The New York Times has a piece today (7/10/12) that pairs Obama’s tax announcement with Republican attempts to kill Obamacare, presenting both as “politically charged proposals.” It’s hard to see how the two are at all similar, but the Times attempts to make the connection, noting that “lawmakers worry about alienating people who like expanded health coverage or tax cuts.”
That actually confuses matters even more. The vast majority of people would get a tax cut under the Obama plan. Repealing Obamacare would do a lot more harm to a lot more people–i.e., the ones “who like expanded health coverage.” It’s a strange policy comparison to make.
As if that weren’t bad enough, the Times piece, by Mark Landler and Jonathan Weisman, fails to do simple factchecking of Republican claims about the Obama tax plan:
He [Obama] said that 98 percent of households and 97 percent of small businesses would receive a tax cut under his plan. But Republicans said the president’s proposal would amount to a broad tax on small businesses because many business owners report their profits as personal income.
There you go: Obama says A, Republicans say B.
People who know these debates know this GOP counter-argument is old–and it was bogus then, too.
Times reporters apparently don’t want to challenge Republican talking points. But thankfully the paper has an editorial on the same subject:
Republicans argue that letting the high-end tax cuts expire will hit small businesses and impede hiring. That is nonsense, and based on an overly broad definition of “small business,” which counts any taxpayer who reports business income as a business owner, including lawyers and accountants working in partnerships, corporate executives who sit on other firms’ boards and shareholders in “S-corporations,” business organizations that can employ thousands of workers. Using a more reasonable definition of small business–for instance, having income and deductions of less than $10 million–a recent Treasury analysis found that only 2.5 percent of small-business owners would face higher taxes from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Of those who would be affected, most are unlikely to reduce hiring or investment because of ample deductions for business expenses.
So the Republican argument is nonsense–at least according to the Treasury Department. Why can’t a reporter say this in a news story? Since they often don’t seem to want to do this, why in the world would Republicans ever stop saying it?
P.S. Lest someone think this is a problem unique to the New York Times, here is today’s Washington Post:
House GOP leaders…charged that the president’s plan would raise taxes on small-business owners.
“President Obama is still asleep at the switch when it comes to our economy and jobs,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) said Monday. “In the wake of another weak jobs report, the president is doubling down on his quixotic call for the same small-business tax hikes that have been routinely rejected by the House and Senate.”
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul echoed that sentiment, calling Obama’s proposal “a massive tax increase.” She added that it “proves again that the president doesn’t have a clue how to get America working again.”
Obama said his plan would cover 98 percent of the working public and 97 percent of small-business owners.
So reporter David Nakamura had enough space to get two quotes from Republicans to push their bogus line on small business owners–but not enough room for reality.
Of course the Republican spiel is blatant propaganda, but there’s plenty of room for salient criticism of Dear Misleader’s plan, isn’t there?
That someone making $249,999 a year isn’t considered wealthy, for starters.
And just the existence of the plan in the first place, while the instituting of truly progressive tax rates isn’t just off the radar screen.
It’s in a whole other dimension.
One where words like “fairness” and “justice” actually retain their meaning, and aren’t merely part of politicians’ and pundits’ Newspeak lexicon.
Why is it that I see only your criticism is aimed only at the right side of the political spectrum? Your archives contained nothing that I could find (after a quick perusal) that criticized those on the left. And as for your “fake quotes for the Right” feature, are there no fake quotes from the left? Also, you have a category for the Christian Right but no equivalent for the Christian Left? How is that FAIR?
Finally, FAIR *and* balanced, right here in the comments: A thought-provoking & clever post, perfectly balanced by a (faux??) non-grammatical paranoid rant.
Nirvana!!!
And it’s good to see another incomprehensible neo-nut commenting here. It gives the site a nice balance.
Your archives contained nothing that I could find (after a quick perusal) that criticized those on the left. And as for your “fake quotes for the Right” feature, are there no fake quotes from the left? Also, you have a category for the Christian Right but no equivalent for the Christian Left? How is that FAIR? – Greg Crofford
Then you didn’t look very hard, and maybe you should try looking at the Fair Archives, not the Fux Snooze one that says there isn’t any. I have been following FAIR for more than 20 years, since Bush the Elder was in office. I have followed their critics long enough to know they nailed those who didn’t present a balance on the reporting. So as we would say in the “Dojo of Truth” here; if your not finding, maybe it’s because your not looking.
And now would you care to make a point on the article itself, or will you just continue to pretend outrage at an “Unbalanced viewpoint” without any actual points?
“Repealing Obamacare would do a lot more harm to a lot more people–i.e., the ones “who like expanded health coverage.”
What expanded health coverage? See these facts on Obamacare from the Physicians for a National Health Program.
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/docs/2012/supreme-court/Fact-sheet-Court-upholds-law-1.pdf
“What expanded health coverage? See these facts on Obamacare from the Physicians for a National Health Program.” – your article doesn’t even make this claim. No offense, I’m for single payer too, but at least get your facts straight.
Newspapers and television news departments have lost their way. It’s their job to balance, not to appear balanced. They no longer report news, they just repeat it. I don’t need a broadcaster or newswriter to simply repeat something someone said; I heard them myself. It’s their job to tell my why it matters, and especially if what is being said is true or not. Politicians go on national television and straight up lie, and never, ever get called on it. Producers are forbidden from challenging anything, because then the politician might not come on the program again. Hurts ratings. So news broadcasts, and sadly even newspaper stories, are merely forums for politicians and pundits to say what they want us to believe. The result: as long as someone is saying something we agree with ideologically, we’ll believe them. Not good. Just because we agree with someone doesn’t mean he’s telling us the truth.
This is a perfect illustration of the fact that we are more quickly than ever sliding into Orwell’s world; Facts and opinions are now presented as one thing. “Reality is inside your skull.”–Big Brother.
Hugh, the Affordable Health Care Act is a funnel for money to the private insurance industry. The single payer option is the very thing the industry lobbied against. I have been studying this system from an application standpoint since 2000 and, personally, view any other method of reimbursement as another path to the end of health care as we know it.
Gregg there is no sentiment that leans right on this sight….period.
Obama health tax…….Ho hum .Only one stat means anything.He said this would cost 900 bill.We are nearing two trillion.We could not pay for the one.We cant pay for the other.How can one be so wrong on the price and anyone still believe in him on anything?Only on the left could such crap be painted in gold.
Michael E: I don’t know if Obamacare is the best option, but I do know that the ER MUST admit anyone who needs emergency care. I also know that preventative medicine is much cheaper than ER care.
I just visited a client at home who was 3 days post-op and had the following symptoms: tenting skin, BP 78/40, HR 100, dizziness when rising to standing position. The weather in Northern California ha been pretty mild compared to the rest of the country, but this guy was clearly dehydrated. Aside from being a huge fall risk (a fall could cost $10’s or $100’s K) , dehydration impairs wound healing and increases risk for infection. This guy was medicare, but lets imagine he was 64, uninsured and paid out of pocket for his surgery (or had a wound that was not sugery related) In that case he is not getting home health, which runs about $2500. so he is older and therefore has impaired thirst mechanism and doesn’t have a professional to tell him to drink >2L H2O er day. he doesn’t fall, but his wound heals slowly. His family who is uncomfortable with blood is performing unclean dressing changes because they don’t understand the principles of clean/sterile techniques. 3 weeks later he shows up at the ER and the $2500 that could have been spent on home health nursing is eaten up in a couple hours, he loses his leg to infection, and the County is paying the medical bill, and now has one less tax payer and one more welfare recipient.
While I changed some details (cuz if they don’t have insurance, I wouldn’t see them) this is a very believable scenario, and these are costs that our health care system IS ALREADY ABSORBING DAILY. you say we can’t afford universal health care… but from my perspective I don’t understand how we can afford not to have universal healthcare. The only other solution I can think of is striking out the law requiring emergency care for everyone and then hospitals can check your insurance coverage before they check your EKG. Of course, then insured people would die from heart attacks because they forgot their wallet at home. I guess that would work for the insurance companies.
The NYTimes, Washington Post, and NPR are Fox News for people who can read.