Showing posts with label David Frum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Frum. Show all posts

March 20, 2010

Tea-Party: Anti-Tax And Yet Tax-Ignorant

Turns out that the Anti-Tax "Tea Partiers" don't know much 'bout taxes.

And who says so? I can hear my good friends on the other side of the blogger aisle cluckling that this piece of gossip is probably from the DailyKos or the Huffingtonpost or the Moveon.org.

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.

It's from Forbes.com

Now I can hear them clucking that it's probably just some moonbat liberal who lucked onto the magazine's website for a one-shot deal.

Wrong again, it's Bruce Bartlett, domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan, and Treasury official under George H. W. Bush and he has a weekly column at Forbes.com.

Here's what he says he did:
On March 16 the Tea Party crowd showed up for yet another demonstration on Capitol Hill in Washington. Curious about the factual knowledge these people have regarding the issues they are protesting, my friend David Frum enlisted some interns to interview as many Tea Partyers as possible on a couple of basic questions. They got 57 responses--a pretty good-sized sample from a crowd that numbered between 300 and 500 people.
David Frum? He's another conservative. Resident Fellow at AEI and speech writer for George W Bush.

And what did Bartlet's interns find?
The first question that was asked concerned the size of government. Tea Partyers were asked how much the federal government gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product. According to Congressional Budget Office data, acceptable answers would be 6.4%, which is the percentage for federal income taxes; 12.7%, which would be for both income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes; or 14.8%, which would represent all federal taxes as a share of GDP in 2009.

Not everyone follows these numbers closely, and Tea Partyers may have been thinking of figures from a few years ago, before the recession when taxes were higher. According to the CBO, the highest figure for all federal taxes since 1970 came in the year 2000, when they reached 20.6% of GDP. As we know, after that George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress cut federal taxes; they fell to 18.5% of GDP in 2007, before the recession hit, and 17.5% in 2008.

Tuesday's Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944. [emphasis added]
The TP crowd got more wrong:
Tea Partyers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies. [Emphasis added.]
So The Tea Party crowd is wrong about taxes, I get it.

Hey, they watch alotta Fox "News" don't they?

October 26, 2008

David Frum Writes

David Frum, is described by the Washington Post as:
[A] resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author, most recently, of "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again." He served in 2001-02 as a speechwriter and special assistant to President Bush.
So we know he's a conservative - indeed a conservative of the dubya-stripe.

Anyway, he's come to a shocking (SHOCKING) conclusion:
There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him.
After pointing out what went wrong he points out that you'd have to go back to Watergate to see poll numbers as bad as those facing the GOP now.

But the problem isn't just the presidential race, Frum continues:
McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."
Poor guys. Must be difficult to be a republican these days, huh?