Hume advances falsehood that tax cuts are "Republican ideas"
SUMMARY: Brit Hume asserted that Democrats "could turn [the stimulus] into business-friendly tax cuts or personal income tax rate cuts," but that "those are Republican ideas." In fact, the recovery act included tax incentives for businesses estimated to total $75.9 billion in 2009 and 2010.
During the July 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, senior political analyst Brit Hume asserted that the Obama administration and congressional Democrats "could turn [the stimulus] into business-friendly tax cuts or personal income tax rate cuts," but that "those are Republican ideas. And this Congress and this president, they don't seem to do Republican ideas." In fact, the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included tax incentives for businesses that the nonpartisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated total $75.9 billion in 2009 and 2010.
Hume's claim follows the assertion, made on Fox News the previous day by Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen Moore, that "[t]he one thing this administration won't do is cut taxes." But the recovery act included $288 billion in tax relief, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, an annual credit of $400 per individual or $800 for families, in addition to a temporary increase in the earned income tax credit, a temporary increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit, and an increase in the first-time homebuyer tax credit, as well as the business tax incentives.
Furthermore, the Fiscal Year 2010 budget Obama submitted to Congress has several tax cuts for individuals and businesses, including a proposal to "eliminate capital gains taxation on small businesses."
From the July 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
HUME: If you listen carefully to the talk about a second stimulus package, what you will hear is the sound of chickens coming home to roost. Defenders of the $787 billion spending colossus Congress passed back in February say only a small fraction of the money has gone out and it's not fair to call the whole thing a failure because unemployment is still going up. Fair enough.
But that's the age-old problem with government stimulus. It always takes a while for the money to get out the door, get spent, get into the hands of consumers, who it is hoped will then spend it again to get things moving.
Too often by the time that happens, the economy is already recovering and the money is largely wasted. The spend-out rate will doubtless accelerate in the months ahead and may have more of an effect. But, remember, that money is not free. It has to be taxed or borrowed from people already sweating out a bad economy, and the amounts involved this time are so staggering that the future borrowing and taxing they will require will be a major burden on the economy.
Don't expect anyone to admit that the huge stimulus package, with all the questionable stuff that was in it, was a mistake. But don't expect anyone, least of all the Obama administration, to let Congress do it again -- Bret.
BRET BAIER (host): What do you think the chances are that the administration would redirect some of the money that's already in the stimulus pipeline?
HUME: Well, it would require congressional consent to do that. I suppose they could turn it into business-friendly tax cuts or personal income tax rate cuts, which are thought to have an incentive effect as well as a spending effect. But those are Republican ideas. And this Congress and this president, they don't seem to do Republican ideas.
BAIER: At least not yet. Brit, thanks.
"Cut my taxes. Cut my taxes now."
some peoples' values are in dissaray.
Heck, tax cuts were first proposed by Keynes as one small part of his economic proposals
Much of it on purpose.
So, "NOW" Brit and these Republicans realize they were "WRONG" to opposed the Stimulus Bill back in February 2009, and they need to "re-write" their Republican arguments as quickly as they can. But wait, where did Media Matters come from? Oh, oh. LOL
Stimulus money: costs the US interest money on top of the expenditure, because we have to borrow most of it.
Tax cuts: Doesn't cost the taxpayer or the government anything NOT to collect money from citizens. Obviously will require cuts in spending if tax money is maxed out.
Does that mean the 4 or 5 trillion of increased national debt run up during the Bush administration , isn't really there ????
Boy, I'm glad you cleared that up.
2nd, the 4 or 5 trillion in increased nation debt run up by Bush (AND CONGRESS) was due to either SPENDING or tax cuts WITHOUT spending cuts.
So, really, you wasted your fingers typing that.
WASHINGTON - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26771716/
Obviously tax increases are "Democrat ideas". :-)
Paying taxes is certainly a patriotic thing to do. I am lucky enough to make enough money to be affected by the tax cuts that Obama talks about - I would be glad, as a patriot, to pay more of my fair share as it is because of America that I have had the ability to earn the money I do.
I find it interesting that you are suggesting tea-bagging instead of paying taxes is a Republic idea.
taxes.
I don't want to pay more taxes. I want to pay less taxes. In fact, every time the government raises taxes the tax revenue (income from tax payers) goes down. That's because we have such a complicated tax system that when taxes go up, it motivates people to find new ways to avoid paying taxes. And they succeed.
On the other side, when taxes go down, revenues go up.
The problem with tax discussions is no one mentions the purpose for taxes. If it's just for revenue to pay for government services, then lowering taxes to get more money is a proven formula. Obama and many liberals saddle the tax question with social engineering -- income redistribution. Income redistribution by taxation and increasing government revenues are incompatible. If you do one, you can't do the other.
These are facts that are easily verified by looking at the United States Statistical abstract.
Your claim about the relationship between tax rates and revenues is false. You can get a more detailed source for the numbers from the Historical Tables in the U.S. Budget, which you can get online.
I've calculated the increase of federal revenues from individual income taxes for each decade since World War II. I've corrected for inflation using the composite deflator, so these are constant dollar figures. (You will find the individual income tax revenues for each year in Table 2.1. The deflator can be found in Table 1.3. To get the inflation adjusted revenue in constant FY 2000 dollars, just divide the revenue by the deflator for that year.) Here are the results.
Percent revenue increase/decrease:
1950s +89.4% (1950 - 1960)
1960s +64.5% (1960 - 1970)
1970s +26.9%
1980s +22.0%
1990s +69.6%
2000s - 9.4% (2000 - 2008)
Since the year 2000 was a boom year, it's not really fair to George W. Bush to use 2000 as a base year. So to be generous to Bush, I also did the calculation from 1999 through 2008. Revenues increased 0.9% during that time.
Remember, these numbers show the increase or decrease in federal revenues from individual income taxes.
Now, this current decade is on target to be the worst, even though Bush cut tax rates. The Reagan 1980s is the next worst, even though Reagan cut tax rates. On the other hand, the 1990s had a large increase of revenues even though both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton raised tax rates.
Those are the facts.
This is your argument to fix the economy and you expect to be taken seriously?
Let me clear some things up for YOU:
1. A reduction in tax revenue without a corresponding reduction in spending forces us to look elsewhere to fund our government, including social programs, entitlements, and the military. Looking elsewhere for money is called "borrowing".
2. Reagan was the first to really push for tax breaks as economic stimulus. And at the same time he increased spending to such a point that he is still responsible for a large percentage of our current debt.
3. NONE of the Bush tax credits/cuts/breaks came with corresponding reduction in spending. As a matter of fact, Bush actually increased spending even more that the Repub's "messiah", and as a result he is now responsible for an even larger percentage of our current debt.
4. Along with the myth that tax cuts don't cost money, Republicans also believe the fallacy that defense spending isn't really "government spending". That's why both Reagan and Bush increased our national debt by simultaneously reducing tax revenue, increasing defense expenditures, and failing to reduce spending by any significant amount. This is the giant version of "kicking the can down the road" - make your constituents happy in the short term by giving a tax break, make your military-industrial complex pals happy by throwing billions at them, and let another administration deal with the fallout.
To try to validate tax cuts as a legitimate method of stimulus at this point, after all the historical evidence to the contrary, is either naive, stupid or both.
It's not hard to understand. As taxes go up, more people figure out ways to avoid paying taxes. For states and cities, people simply move out. Look at CA and NYC and their loss of millionaire residents. They raised taxes and the revenues went in the toilet. NYC and CA could stop the hemoraging by simply lowering taxes to be competitive with Texas. The CA liberals in Sacramento probably won't do that and their economy will drop from 7-th biggest in the world into the teens and maybe further.
Lowering taxes gets money into the hands of people who create jobs. Government spending pays people on unemployment, welfare and builds infrastructure. While the resulting infrastructure is valuable it produces nothing. When the bridge is repaired the newly hired people go back on unemployment. Government stimulus is a temporizing action
for people while the economy recovers. However, the government with one hand is helping people survive the depression and with the other hand creating a depression. Our government is going down the same path FDR did. The anti-business atitude is discouraging investment. Trade wars will stop imports and exports. Regulations will further dampen investment in business and stronger unions will just strike to get higher pay. Anti trust will simply disrupt the American lead in information technology and possibly give it way. All these techniques were tried and the all failed in the 1930's. Apparently, we need to learn these lessons again.
Can we apply this same "strategery" to the stimulus package?
Huh, can we, can we?
Hahaha.. how long do we wait? only 23% is allocated to be spent in fiscal 2009. That takes us up to October of this year. How much will actually be spent by then, I do not know. Will that be long enough?
Supposedly another $399 billion is supposed to be spent by October of 2010. We don't know when but having to wait another 14 months in addition to the five months to get up to 74% of the $787B already makes a lie out of calling it a "stimulus" bill. Is that long enough?
The CBO says that the spending will allocate $134.4 billion in FY 2011, $36.1 billion in FY 2012, $27.6 billion in FY 2013, $22.4 billion in FY 2014, and $4.7 billion in FY 2015.
Maybe you want to wait till 2015 but Obama will already be out of office for three years and we will still be paying for his pork spending bill he deceptively called a stimulus.
* $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
* A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
* $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
* $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
* $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
* $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters
* $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD’s.
* $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
* $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
* $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
* $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
* $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”
* $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
* $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
* $500 million for state and local fire stations.
* $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
* $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs.
* $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
* $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
* $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
* $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
* $850 million for Amtrak.
* $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
* $75 million to construct a “security training” facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
* $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
In the free market, a company can only spend money on something useful. It is not profitable for a company to waste money on producing a useless product that nobody will use. For the government there is no incentive. It could spend $850 million on trains that nobody rides, and there is no consequence. Since the government cannot create wealth out of thin air, it has to be redirected out of the free market and into the hands of the government through taxes or inflation of the money supply. Government spending draws resources from productive endevours in the free market to wasteful government projects. This will only further weaken the economy. The key to fixing our economic crisis is to get money out of the wasteful hands of the government and back into the pockets of the American people, where their spending, saving, and investment will use it to stimulate the economy.
http://dprogram.net/2009/02/04/wasteful-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill/
I took part in a similar converstation here not too long ago so I didn't see the need to go over them again. I thought it was common knowledge. :-)
I listed these in that thread.
$1.7 million "for a honey bee factory" in Weslaco, TX
$475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo City, Utah
$200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past
$300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center
$1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah
$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi
$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York
$332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas
$2 million “for the promotion of astronomy” in Hawaii
$1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa
http://www.examiner.com/x-2759-Business-and-Finance-Examiner~y2009m2d28-Top-10-wasteful-earmarks-on-stimulus-bill
Do you know why honeybees are being studied, and what "mormon crickets" are? These were brought up here a long time ago and every one of them was debunked as not being wasteful.
In October 1982, the Unemployment rate was 10.8%-- I wonder, how many right-wingers were calling Reagan's policies a "failure" at that time?
The economy hadn't turned around 21 months after Reagan took office= no problem, still Carter's fault. The economy hasn't turned around 6 months after Obama took office= Obama is a failure, we need a Conservative Revolution, God Save Us From Socialism AAAAAAAGGGGGHHH the Sky is Falling!