Archive for September 22nd, 2010

ABC’s Broken Tax ‘Factcheck’

ABC’s Broken Tax ‘Factcheck’
World News bolsters Republican myths

One of the core debates about federal tax policy concerns the expiring Bush tax cuts. A September 8 “factcheck” segment on ABC World News did more to propagate myths than to set the record straight.

The White House position is that the Bush tax cuts, which under current law expire in 2010, should be extended for the vast majority of the population. Rates would go up only for taxable income above $195,550. The Republican counter-argument is that increasing the taxes paid by the wealthy will actually harm small businesses. As anchor Diane Sawyer put it: “Republicans say raising taxes even on the wealthy will hurt too many small businesses, and that will stall the creation of jobs. So, who is right? We asked Jonathan Karl to check the facts.”

But Karl’s factcheck only served to muddy the debate. Karl interviewed two small business owners who claimed they would be adversely affected. One said an increase in his personal tax bill would cost his company between $20,000 and $40,000. Karl’s second source claimed a potential tax bill increase of $120,000; when Karl asked him to predict how many jobs would be lost, he replied: “It would be a minimum of two. Up to probably four.”

If the point was to illustrate how the tax changes would affect small businesses, ABC chose what appear to be remarkably unrepresentative examples; those estimated tax bills would suggest that both of these small business owners are bringing home what most people would consider to be enormous personal salaries. If their numbers on how much the tax changes will cost them are accurate, then the first business owner makes roughly $700,000-$1.1 million a year in taxable income, while the other takes home about $2.9 million annually. (These incomes were calculated based on tax bracket information from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/13/10.) The Washington Post (8/12/10) published a graph using data from the Joint Committee on Taxation that illustrates just how rich you have to be in order to be seriously disadvantaged by Obama’s tax proposal.

And the focus on jobs was misleading. The Congressional Budget Office (1/10; cited by CBPP, 8/3/10) found that “increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for them to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products.”

Karl claimed that the first business owner “says raising the top rates would cost his company $20,000 to $40,000 next year…because his company’s profits exceed $200,000 and are declared on his personal tax return.” The owner, Drew Greenblatt, is quoted, “Well, this is gonna pull cash out of our company, so we’re gonna have less money to invest.”

But personal income is by definition money that’s been taken out of the company; if he wanted to invest it in the company, he could leave it in the company, and not put it into his personal bank account where he’ll have to pay personal income tax on it, regardless of what the rate is. Taxing Greenblatt’s personal income doesn’t cost his company anything–unless he decides to pay himself a larger salary to maintain a lavish standard of living.

Likewise, taxing the multi-million dollar personal profits of the second business owner doesn’t force him to cut two to four jobs; the company’s profitability doesn’t have anything to do with what percentage the boss pays on his personal income.

After spending ample time on these issues, Karl finally turns to “factchecking” the question–will Obama’s proposed tax changes “hurt too many small businesses”?–that Sawyer posed in introducing the segment: “Democrats say only a tiny fraction of small businesses would be affected. That’s true, according to the Tax Policy Center, which says only 2.5 percent of small businesses would see their taxes go up.” So after giving viewers misleading anecdotes about the harm that might come from allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, ABC’s Karl finally delivered data that might be useful for assessing this policy question.

But then he found a way to try to overstate the impact of the tax increase: “So, 2.5 percent affected. We asked the Tax Policy Center how many businesses that is. Their answer? 894,000 small businesses that would see their taxes go up. A small percentage, but a large number of small businesses.”

Transforming a percentage that perfectly illustrates the effect a policy will have into a much larger, out-of-context number seems designed to reinforce the Republican side of this debate. Why would ABC’s “factcheck” aim to mislead viewers?

ACTION:
Tell ABC World News that their September 8 “factcheck” report on the tax cut debate was misleading.

CONTACT:

ABC World News with Diane Sawyer

Web form:
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=World%20News%20with%20Diane%20Sawyer

source
Share

Wall Street’s greatest heist: the Tarp

Wall Street’s greatest heist: the Tarp

The notion that without the $700bn bailout we would be reduced to bartering was a ruse by the banks to get taxpayers’ money

 Dean Baker

lehman brothers employees leave offices Women carrying boxes leave the Lehman Brothers headquarters in New York on 15 September 2008. The day the investment bank choked by the credit crisis and falling real estate values, filed for bankruptcy Photograph: Louis Lanzano/APTwo years ago, the top honchos at the Fed, Treasury and the Wall Street banks were running around like Chicken Little warning that the world was about to end. This fear-mongering, together with a big assist from the elite media (thatis, NPR, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc), earned the banks their $700bn Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp) blank cheque bailout. This money, along with even more valuable loans and loan guarantees from the Fed and FDIC, enabled them to survive the crisis they had created. As a result, the big banks are bigger and more profitable than ever.

Now, the same crew that tapped our pockets two years ago is eagerly pitching the line that their bailout was good for us. It may be the case that the history books are written by the winners, but that doesn’t prevent the rest of us from telling the truth.

Let’s step back to where we were two years ago. The huge investment bank Bear Stearns had collapsed. So had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants. Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest investment bank had also gone down. AIG, the country’s largest insurer, had been put on life support by the government.

At this point, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, the three remaining independent investment banks, all faced runs that would quickly sink them without government intervention. Citigroup and Bank of America, two of the three largest commercial banks, were also almost certainly insolvent. Many other banks also faced insolvency, especially if they took big losses on their loans to other institutions that were about to go bankrupt.

This was when the Wall Street boys made their mad rush for the public trough. They enlisted everyone that mattered in the effort, including Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

The line was that the economy would collapse if congress did not immediately rescue the banks. They were prepared to make up anything to save the banks in their hour of need. Bernanke was probably caught in the biggest fabrication when he told congress that the commercial paper market was shutting down.

If true, this would have been disastrous, since most major companies rely on selling commercial paper to meet their payroll and other routine expenses. If this market shut down, it would mean that even healthy businesses could not pay their workers and suppliers, which would quickly cause the whole economy to grind to a halt.

Bernanke did not bother to inform congress and the public that he had the ability to single-handedly support the commercial paper market. He waited until the weekend after congress approved the Tarp to announce that he would establish a special Fed lending facility to buy commercial paper.

In reality, the Fed almost certainly had the ability to keep the economy going by sustaining the system of payments, even if the chain of bank collapses was allowed to run its course. In the 1980s Latin American debt crisis, the Fed had an emergency plan to seize the money centre banks, and keep them operating, if a default by a major Latin American country pushed them into insolvency.

By the time of the Lehman crisis, the financial markets had been severely stressed for over a year. The first major bank collapse had occurred more than six months earlier. It would have required a degree of unbelievable incompetence and/or irresponsibility for the Fed not to have devised a similar emergency plan to keep the systems of payments operating in a worst-case scenario.

Furthermore, even if the Fed had been as incompetent as many claim, it would not have taken long for it to improvise a system whereby certain payments would be prioritised and the system of payments would again be up-and-running. The notion that we would be sitting in a 21st-century economy and reduced to barter payments was an invention of the bank lobby to get the taxpayers’ money.

The first Great Depression was the result of a decade of failed policies, not a single bad mistake at its onset. There was absolutely nothing that we could have done back in September-October of 2008 that would have required that we experience a decade of double-digit unemployment. The spectre of a “second great depression” is a fairy tale invented by the bank lobby to make the rest of us feel good about having given them our money.

We are also supposed to feel good that the vast majority of the Tarp money was repaid. This is another effort to prey on the public’s ignorance. Had it not been for the bailout, most of the major centre banks would have been wiped out. This would have destroyed the fortunes of their shareholders, many of their creditors, and their top executives. This would have been a massive redistribution to the rest of society – their loss is our gain.

It is important to remember that the economy would be no less productive following the demise of these Wall Street giants. The only economic fact that would have been different is that the Wall Street crew would have lost claims to hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy’s output each year and trillions of dollars of wealth. That money would, instead, be available for the rest of society. The fact that they have lost the claim to wealth from their stock and bond holdings makes all the rest of us richer, once the economy is again operating near normal levels of output.

Instead, we have the same Wall Street crew calling the shots, doing business pretty much as they always did. The rest of us are sitting here dealing with wreckage of their recklessness: 9.6% unemployment and the loss of much of the middle class’s savings in their homes and their retirement accounts.

And the lackeys of the Wall Street crew are telling us that we should be thankful that we didn’t have a second Great Depression. Maybe we don’t have the power to keep the bankers from picking our pockets, but we don’t have to believe their lies.

source

For more info see my essay entitled: Where’s My F*ckin Bailout?!

Share
Return top

Adobe Acrobat

You can download and share all articles and essays on this site using Adobe Acrobat. If you don't have adobe click here to get it for free: http://get.adobe.com/reader/

Incisions with Precision Presents: 16 on Death Row by Tupac Shakur

Incisions with Precision Presents: 16 on Death Row by Tupac Shakur 16 On Death Row is one of Tupac’s most poignant tales of desperation of life that leads to crime and the experience of the teenager who spends his formative years growing into a hardened heartless criminal. Click image for entire article. Below you can ...

Notorious B.I.G.: Modern Day Griot

Notorious B.I.G.: Modern Day Griot by Khalif ‘Ras’ Williams What is a Griot? A griot (English pronunciation: /ˈɡri.oʊ/, French pronunciation: [ɡʁi.o], with a silent t) or jeli (djeli or djéli in French spelling) is a West African poet, praise singer, and wandering musician, considered a repository of oral tradition. As such, they are sometimes also ...

Building to Destroy, Destroying to Build: How Hip Hop Creates Non Domesticated Thinkers.

Building to Destroy, Destroying to Build: How Hip Hop Creates Non Domesticated Thinkers by Khalif ‘Ras’ Williams This piece brings home the overstanding that Hip Hop as a culture that has always pushed the boundaries as far as innovation and cultural development in a way of life that has created more societal change in a ...

Cooperative Intelligence: Important Spiritual Lessons from a ‘Simple’ Organism by Khalif ‘Ras’ Williams

Cooperative Intelligence: Important Spiritual Lessons from a ‘Simple’ Organism by Khalif ‘Ras’ Williams The depth and profound spiritual insight our ancestors garnered from the smallest and seemingly most insignificant things gave humans the most profound spiritual and scientific wisdom EVER created by man! To find out what I am speaking of click the image for ...

In Memory of Dr Ivan Van Sertima

Long Live the Ka and Ba of Dr Van Sertima. May he Rest In Power!!! Many may ask what the illustrious Dr. Ivan Van Sertima has to do with the Hip Hop generation. The answer is quite a bit but in order to understand the connection, one must know the history surrounding the transformation of black youth that Dr. Van Sertima was trying to address.

Killing in the Name of Another’s God by Khalif ‘Ras’ Williams

Killing in the Name of Another’s God by Khalif ‘Ras’ Williams Historically everywhere Colonizers have set up shop as conquerors and enslavers of African people they always first brought religion. As the Letter written by King Leopold to his Xtian Missionaries he dispatched to the Congo in 1883 which I dub the true and original ...

Timezones


 
Content Protected.

© 2010-2012 Non Domesticated Thinker All Rights Reserved