There was something depressing about a recent discussion on the PBS NewsHour Monday night (9/13/10) about the debate over what to do with the Bush-era tax cuts.
The politics of the tax debate is well-known; most Democrats want to extend them for all but the top brackets, while the Republicans want to renew the cuts that affect only the wealthiest taxpayers (which could cost the government an additional $700 billion in lost revenue over the next decade). The Republican argument is that allowing the tax cuts to expire on families earning more than $250,000 would hurt “small businesses.”
So here’s how host Gwen Ifill and Wall Street Journal reporter Naftali Bendavid summed things up:
GWEN IFILL: But when it comes right down to it—and we’ve debated this endlessly on this program, exactly about who is right about this. But when the president says it’s a $700 billion bill to do it the way the Republicans want, and the Republicans say you’re raising the taxes on people who are the engines of the economy, is there any real way to sort that out, or is it in both parties’ interest to keep that uncertain?
NAFTALI BENDAVID: Well, my sense is that it’s in both parties’ interest to keep that uncertain. There are compromises that are being floated. You know, there’s a proposal out there to only raise taxes on people making a million or more, so it would really be the high-end earners. But my sense is that this is much more about both parties having a position than about reaching some sort of compromise.
Of course political parties disagree; that’s a given. But that disagreement doesn’t make things “uncertain.” Reporters can—and obviously should—evaluate the strength of the arguments coming from politicians, and not merely relay contradictory claims; that’s the real way to sort things out that Ifill is looking for.
So when Republicans say that a tax increase on the wealthy is a small-business-harming job-killer, reporters should tell people whether there’s any reason to believe that. (Hint: There isn’t.) When journalists refuse to do their jobs, and are content to sit neutrally by while politicians posture endlessly, the debate goes from bad to worse.
like the old ad said “get a well paying in the career of tomorrow: stenography”
This is one more reason I’ve given up on PBS news this season. Gwen Ifill also dodges resolving debates on her talking heads forum – Washington Week.
What DEBATE?! They Expire AUTOMATICALLY! DEM Do NOTHING!! It’s only a red herring to engage in any debate and cave to extend Them ALL!!! They betcha BP on it.
I do not watch PBS news only Democracy Now and BBC America, period and once in a while aljazeera news
If everyone where to pay more in taxes we would raise a hell of a lot more than the seven hundred number bounced about.I say everyones taxes get raised the same as the so called rich are going to be hit with.If it is three percent than those paying nothing now…..will soon pay 3%.All Americans paying taxes,,what a novel idea!We must all have a stake in this ….or not.Class warfare is below America.If this is about raising money lets do it.If everyone gets hit with the same climb you will not see the “rich” complain about unfairness……Just stupidity.
The NewsHour is becoming something akin to being like FOXNews on Valium, or whatever the drug would be…
Does FAIR have a blog somewhere that reports on media outlets that get it right? And if so, do they ever actually have anything to report there?
Wow James great question…….The answer is no.That would entail stepping up to the plate and taking a stance on who and what they believe in…as well as their bloggers.That has never happened as far as i can see.Snarky comments is the trade of this lot
I agree Michael. Whenever my lip curls up the side of my mouth, and I feel like blowing some political steam, FAIR is always a good place to get some focus and have at it…
My letter to Obama on tax cuts:
“On Taxes: PLEASE DO NOT CUT MY TAXES! I have four children, 10 grand children, and three great grand children. I earn about 100K a year and want an end to four wars and the yearly $1,000,000,000,000.00 war budget. Republican war mongers can go to hell. Allow the bush tax cuts to expire; they have put us $13,000,000,000,000.00 in debt starting with Reagan’s $250,000,000,000.00 a year deficit spending for every year of his tenure for a total of two trillion.”
Please write one like it and send it to Obama now.l
FW
Frank…..DO YOU TRUST OBAMA TO TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY AND SPEND IT FOR HIS NEEDS?Anymore than you did for Regan or Bush or Clinton……or would with Sarah Palin?How about you write this letter…
Regan you bum you put us in dept 250,000,000,000,00 a year.Bush you cost us 13,000,000,000,000,00.Obama you cost us more than ALL the presidents from washington to Regan put together in just 9 months.So i humbly think I can do better with my own money than you.Thanx
“Obama you cost us more than ALL the presidents from washington to Regan put together in just 9 months.”
Reagan increased the national debt by approx $1.5 trillion, Bush 41 $1.8 trillion, [the debt went from under one trillion to $4.2 trillion in just 12 years]….Bush 43 added $5.4 trillion
The national debt at the end of the Bush years, 1/21/09, was approx $10.6 trillion….The debt at the end of Bush fy year 8, that ended on 9/30/09, was approx $12.5 tril…Today it’s approx $13.4 tril…Most of the increase has been caused by reduced tax revenues and mandatory unemployment benefit payments
the first full obama budget [fy 2010] was approx 200 bil more than the last bush budget….
Facts are stupid things, as Ronald Reagan used to say.