|
is that irrational?
What has he lied about? (I hear that person asking.)
What hasn't he lied about?
My thing is his fiscal policies - his tax cuts for the rich and his war on the poor. He has lied about tax cuts over and over and over. Not just one lie about them - thousands. Here's a little snip, with analysis. And I have more.
My purpose here is to charge George W. Bush as a liar and to prove my case with numbers and logic. Starting with what he said in his first month in office:
"My plan addresses the struggles of American families and respects their judgment. It doesn't tell families how to spend their money; it doesn't single out some Americans for relief, while leaving others out. It's tax relief for everybody who pays taxes. That's what the times and basic fairness demand." Feb 5, 2001
Bush claims that his plan does not "single out some Americans for relief, while leaving others out". Was that true? His plan cut the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 33%. That singles out people paying the top rate, and leaves out those who do not. His plan increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1000. That singles out people who have children, and leaves out those who do not. His plan called for the elimination of the tax on estates. Since only estates worth more than $1 million were taxed, that singled out people with million dollar estates and left out those with smaller estates.
My Oxford desk dictionary defines "lie" as "being deceptive" and also "twist the evidence or facts" and "misrepresent or distort or falsify the evidence".
Thus, it is still a lie even if it is true that the entire package did contain something for every taxpayer. The key point is that the tax cuts did not have to be taken as a package. George W. Bush, or Karl Rove, cleverly tossed a nickel to the middle class in order to justify the wads of cash that his plan gave to the rich. If he gives a nickel to Jenna and $100,000 to Barbara, can he honestly say that he is not playing favorites among his daughters? After all, he might claim, he gave an allowance to each of them.
"This is my approach: tax relief for everybody, in every bracket, averaging $1,600 per family, while still reducing our national debt and funding important priorities." Feb 5, 2001
George W. Bush has talked alot about averages, and in my previous example he gave an average of $50,000 to each of his daughters. When he talked about averages, it was a way to ignore distribution. For example, if his plan gives $90,000 to say, 1000 millionaires, and gives $1,000 to 99,000 ordinary people. About half of the benefits would goto 1% of the people, yet George W. Bush would talk about how his plan gives an average of $1,890 to 100,000 people. It was pointed out to him many times that his plan favored the wealthy, so he should have known it did, but he continued to deny it throughout the campaign and even afterwards he asserted the opposite:
"Q Mr. President, Democrats in Congress think that this plan, as it's structured now, is weighted too heavily to the higher income brackets. Are you willing to work with them to perhaps change the ratios a little bit, if that's what it takes to get their support?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe the plan, strongly believe the plan that I have submitted is structured the right way. I've heard all the talk about class warfare and this only benefitting the rich. I think when people take a good, hard look at the rate reduction and who benefits and the fact that our plan erases inequities in the tax code, or eases inequities in the tax code; and that the biggest -- the bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage cuts, people will come to realize it.
I think it's important to cut all tax rates, yes." Feb 5, 2001
"The bottom end of the ladder receives the biggest percentage cuts". That is almost the ultimate lie. Notice how he had to stop what he was saying, in order to get the wording right. His wording was a way to say something which was technically correct, but which would sound like: "this plan benefits poor people more than it does rich people." It is a way to distort the truth, and turn a small number into a big percentage. Going back to his daughters, suppose he increases Jenna's allowance by $10, and increases Barbara's by $10,000. Jenna might think that is unfair, but he can explain to her that her percentage increase is 20,000% while Barbara is only getting a 10% increase. Is any child with a third grade education going to believe that $10 is greater than $10,000 just because they are shown some percentages? In exactly the same way, Bush's tax cut provided me $300 on my taxes of $1200 and provided a CEO like Dick Cheney (who made $25 million in one year) a cut of $1.65 million on his taxes of $9.9 million. However, I got a 25% cut, and Dick "only" got a 17% cut. In that manner, George W. Bush says that my $300 is bigger than Cheney's $1.65 million.
Yet this was a lie which I found on Bush's website in October of 2000 and saw on TV ads in Wisconsin, and he was still telling it, with a straight face, in February of 2001.
"My tax relief plan is a fair one, lowering the rate for all taxpayers. The typical family of four with two children will get $1,600 in tax relief. And the greatest benefits, the largest percentage reductions, will go to those who need them most. My plan is pro-growth. It gives our economy a jump-start by leaving more money in the hands of those who have earned it." Feb 17, 2001
"The President's tax plan provides relief for every income taxpayer; however, it gives the lowest income families the greatest percentage reduction. Indeed, higher income individuals will pay a higher share of income taxes after this plan takes effect. (See Chart 2–2.)" Feb. 28, 2001
Please note that I am not trying to be political here, although it is true that I campaigned, wrote letters and made phone calls for Al Gore. It is also true that I oppose tax cuts for the wealthy and would rather see that money goto social programs for the poor, or infrastructure and school spending for all of society. My point is not so much about the policies themselves as it is about the arguments made to sell the policies to the public. George Bush could have said that the rich are over-taxed and it is only fair to let them keep more of their money. He could have said that when the wealthy get tax cuts that they invest more and that helps all of us (although there is a little disingenuous optimism in such an argument). Instead George W. Bush made speeches and ads promoting his tax cut as something that gave most of its benefits to the bottom. Bush claimed to be concerned about the poor and lower middle class taxpayers:
"My plan dramatically reduces the marginal rate on many low-income earners, rewarding overtime or a hard-won raise, encouraging Americans on their path to the middle class." Feb 8, 2001
"It recognizes that our tax code is unfair. It is unfair to people who struggle to get ahead. It is unfair for the single mom, who lives on the outskirts of poverty, who's working hard to provide for her family. For every additional dollar she makes above $25,000, she pays a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone who's wealthy. And that's not right and it's not fair. It's not what America is all about, as far as I'm concerned. Our tax code makes the code more fair." Feb 7, 2001
So there is George W. Bush with a tax cut plan which gives $1.65 million to CEOs who make $25 million a year, and he is trying to sell it based on how it makes things fairer for a single mother making $25,000 a year. Truth to tell, I am just as confused as Ted Koppel about this point, although I think it is probably the least of our concerns (by "our" I mean people like me who make less than $20,000 a year). I am not going to argue that what he said there is untrue, but rather that it is misleading. It is, again, a way to draw attention away from what the package does for Bill Gates and Tiger Woods, et. al. In talking about the above, Bush is acting like a used car salesman who talks about the new tires and the great Bose sound system. The car does have new tires, but the salesman wants to keep you from noticing that the transmission is shot. In the same way, Bush sold his lemon of a tax cut by pretending to be concerned about people making $25,000.
"Here's how my tax relief plan will work. We will simplify our tax code, reducing today's five brackets to four lower ones: ten percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent. Families with children will also receive a tax credit of $1,000 per child. We will end the death tax, reduce the marriage penalty, and expand tax incentives for charitable giving.
My plan is directed toward individuals and small businesses. It offers relief for everyone who pays income taxes, and it keeps our national commitments to Social Security and debt reduction." Feb 8, 2001
It is dishonest to say that reducing the number of brackets "simplifies" our tax code. If there are three brackets or 100 brackets, people making less than $100,000 a year still figure their taxes by reading the tax table. One thing that fewer brackets obviously does, is it allows rich people to pay lower tax rates. Under 2003 tax law, people who have taxable income of $68,750 pay tax at the same rate as people who make $28,500, people who make $311,500 pay tax at the same rate as people who make $144,000, and people who make $25 million (or more) pay tax at the same rate as people who make $312,000.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
