Things People Believe if They Follow Only the Mainstream Press (And What They Really Should Know)

Articles

Things People Believe if They Follow Only the Mainstream Press (And What They Really Should Know)

By Edward Abraham
May 8, 2007

President Bush's Tax Cuts Benefited Only the Wealthy - "Tax Cuts for the Rich" was the mantra repeatedly endlessly by Democrats and their media partners beginning in 2001. We were told that poor and middle class were somehow being systematically cheated as a result of what became known at the "Bush Tax Cuts" (not to be confused with "Bush's War"). News coverage provided as much inflammatory rhetoric as possible to persuade us that Mr. Bush's only interest was in helping out his rich buddies. Even to this day, there are periodic reports throughout the media of the "tax cuts for the rich". Missing in most of this mainstream coverage was actual critical analysis of the changes made to the tax code. Reporters are often far more adept at stirring the pot than applying critical thought.

In reality, the tax cuts included in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) were spread fairly equitably across the board. This law, passed largely with the intention of stimulating economic activity to avoid a deep and prolonged recession, cut tax rates at every income level. In looking at this issue fairly, one has to realize that any reasonable tax cut is, by its very nature, going to accrue more real dollars to those who are paying more in the first place. Even after the 2001 tax cuts have been fully enacted, the top 25% of citizens in terms of income level still pay almost 85% of all income taxes. The 2001 law created a new 10% tax bracket on the first $12,000 of income for a married couple ($10,000 for singles). The tax rate had previously been 15%, meaning that taxes rates on our initial income were cut by a third. Clearly, a cut of the tax rates in this income bracket is far more meaningful to those who make less money than more, and this bracket received the largest percentage decrease in tax rates. The EGTRRA also cuts the 28% tax rate to 25%, the 31% bracket was cut to 28% and 36% to 33%. The highest marginal tax rate at the time was taken from 39.6% to 35%. In addition, the child tax credit was doubled from $500 per child to $1,000. This is a credit not a deduction, which means it is a direct reduction of taxes owed. A family with two children would save $1,000 a year by this provision alone. The law also made it possible for low income taxpayers to receive a refund for this credit, even if it was more than the taxes they had paid. In other words, the government would refund money to low income taxpayers which was never paid in the first place, not exactly a provision which is "sticking it to the little guy".

In typical fashion, most of the media virtually ignored the significant cut in the lowest tax rate as well as the increase in the child credit and its refundability. They focused instead on the fact that rich people got more actual dollars back in their pockets, because that angle provided the most class warfare leverage. Citizens also received $300 or $600 (if married) checks from the government in mid-year 2001. This money was an estimate of the refund amount from retroactively applying the new tax rates to the beginning of that year; it was not at all indicative of the total tax cut to American citizens. The checks were designed to get some much needed liquidity into the hands of people as soon as possible to help stimulate the economy. The media also misrepresented what these payments were to such an extent that many people, even today, after years of lower tax rates, still believe the checks are all that they got from the "Bush tax cuts".

Sure, wealthy individuals did well as a result of the 2001 tax cuts, at least in the sense that they were permitted to keep more of the money they earn in the first place (horrors!).

Bush's Tax Cuts Have (or Will) Ruined the Economy - Almost from the time President Bush entered office, particularly once his tax cuts were enacted, much of the media has been focused on reporting just how bad we are all doing. In the first year or two, Bush was blamed by Democrats for not creating jobs at a fast enough pace. As usual, the media parroted the Democrat charges as if it was certifiable fact. This blame game continued even after the attacks of 9/11 and into the 2002 election cycle. What was actually a pretty quick recovery, even in the aftermath of the horror and destruction of 9/11, was overlooked by the press.

The economy has created millions of jobs over the past four-plus years, with the unemployment rate dropping to as low as 4.4% (it bumped up to 4.5% recently). Economic growth has continued even as the U.S. Treasury receives record tax revenues. The growth and success of the economy is the predominant reason why the Federal Reserve has increased interest rates to the current, although still historically low, levels. From the time the economy truly started to turn for the better several years ago, creating jobs at a healthy clip, the media changed its tune and began focusing more on potential dangers we face as opposed to what is actually occurring. This methodology continues today. As I've pointed out in the past, our media darlings showed no such compunction near the end of the 1990's, when we really were in the midst of a bubble economy ready to burst. Most of the stories back then were remarkably upbeat and positive--again parroting the tone of the Clinton Administration.

Government Policies, Particularly Income Taxes, Are Disproportionately Harming the Poor and MIddle Class - If one follows much of the recent mood of the nation as portrayed throughout the media, the poor and middle class are being squeezed left and right. Certainly there is some hardship out there as there always is in our history. Things have never been entirely perfect from an economic standpoint (regardless how the press covered much of the activities of the late 1990's). The steady decline of U.S. manufacturing base has hurt, and it is forcing many Americans to rethink their lives and how they should train and educate themselves to help ensure a more secure future for their families. The old rules are changing in many ways, as they have been for a long time and were bound to do in the first place.

Embedded in much of the coverage of the economy and the state of well-being of average Joe and Jane citizens is the idea that federal policies are cheating the core of our country. Much of this is simply the overflow of the sentiment created in the way the 2001 tax reform was presented to the public. Many people who know little or nothing about income tax policy, in and out of the media, are convinced the struggles of the middle class and working poor are the result of a nefarious right wing plot. Members of the media capitalize on this emotion and it is reflected in coverage which appears to blame everything and everyone for problems that people may have other than the people who actually have those "problems". So an auto worker, who brought home $100,000 a year (or more) in pay and benefits for twenty or more years suddenly finds himself unemployed and with no savings to fall back on, and it is the government's (i.e. Bush's) fault? Of course, it is easier for any of us to blame our troubles on someone else, to claim that we had little or nothing to do with it. Perhaps in this case the media is simply giving telling its audience what it wants to hear.

For the record, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published an article ("Federal Tax Burdens in Historical Perspective" by Aviva Aron-Dine) which indicates that tax burdens on the middle class are actually low by historical standards. Using Congressional Budget Office data, the study concluded, "Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid an average of 13.9 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2004, virtually the same percentage as in 2003 and lower than in any other year since 1979." This same result is evidenced for "most income groups covered by the CBO study..." The effective tax rate for a median-income family of four (5.6%) in 2006, "...represents the lowest level on record, with data going back to 1955." In fairness, the downward trend in this middle class tax burden began before the current administration; however, there is sufficient evidence which reflects that Bush's policies have not reversed it in any way. Don't expect many experts in the mainstream media to point this out to the masses; it just does not fit the template.

President Bush Said Iraq War Would be Easy and Claimed it Was Over with the Infamous "Mission Accomplished" Speech - Some in the media have been more fair than others on this issue, but there remains an overall tendency to put word in the mouth of our president. One should expect the opposition party to do this from time to time, because that's politics and politicians do not play fair. We should, however, expect our media to point out when either party has stepped over the line in misrepresenting reality. President Bush never remotely suggested that the war in Iraq, or the war against terror, would be a piece of cake. In fact, on multiple occasions, beginning with his speech to the nation a few days after 9/11, State of the Union addresses and countless other media briefings, Bush quite clearly stated the expected difficulty of the entire endeavor would be immense. He even suggested early on the battle would continue indefinitely through subsequent administrations. Further, Bush did not, even on the "Mission Accomplished" day, state the job was done. In many ways he indicated it was only the beginning of a long hard process. The "Mission Accomplished" banner was, in fact, a reference to the battleship itself (its staff) having completed its assigned duties. Bush, in fact, did not originally want to appear in front of the banner; however, it was felt that the total picture would enhance troop morale. In retrospect, it was an error in judgment, but not near worthy of the amount of attention it has received in the media--particularly during the recent anniversary of that speech. Even now, we hear reports which measure casualties since the "Mission Accomplished" speech was rendered.

The Bush Administration Claimed Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Directly Linked with 9/11 - Again, some members of the national press have been more fair in this area than others, yet still at times it has been reported that President Bush linked Iraq to 9/11. In fact, Bush did just the opposite. He has clearly stated that there was no direct link between Saddam Hussein and the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks, even though Hussein was know to be cavorting with some terrorists. When it was announced that there was not link to Iraq, many members of the press blasted Bush for misleading us (in response to the same claim by certain Democrats). The only connection between the Iraq War and 9/11 is that Bush felt, in light of what 9/11 taught us terrorists are capable of, we "could no longer afford the luxury" of sitting back and waiting for potential serious threats to develop. The president strongly felt we had to be more proactive in the defense of our nation starting with Iraq. Hussein was already a known menace, and most of the world believed he possessed significant WMD's. (The idea that WMD's in Iraq was solely the creation of Bush and his team is yet another fabrication of the mainstream press, which has all too conveniently ignored Democrat politicians who are on record for comments which pretty much echo exactly what Bush has claimed all along.)

Sandy Berger's Theft and Destruction of Highly Classified Documents was a Minor Transgression - In he midst of the "9/11 Commission" hearings on what went wrong leading up to the events of 9/11, President Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, was caught red-handed (so to speak) stuffing classified documents into his clothing from the National Archives. His story as to why he took the documents changed at least once or twice, but he did eventually admit to destroying some portion of those papers. The press certainly did report this story; however, it received an insignificant amount of coverage when compared to some relatively insignificant transgressions of others which have occurred over the last several years. The media appeared to accept Berger's explanations for what they were, even when those explanations changed. The level of professional skepticism displayed by the press in this episode was astoundingly low. There did not even seem to be much concern as to what was in the documents or question as to Berger's motivation. He said that he was merely trying to prepare himself to assist the 9/11 Commission. The entire story was swept away like confetti after a parade. Those who pay only half-attention to these things would have to believe this was a nothing incident; yet Berger very deliberately stole and destroyed classified information in the midst of a related investigation.

President Bush Ignored the Victims of Katrina in New Orleans Intentionally Because He Does Not Care About Poor/Black People - The media circus which engulfed New Orleans in the wake of Katrina was unprecedented in the level of its inflammatory and antagonistic approach. What should have been a time for the nation to pull together to help one of its cities, was instead turned into a reason to take sides (even more) and further bash the president. Almost immediately, there were reports of deaths in staggering numbers, reports which were subsequently determined to be completely unfounded. Rapes and other atrocities which never occurred were said to be a regular happening, even within the protected area of the Superdome. When much of this was later found to be untrue, one had to turn to the more right leaning sources of information to learn the truth. There were few if any apologies or retractions from the press.

Prior to Katrina, President Bush implored the local politicians in New Orleans and Louisiana to evacuate the city, even offering assistance to do so if it was needed. He was rebuffed by the local leaders, who apparently did not want any help from someone they viewed as a political enemy. After Katrina, the initial reports from that location were that the brunt of the storm had bypassed the city--a collective sigh of relief was being breathed by all involved even as the levees were failing. Make no mistake, what happened in the aftermath of Katrina was the result of colossal failures in leadership at the local and federal level going back an indeterminate period of time. A disaster which was decades in the making was, however, laid at the feet of Bush by Democrats and their media hounds, who more than intimated it was primarily his fault. Even worse, the race card was played as if none of the mess would have ever happened if the city were white; Bush was classified a racist and there was to be no debate about it. Meanwhile, the media yawned as nearby areas populated primarily by white people who were also suffering and receiving no more federal help than was New Orleans. When Bush did not immediately go to New Orleans, he was termed uncaring. When he flew over the town to survey the damage, he was cast as aloof and out of touch.

Republican Leaders Have Fostered a "Culture of Corruption" in Washington, D.C. - Democrats and their media buddies have attempted to convey the idea that Republicans have a monopoly on underhanded behavior in our nation's capital. Little known bureaucrats have become household names as the media has blown up charges, often unfounded, of wrongdoing. At times, it seems there was a new one every week; more often than not there has been little substance to the accusations, yet individuals have been asked to step down and yield to the demagoguery. Meanwhile, Democrat transgressions are treated as if they are hardly of interest. Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat majority leader, receives more than $1 million in a questionable land deal and we get a collective shrug from the media. Representative,William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, is caught with bribe money in his fridge and most of the press looks the other way. And the exploits of Sandy Berger were already covered. Democrat wrongdoing is viewed as if it is such an isolated exception that it is pointless to investigate. Someone in the Bush Administration sneezes, however, and the media charges the entire group has pneumonia.

------------

About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it.

Email: eabra@myway.com

Comment on this article here!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal).