe the campaign is only half-listening.
100% Wrong
Click to expand/collapse the full transcript
Let Freedom Ring Ad: "Income Taxes"
Man: Senator Obama, you have promised that you will cut taxes
for 90% of America. But youve also voted to allow the Bush tax cuts
to expire. So that means our income taxes will actually go up. Did
you think this was going to get past us? So lets make this real
simple: if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, how many
taxpayers would pay more taxes?
[Graphic: "100% of America"]
This is not good change.
Announcer: What happens when we elect a President who raises our
taxes? Please, America, lets never find out.
The Let Freedom Ring TV ad is even worse. It claimed that "100%
of America" would see taxes go up because Obama "voted to allow the
Bush tax cuts to expire." This is so far from reality that we had
to ask Let Freedom Ring what vote it could possibly be referring
to. And a spokesman said it was Obama's vote on the same budget
resolution just mentioned. But as we noted above, the resolution
only would have let some of those tax cuts expire. It would have
preserved provisions that benefit families "marriage penalty"
relief, child tax credits, a 10 percent tax bracket for the
lowest-earning taxpayers. It did not call for letting the cuts
expire for "100 percent of America." So the claim in this ad is 100
percent wrong. And Let Freedom Ring appears to know that. "We
weren't comfortable" with the ad's assertion, the spokesman told
us, and the group has taken it off the air. It still appears on the
Web site for the group's ad campaign, however.
Looking forward, Obama's actual tax plan would indeed allow Bush
tax cuts to expire, but only for the top two income tax brackets.
Those would revert to pre-Bush levels, and the brackets would be
adjusted if necessary to ensure that they include only individuals
making more than $200,000 per year, or couples making more than
$250,000. (Two percent of the population will make more than
$250,000 next year).
Obama proposes a number of tax cuts for lower- and
moderate-income people. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy
Center, by 2012 middle-income people (those in the middle one-fifth
of all households) would get to keep an extra $2,200 per year in
after-tax income on average under Obama than they do now. Under
McCain, that figure would be $1,400. The top 1 percent of
-
earners, on the other hand, would have to pay an average of
$19,000 more in taxes under Obama, while under McCain they'd see
their taxes cut by an average of $125,000.
Plumbing the Meaning
Listen to the McCain-Palin 2008/RNC radio ad.
Click to expand/collapse the full transcript
McCain-Palin 2008/RNC Radio Ad: "Spread the Wealth"
Gov. Charlie Crist: Hi, this is Governor Charlie Crist. Let me
tell you why I support my friend John McCain. He will lower your
taxes. He will stop wasteful government spending. And John McCain
knows that people don't want to "spread the wealth." He knows that
Congress should let you keep more of your money, and not take it
away. Thank you very much.
Announcer: Your savings, your job and your financial security
are under siege. Congressional liberals will make it worse.
Congressional liberals plan nearly a trillion dollars in new
government spending. To pay for it, Congressional liberals promise
higher taxes on American families making over $42,000 a year.
Barack Obama and Congressional liberals call it spreading the
wealth around, we call it higher taxes, bigger government. Either
way, it will cost you. Stop 'em before they make it worse.
Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National
Committee.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
The Crist ad refers to the phrase "spread the wealth," which was
used by Obama in his now-familiar conversation with Joe
Wurzelbacher in Toledo.
What Obama was saying is that giving tax breaks that have
disproportionately benefited upper-income taxpayers leaves those
further down the scale "pinched," with the result that "business is
bad for everybody."
Obama, Oct. 12: [W]e've cut taxes a lot for folks like me who
make a lot more than $250,000. We haven't given a break to folks
who make less. It's not that I want to punish your success, I just
want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've
got a chance at success, too. And everybody is so pinched that
business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the
wealth around, it's good for everybody.
-
Obama was wrong about one thing; the Bush tax cuts did in fact
give tax breaks "to folks who make less," including the previously
mentioned 10 percent tax bracket, "marriage penalty" relief and an
increase in the per-child tax credit, all of which Obama proposes
to keep. What his plan would do is provide even more tax benefits
at the middle and low end of the scale, while increasing taxes at
the top.
This way of "spread[ing] the wealth around" is hardly a new
concept. The United States already has a progressive tax system by
which high earners are taxed at higher rates than those who make
less. Obama would make it somewhat more progressive. (The Williams
ad uses the term "taxing the rich.")
McCain himself hasn't always seemed so opposed to progressive
taxation. Here's what he said in a 2000 meeting with college
students sponsored by the MSNBC program "Hardball," when questioned
about the issue:
McCain, Oct. 12, 2000: [W]e feel, obviously, that wealthy people
can afford more. . And I think middle-income Americans, working
Americans all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they
you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my
view. [H]ere's what I really believe, that when you are reach a
certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying
somewhat more.
In fact, the system would remain progressive under McCain's tax
plan. His argument with Obama isn't about whether to "spread the
wealth," but by how much.
Also, as we now know, Joe the Plumber would almost certainly be
entitled to a tax cut if Obama's plan were implemented and a larger
one than he'd get under McCain's.
Say It Ain't So!
The Hank Williams ad says that "congressional liberals want to
increase spending by nearly a trillion dollars." (The other ad uses
almost identical wording.) In this case, "congressional liberals"
seem to be standing in for Obama, judging from the back-up material
sent to us by the McCain team. And this is an old claim, based on
the McCain campaign's estimate that the cost of Obama's various
proposals would be $860 billion (the ad rounds the figure up
rather, um, liberally).
It's certainly true that Obama proposes large new spending
programs, while McCain proposes large but unspecified spending
cuts. But the trillion-dollar estimate (which would be spread over
four years) doesn't factor in any of Obama's proposed savings or
cuts. For example, he proposes to eliminate $15 billion per year in
subsidies given to health insurance companies for Medicare
Advantage programs, which are insurance plans offered by private
companies as an alternative to traditional government-sponsored
Medicare.
-
Outside analysts like the nonpartisan Committee for a
Responsible Federal Budget have found that neither Obama nor McCain
would come close to balancing the federal budget without additional
spending cuts or tax increases that they have yet to specify.
by Viveca Novak and Jess Henig
Sources
Dann, Carrie. "McCain's tax evolution," FirstRead, MSNBC, 21
Oct. 2008.
Martin, Jonathan. "Hank Jr. takes to radio to hammer Obama on
'bitter'," Politico, 23 Oct. 2008.
Comments (0)
hank_williams__radio_ad_mccain.mp3
Right Change Is Wrong
Friday, October 24, 2008, 1:06:48 PM | Lori Robertson
Summary
A conservative group called RightChange.com has spent $3 million
running ads that largely criticize Obama and his tax plans. Theyre
false:
Two ads say Obama would tax "small businesses" at a rate of "62
percent." He wouldnt. That number is an inflated estimate of the
very top tax rate, and it doesnt represent what Obama has
proposed.
That false figure includes an increased Social Security tax rate
that Obama doesnt support, plus the state income tax rate paid by
people making more than a million dollars a year in California.
One ad implies that regular folks just trying to make it as
entrepreneurs would be hit with such a rate. But even if this
estimate were correct and its not it would affect the wealthiest
taxpayers and only 1 percent of those who could generously be
considered small-business owners.
Analysis
RightChange.com, a 527 group out of North Carolina, is largely
bankrolled by its president, Fred Eshelman, the CEO of a
pharmaceutical research firm, who has contributed $2.7 million of
the $3.8 million the group has raised this year. According to
OpenSecrets.org, Eshelman has also contributed $2,300 to Sen. John
McCains campaign. Two of the other three members of its board of
directors are GOP state legislators in North Carolina.
RightChange.com has spent just over $3 million so far.
-
The group has been running ads on national cable networks
targeting Sen. Barack Obama, mainly by calling into question his
tax proposals. The ads offer a false picture of how Obamas plan
would affect small businesses.
Click to expand/collapse the full transcript
RightChange Ad: "Angry?"
Announcer: Angry with politicians pushing higher taxes in an
economic crisis? Read the fine print of Barack Obamas tax plan.
Obama will tax Wall Street firms that caused the crisis at 35
percent, while many small businesses pay 62 percent. And, keep only
38 cents of every dollar. The government takes the rest. Change?
Or, just higher taxes in an economic crisis? Change. Tell Barack
Obama not to raise taxes in an economic crisis. Right Change.com is
responsible for the content of this advertisement.
A 62 Percent Tax Rate?
In one of its ads, titled "Angry?," Right Change says that
"Obama will tax Wall Street firms at 35 percent, while many small
businesses pay 62 percent."
An outrage, right? The Tax Foundations Gerald Prante sure thinks
so about the ads claim, that is. He wrote a blistering critique of
the ad, saying, "This is so ridiculous that Im almost at a loss for
words." Prante went on to question RightChange.coms general
knowledge of how taxes work, saying: "The people behind this ad are
either downright deceitful or too stupid to understand [marginal
tax rates]; and given what else they are putting out I dont know
which it is."
The Tax Foundation, by the way, has a pro-business leaning.
What has Prante so upset? Well, first, the 62 percent number is
just plain wrong. No business of any size whatsoever would get hit
with such a rate. And "many small businesses" wouldnt face a rate
anywhere close to that. Most, in fact, wouldnt see their taxes go
up at all. The ad compares taxes for corporations and small
businesses based on the assumption that some small-business owners
file their taxes as individuals, not corporations. But the
overwhelming majority of small-business owners that do so wouldnt
face a tax increase under Obamas plan, because it proposes no tax
hikes for anyone earning less than $200,000 a year, or $250,000 for
married couples.
Plus, the ads claim that small businesses would "keep only 38
cents of every dollar" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of
how people are taxed in this country. That claim is doubly wrong:
The figure is false, and, even if it were correct, the "every
dollar" charge is nonsense.
Lets look at where that 62 percent figure comes from. It
appeared in an op-ed, which ran in the Wall Street Journal, by
Stanford economist Michael Boskin, the former chairman of President
George H.W. Bushs Council of Economic Advisers. Boskin was talking
about what would
-
happen to the top marginal income tax rate of 35 percent under
Obama. (Obama says hell raise that to the pre-Bush-tax-cut level of
39.6 percent.)
Heres the deal on that top marginal rate: In 2008, it will
affect those with taxable income (in other words, net income after
deductions) of more than $357,700. (For 2009 income, the cut off
will be $372,950.) About 1 percent of what could generously be
considered small-business owners who file taxes as individuals
would be in this tax bracket, according to the Tax Policy Center.
The top marginal rate is only applied to money earned above that
level. So, if an individual has taxable income of $367,700 in 2008,
for instance, $10,000 would be taxed at 35 percent. The rest of
that persons income is taxed at lower rates. In order to come up
with his inflated figure, Boskin starts with the 39.6 percent top
federal marginal income rate Obama has proposed. He then adds
Californias top marginal rate of 10.3 percent, a rate that is now
only applied to those who earn more than $1 million a year, and is
the highest of all state income taxes in the U.S. When Boskins
op-ed ran in late July, the state Legislature was debating a
controversial hike in some taxes, which would have put a 10 percent
rate on taxable income over $321,000, but that proposal failed. If
RightChange.com wanted to make a truthful ad, it would need to say
that its inflated tax rate applies to millionaires living in
California not "many small businesses."
Wrong on Social Security Taxes Boskin then factors in a 1.2
percent rate for a phase out of itemized deductions (returning to
the status quo before the Bush cuts), the standard 2.9 percent
Medicare tax and a new Social Security tax on income above $250,000
of 12.4 percent. That last number is also vastly inflated and not
something that Obama has proposed and Boskin acknowledges that in
an updated version of his Journal opinion pieces. Ironically,
RightChange.com e-mailed us that updated version as its back-up for
this ad.
Social Security taxes of 12.4 percent are now only applied to
income up to $102,000. Obama has supported the idea of lifting that
cap but only for income above $250,000. Income between those two
amounts would not be subject to Social Security taxes. Boskin
speculates in his op-ed that the tax rate on upper income people
under Obama "could be as high as 12.4%." But in his revised
version, he notes that Obama has proposed a 2 percent to 4 percent
tax on such earnings, not 12.4 percent.
Technically, Obama hasnt formally proposed the Social Security
change, but hes open to doing so a decade down the road. Two of his
advisers laid out his tax plan in an Aug. 14 Wall Street Journal
piece, in which they said he was "considering" the 2 percent to 4
percent Social Security tax, which would "start a decade or more
from now." To be fair, Boskins broad interpretation of what Obama
might support came before his advisers gave this explicit
information.
That knocks Boskins estimate down by a full 12.4 percent for the
near future, and by at least 8.4 percent if he were projecting such
taxes 10 or more years from now. Those in states with much lower
income taxes than Californias (or small-business owners who arent
millionaires in that state) would see this top marginal rate drop
even further.
-
Boskin clearly states that hes talking about the very top
marginal rate, but RightChange.com ignores that. Its ad goes on to
claim that small businesses would "keep 38 cents of every dollar,"
which is patently false. Even if businesses were taxed at 62
percent, which none would be under either presidential candidates
plan, they wouldnt face such a rate on "every dollar." This is the
top marginal tax rate that Boskin is analyzing, and as we
explained, it would only apply to net income above $357,700 in
2008. This is the claim that led the Tax Foundations Prante to
question Right Changes motivations or brainpower.
Those Regular-Guy Small-Business Owners
Another ad on RightChange.coms site, titled "Fair," features a
couple that owns a kitchenware shop. The woman says, "We started
off with a dream and lots of debt. We struggled, but were making
it." She contends that Obama would "punish small businesses" like
hers with that 62 percent rate.
The implication that your average mom-and-pop entrepreneurs pay
the top tax rate, let alone this bogus version, is absurd. If this
woman is taxed at the top rate, shes "making it" better than 99
percent of what could be considered small-business owners.
As weve explained before, many business owners file taxes as
individuals and, therefore, pay personal income taxes on their
business income. But the overwhelming majority of business owners
(and people in general) do not earn enough to be affected by any
tax increase under Obama. They earn less than $200,000 as
individuals or $250,000 as a couple, and Obama proposes not raising
their taxes.
Would any small-business owners pay more? Its likely. Obama
plans to return the top two income tax brackets to their rates
before the Bush tax cuts. Theres no clear agreed-upon definition of
"small business." But the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center
projects that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income, or
business losses, in 2009 will fall into the top two brackets,
including 457,000 who are projected to fall into the top bracket.
Thats 1.3 percent of all tax filers who are expected to report
business income or losses, including lawyers and other
professionals who get partnership distributions, those who are
passive investors in deals such as real estate, farmers and others
with freelance or outside consulting income. Those who could
legitimately be called "small-business owners" would be even less
than that.
How much would Obama raise taxes for the top earners? He says
hell increase their marginal tax rate of 35 percent to 39.6
percent, which would mean theyd pay 4.6 percent more on net income
above $372,950 in 2009. Theyd also pay 3 percent more on income
from $200,000 (or $250,000 if filing as a married couple) up to
$372,950, since the second-highest tax rate would also be raised
for such earners.
And Theres More
The "Angry?" ad also says that Obama would tax "Wall Street
firms that caused the crisis at 35 percent." Thats the current
corporate tax rate, and Obama has made no proposal to change it.
But Boskins analysis compares an individual top marginal rate to a
combined corporate
-
marginal rate on dividends and capital gains, which he
calculates to be 58 percent. Both his calculations are inflated
beyond what Obama has proposed, but if RightChange.com wanted to
give an apples-to-apples comparison, it would use Boskins higher
number for the corporate rate.
We could go on about other RightChange.com ads, like the one
that claims Obamas "retirement tax" would "punish" seniors even
though, as weve said, Obamas proposal to raise the capital gains
and dividend rate would only affect those retirees making more than
$200,000 a year (or $250,000 for a couple). And he proposes
eliminating the federal income tax for seniors 65 and older who
earn less than $50,000 a year.
RightChange.com, which calls itself a "nonpartisan"
organization, also touts on its home page the Republicans criticism
of Obamas "refundable tax credit" of $500 for workers (or $1,000
for couples), calling it a "wealth distribution" scheme. It doesnt
mention that McCain proposes a "refundable tax credit" of up to
$2,500 ($5,000 for couples) as part of his health care plan.
by Lori Robertson
Sources
Prante, Gerald. Rightchang.com Running False Ads Attacking Obama
on Taxes. Tax Foundation, 29 Sept. 2008.
Boskin, Michael J. Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession. Wall
Street Journal, 29 July 2008.
Table T08-0164, Distribution of Tax Units with Business Income
by Statutory Marginal Tax Rate. Tax Policy Center, 14 July
2008.
State Individual Income Tax Rates, 2000-2008. Tax Foundation, 3
Feb. 2008.
Furman, Jason and Austan Goolsbee. The Obama Tax Plan. Wall
Street Journal, 14 Aug. 2008.
Rau, Jordan. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs $145-billion California
budget. Los Angeles Times, 24 Sept. 2008.
Zapler, Mike. Budget proposal goes nowhere. San Jose Mercury
News, 18 Aug. 2008.
Comments (0)
Obamas Celebrity Cred
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 9:24:49 AM | Joe Miller
Summary
-
McCain's new ad claims that Obama "says he'll raise taxes on
electricity." That's false. Obama says no such thing.
McCain relies on a single quote from Obama who once and only
once so far as we can find suggested taxing "dirty energy,"
including coal and natural gas. That was in response to a
reporter's suggestion that a tax on wind power could fund
education. Obama isn't proposing any new tax on electricity or
"dirty energy" as part of his platform, and he never has.
It's true that a coal/gas tax would raise electric rates, but so
would a cap-and-trade program to restrict carbon emissions.
Cap-and-trade is an idea that both McCain and Obama support, in
different forms. Neither candidate characterizes cap-and-trade as a
"tax."
Analysis
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain once
again goes after Barack Obama, his Democratic counterpart, in a new
television ad titled "Celeb." The ad is airing on a few national
networks and in 11 "key states," according to the campaign.
Click to expand/collapse the full transcript
McCain 2008 Ad: "Celeb"
Chant: Obama! Obama!
Narrator: He's the biggest celebrity in the world.
On-screen image: Britney Spears and Paris Hilton
Narrator: But, is he ready to lead?
With gas prices soaring, Barack Obama says no to offshore
drilling.
And, says he'll raise taxes on electricity.
Higher taxes, more foreign oil, that's the real Obama.
McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.
False Claims 4 U
The ad opens with shots of massive crowds shouting Obama's name.
As the female announcer informs us that "he's the biggest celebrity
in the world," the camera cuts to quick images of Britney Spears
and Paris Hilton. The announcer then asks whether Obama is ready to
lead before informing us that Obama opposes offshore drilling and
"says he'll raise taxes on electricity." The
-
cheering crowds are replaced by ominous music as the suddenly
serious announcer intones, "Higher taxes. Foreign Oil. That's the
real Obama."
The McCain campaign sent reporters a set of "ad facts" to
accompany the new spot. But the campaign's sole source for its
charge that Obama wants to raise taxes on electricity is a short
Feb. 19 interview that Obama gave to Carlos Guerra, a reporter with
the San Antonio Express-News. Obama does in fact say, "What we
ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent,
natural gas." But that quote is out of context. Obama and Guerra
are discussing possible ways to fund education. Here's the
pertinent passage, in full:
Guerra: Have you considered other funding sources, say taxing
emerging energy forms, for example, say a penny per kilowatt hour
on wind energy?
Obama: Well, thats clean energy, and we want to drive down the
cost of that, not raise it. We need to give them subsidies so they
can start developing that. What we ought to tax is dirty energy,
like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.
But I think that the real way to fund education is for local
communities to step up and say this is important to us. There are
no shortcuts. When people say they want to fund education with
lotteries, or do this or do that, what they are saying is that this
isnt a top priority. It should be a top priority and people should
be saying, we get what we pay for.
As we read Obama's response, he is rejecting a tax on wind
energy, saying that taxing "dirty energy" is a better option, and
then he is rejecting both notions by saying "the real way" is for
local communities to "step up" and pay for education with "no
shortcuts." Obama's phrasing does leave room for interpretation,
but to our ears this is a feeble peg on which to hang a claim that
Obama wants to "raise taxes on electricity."
We asked the McCain campaign if it had any other information on
which to base this "taxes on electricity" claim, and we received no
response. We looked, but could find no instance of Obama making
mention of a tax on electricity or any other reference to a "dirty
energy" tax. In any case, no such policy proposals are currently
part of his public platform.
Cap-and-Trade Programs Are Hott!
What was Obama talking about with his "dirty energy" remark? We
asked campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor and got this response: "It
was a reference to cap and trade. A position John McCain supports."
And it's true that both McCain and Obama support cap-and-trade,
which would indeed raise the price of electricity, whether one
calls it a "tax" or not.
Cap-and-trade programs are designed to decrease the use of
fossil fuels by requiring that industries (including power
companies) cap their total carbon dioxide emissions. Companies
would receive credits for CO2 emissions; any company that managed
to stay under its quota would be permitted to sell its additional
credits. The cap (or total number of credits issued) would shrink
over time. Obama has proposed auctioning the initial credits, a
policy that he says will generate revenue that can be invested into
alternative energy research.
-
Eric Roston, of the nonpartisan Nicholas Institute for
Environmental Policy Solutions, says that any cap-and-trade program
will raise the cost of electricity. As he told FactCheck.org, "The
goal of cap-and-trade is to make fossil fuels more expensive, which
will make new technologies competitive with them." And since Obama
would be auctioning credits, Roston says that it's "not
unreasonable" to label Obama's program a tax politically.
Of course, by that standard, John McCain also favors raising
taxes on electricity. McCain's Web site prominently proclaims his
support for a cap-and-trade program, and in 2003, McCain and
then-Democrat Joe Lieberman jointly sponsored legislation that
would have implemented a cap-and-trade system.
Toxic Charges
We usually try to avoid writing articles about Hollywood's
latest gossip, but in this case, we felt that the McCain campaign's
choice of celebrities is worth a brief mention. In a conference
call with reporters, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said the ad
features Ms. Hilton and Ms. Spears because, on the listing of
"three biggest international celebrities in the world," they rank
second and third. We'll leave it to you to judge how up-to-date the
McCain campaign's celebrity meter is. But we will note that, in a
lucky coincidence, Spears and Hilton also topped an AP poll for
"worst celebrity role model." That connection appears to be
deliberate. When asked whether the campaign intended to imply that
Obama is as "frivolous and irresponsible" as Spears or Hilton,
Rogers replied, "I think that's exactly what we've been
saying."
If McCain's aides believe that Barack Obama is like Britney
Spears, that's their prerogative.
- by Joe Miller
Update, July 31: Roston contacted us after the article had been
published to clarify that it is reasonable politically to classify
Obama's cap-and-trade proposal as a tax. We understood that to be
his position, but have updated the article to reflect his
clarification.
Sources
"The Lexington Project: Breaking Our Dependence on Foreign Oil."
2008. JohnMcCain.com. 30 July 2008.
Associated Press. "Britney Tops Poll of Worst Celebrity Role
Models." 28 December 2006. MSNBC.com. 30 July 2008.
Guerra, Carlos. "Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama." 19 February
2008. The San Antonio News-Express. 30 July 2008.
S.139: The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. 9 January 2003. 30
July 2008.
Comments (0)