|
|
|
|
8/14/04 Bias and Incompetence: A Fine Mess Here we go again, again. Yesterday I wrote a piece called "A Democratic Fish Story" showing that the Washington Post and the Democrats are fact-challenged and truth-challenged when it comes to the economy. The case in point was the analysis of the Post parroting the talking points of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that decried Bush's tax plan because, as they falsely alleged, it had increased the burden of income taxes on the middle class. They obscured certain distinctions and used the numbers that would make it look as bad as possible for Bush. Today I would like to build on that argument, because there are more cases in which I can show the facts in the piece are misused, misunderstood, and/or distorted, and that the situation is not nearly as different, in terms of the share of total taxes or total income taxes paid by various economic levels, as the dishonest piece implies. The following graphic was included with the on-line version of the story:
The columns of the table constructed by the Washington Post distort the truth. The tables in the CBO report are designed to show how the law in place prior to Bush's tax cuts would have affected each year's tax rates and shares, versus how the CBO estimates the current law is or would be affecting them. Comparing the numbers from 2001 under the 2000 law to the year 2004 under the current law would be like comparing the produce from one garden in one season to the produce from another garden several years later. It tells you nothing about why one garden might have produced more or less than the other, since there is no way of knowing how the weather, the soil conditions, and other variables may have affected the comparison. The apples-to-oranges comparison contained in the misconstrued table have the effect of exaggerating the degree of difference between the effects of the current law and what would have happened under the 2000 law. I will supply the actual data for what we would be seeing today under 2000 law and what the CBO projects we will actually see for this year:
Source: Congressional Budget Office Every difference but one appears exaggerated if we use the faulty table provided by the Post. If we examine the projections for 2005-2010, we find that in every year the Bush tax cuts put a greater additional burden on the highest 20% than they do on the next lower quintile. 2004 is the only year in which the highest 20% benefits by sloughing off some of its share onto other segments. In every other year, the highest 20% bears the largest increase in its tax burden over what it would have experienced under the 2000 law. More importantly, it makes no sense to factor payroll taxes into the calculation, since the tax cuts did not affect payroll taxes. When we take out the payroll taxes and only study changes in the effective income tax rate, we find the following:
Source: Congressional Budget Office The total share of income taxes paid by the lower four rungs of the economic ladder is less under Bush's tax plan than it would have been under the 2000 law, and the richest citizens are paying a higher total share than they would have under the old law. This fact renders the Democratic talking points and the Post's propaganda moot. Since an income tax cut cannot be blamed for other taxes that may be in effect, the tax cutter cannot be blamed for anything but the effect the cut had on the taxes being cut. The effect of the cuts Bush proposed and which became law has reduced the share of income taxes being paid by everyone from the poor to the upper-middle class, but places a significantly increased burden on the highest 20%. This pattern persists for all the years the tax cuts are slated to remain in effect. The Post ought to have reporters covering issues like this who are both capable and ethically dedicated to understanding and reporting the truth. As it is, the author of the piece has distorted the truth (whether intentionally or not) to match the needs of the Democratic party. If this happened due to incompetence, the reporter should probably be fired. If it is due to a conscious favoritism for the Democratic party, the reporter should be reprimanded and reminded of his duty to the truth and accuracy and objectivity in reporting. I'm not holding my breath. Modified: 09/10/2004 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|
