Yesterday we flagged the AP's Jennifer Loven's 'analysis' piece flogging the McCain/RNC spin on Obama's run to the center. Well, as every crack communication operation knows, message repetition is the key to success. And so today we have another 'analysis' piece, this time by the AP's Steven Hurst. And it's practically the same piece. Hurst and Loven actually both use the identical quote from RNC spinmeister Alex Conant.A few lines later he writes:
If the pieces weren't bylined I think I might have assumed one was a rewrite of the other. But they actually appear to be two completely original articles, just mouthing the identical McCain/RNC line.Needless to say, this week's column by Jack Kelly takes on the same topic. Surprise, surprise. Jack Kelly's spouting RNC talking points.
Jack begins:
"Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul 'slashed rolls by 80 percent,' " ABC News reported July 1. "Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction."Here's the ABC report. Note the next paragraph (the one that Jack omits). Here it is:
"I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare," Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. "Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems."In fact, there's a link to the record of the Illinois Senate from that day. And here's what Senator Obama said. It's on page 42 if you need to check my work:
I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare. Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because i think it had some problems. But I'm a strong believer in making lemonade out of lemons, and I think that Senator Syverson and the Governor's Office have done a good job in working with this side of the aisle and the other Chamber to come up with the framewrk that potentially can succeed in moving people from welfare to work.So Jack implied that Senator Obama was against reforming welfare when he was actually in favor of reform - he just disagreed with the methods outlined in the 1996 federal legislation.
Flip-flop? Swing and a miss on this one, Jack.
Jack's next paragraph:
When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia ban on handgun ownership June 26, Mr. Obama said he supported the decision of the 5-4 majority. But last November he told the Chicago Tribune he thought the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional. While in the state legislature, he proposed legislation that would, in effect, have banned handguns in Illinois.Here's what's found in the Tribune:
But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'Since Jack doesn't offer up any details about the "proposed legislation," I have to question its existence. What's the bill's number, Jack? Did it pass or was it voted down. And most importantly, what do you mean when you add the "in effect" to that sentence. Is that your take on it? The closest I could come to is a questionnaire from his 1996 State Senatorial election.
Turns out a staffer filled out the questionnaire with the wrong answers. Here's Factcheck.org's take on it:
Obama says the answers misrepresent his position. "I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns," he said at the Philadelphia debate.If Factcheck.org can find no evidence of a ban, then the burden of proof is on Jack Kelly to explain himself. Where's your evidence, Jack?
We can't say for sure if he did or not. We haven't been able to find any evidence that he acted on it if he did. In the Illinois Senate, he voted for gun control, including limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts at a ban that we are aware of. And he didn't advocate a handgun ban when he was running for U.S. Senate. Still, the reason for the answer on the questionnaire remains unclear.
On NAFTA-Gate, Jack writes:
Campaigning in Ohio before the Democratic primary there, Mr. Obama said the North American Free Trade Agreement should be renegotiated. One of his economic advisers, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, told a Canadian official that Mr. Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."But he leaves out the statement of the Canadian Government (again, from Factcheck.org):
When the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported this, the Obama campaign initially denied that Mr. Goolsbee had met with the Canadian consul in Chicago and then claimed he had been misquoted. After the CBC provided conclusive proof both of the meeting and what Mr. Goolsbee had said, Mr. Obama distanced himself from his economic adviser.
No longer. In an interview with Nina Easton of Fortune magazine published June 18, Mr. Obama said he didn't want unilaterally to reopen negotiations on NAFTA. "Sometimes during a campaign the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.
The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.Here's how Factcheck.org describes it:
It's now clear that a Canadian news report that started this flap wasn't accurate. No evidence has surfaced to show that any Obama "staffer" telephoned the Canadian ambassador in Washington, and all concerned deny that any such conversation took place. But it is equally clear that Obama's senior economic adviser did visit Canada's consulate in Chicago on Feb. 8, and that NAFTA was one of the several topics discussed.Again, Jack gets it wrong.
Exactly what was said is not so clear, however. The memo says Obama's anti-NAFTA stance was described as just "political maneuvering," but the adviser says he said no such thing. The campaign says the adviser wasn't authorized to convey any message from the candidate anyway. No audio recording or verbatim transcript of the disputed conversation is available, and there’s no reason to expect that any exists. So the best we can do is to provide readers with the essential details as they have unfolded over the past several days, with links to original sources when available. On this one, you’ll have to be the judge.
Let's go see exactly where Obama said the words "Sometimes during a campaign the rhetoric gets over heated and amplified." It's here:
Fortune: Speaking of facts, I have to ask you a trade question. NAFTA you called "devastating," "a big mistake." But a 2005 Congressional Research Service study shows that it has a mild, positive effect on our economy and the Mexican economy.Can someone tell me what that sentence has to do with unilaterally renegotiating NAFTA? Jack? You wrote it, you should explain it.
Obama: In the aggregate.
Fortune: In the aggregate. And you and Hillary Clinton, neither of you would support any of these trade agreements that did have ILO standards, and that did have environmental standards.
Obama: No, no I supported Peru.
Fortune: Right, but not Panama or Colombia. But to follow that up - even [Obama adviser] Austan Goolsbee has said he believes that the wage gap in the U.S. is really largely the information economy. It's not about these free trade agreements. But now that the primary is over and you're not in Ohio or wherever -
Obama: I'm going to be back in Ohio.
Here's what I agree with. I think that sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified. [emphasis added]
Did you think no one was going to check your work, Jack?
23 comments:
John K : Fact check this: Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. Especially on the welfare reform issue. He knows that the left will pick and choose which side of his mouth to quote. Do the liberals ever run for election on what they actually believe or do they just deceive. LOL LOL If you pick the former, you are a liberal. LMAO
It may be that the question of whether Obama has flip flopped is debateable. But John McCain has clearly reversed himself. He voted against Bush tax cuts, but now says he would make them permanent to avoid the *appearance* of a tax increase. If you believe in free market economics, you *can not* vote for John McCain.
John K: Can we assume that if we vote for Hussein Obama that we get free market economics?
"If you believe in free market economics, you *can not* vote for John McCain."
Clarify this, Ed. Obama clearly wants a return to Keynsian economics, and has stated he wants to raise taxes on "the rich" (one man's rich is another's middle class. Who determines these "rich?"), take the money and redistribute it by government fiat to the industries that he chooses.
How is this free market economics?
Turns out a staffer filled out the questionnaire with the wrong answers. Here's Factcheck.org's take on it:
With Obama's own handwriting on the questionnaire?
From your factcheck link:
He was wrong about that -- his handwriting appears on a small part of the document -- but he has continued to maintain that a campaign aide filled out the bulk of it, including the multipart question asking if he supported state legislation to ban assault weapons; ban manufacture, sale and possession of handguns; and require waiting periods and background checks before gun purchases. He answered "Yes" on all counts.
John K: Obama may tell us we are getting free market economics if we elect him. After all, he is beginning to change his position on Iraq as we read this post. LMAO Obama, the man for all seasons and every opinion.
Well, I was probably engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Never the less, Obama's position is quite understandable in this particular economic climate. The wealthiest ten percent have seen their incomes shoot up in the last seven years (probably they were not hurting during the Clinton years, but the rising tide lifted many boats then). Meanwhile, the middle class (defined perhaps as those from the 80th percentile to the 20th or 30th percentile) have seen their wages either stagnate or drop relative to inflation (as you go down the scale) and the poor have seen no growth and often some back sliding in the last seven years.
So yes, tax those who can afford it most to help those who need it. If the income distribution remians heavily skewed it will start to hurt our consumer economy.
Meanwhile, McCain's proposals are fairly nutso. A balanced budget? Great, in a vaccum. But we are fighting two wars, our infastructure is falling apart and our mass transit systems will fail with increased funding (due to higher fuel costs). Drilling for oil might bring some relief at the gas pump (oil prices are detirmined on a *futures* market, after all), except that Chinese demand might be higher than ours by the time that kicks in. The gas tax holiday would also likey only funnel more money to the oil companies. And of course making the Bush tax cuts permanent (which he voted against) would only widen the gap between rich and poor.
Obama's proposal might irritate supply siders, but I can't believe any economist would endorse McCain's proposals
er ... "and our mass transit systems will fail without increased funding (due to higher fuel costs"
John K; Tax those who can afford it? That is scary. Then those who can afford it should be given more than one vote. After all they are paying more for the country than those who pay no federal income taxes.
But the real issue is the folks who have it are not stupid. And as many tax plans as the left puts into place to "tax those who can afford it", there are just as many loopholes than can be found.
Plus it is proven vie the Earned Income Tax Credit that if you give people who have no idea of what money is, money, then they just as easily pass it thru to the folks who do know what money is.
So give those folks more money, they need those big screen TV's and mortgages they can't afford. Heck with buying necessities first.
Yes, dem simple colored folk, burdened with dem shiny EITC dimes. Good ting there is y'all rich folk, to relieve dem colored folk of that awful responsibility. Its sure a good ting there are those big shiny stores (owned by rich folks) with big shiny TVs to sell to the poh' folks. And its a good thing there are rich bankers to sell the poh' folks dem complicated mortgages. They don't burden the poh' folks brains by explaining the mortgages, that sure is a good ting.
Who says racism and class-ism is dead?
And yeah, if you make over a hundred thousand, you should be able to afford a few extra bucks in taxes. It might keep you from buying an environmental nightmare of a McMansion, or some SUV that gets ten miles to the gallon. Somebody’s got to pay taxes, better the rich than the poor. The rich get enough votes by donating thirty two hundred to presidential campaigns and unlimited soft money to “swift boat” attack groups.
John K: The one thing rich folks have figured out, give dumb people, ie democrats, money and they pass it right back thru to the rich folks. Have you seen the EITC tables lately? Plus they get all their fedeeral withholdings back. Tax those who can afford it most is also called communism. Do I kow liberals or what? LMAO
Hmm... "John K: The one thing rich folks have figured out, give dumb people, ie democrats, money and they pass it right back thru to the rich folks. "
Where does that money come from originally?
"Have you seen the EITC tables lately? Plus they get all their fedeeral withholdings back."
Evidently not poor people.
"Tax those who can afford it most is also called communism. Do I kow liberals or what? LMAO"
So, the rich are giving tax dollars to the poor, and the poor are paying no tax, so it must be the rich are giving the poor tax dollars from the rich. Then the poor spend the tax dollars on stuff, and the money goes back to the rich. Except the rich had to spend money to make the stuff. How is this not "tax those who can afford it"? I, and perhaps Obama, just want to do more of it.
Meanwhile, if "tax those who can afford it" is communism (and I believe also scary) then are we a scary communist country *right now*?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
"So yes, tax those who can afford it most to help those who need it. If the income distribution remians heavily skewed it will start to hurt our consumer economy."
I'll repeat what I said in a comment elsewhere:
Wealth redistribution is property theft. Period. If you want to help the poor and less fortunate, do it through personal initiative and/or charitable organizations. Don't steal from people just because you think it's horribly unfair that they're rich and other people aren't. Take your stinking paws off my property, you damn dirty socialists!
P.S. Caring for the poor and less fortunate is a moral virtue, but theft is a moral vice. The ends do not justify the means. Furthermore, charity is a personal moral obligation, the definition and parameters of which are usually determined by religious doctrines. Charity is not a proper function of government, if for no other reason than it necessitates theft.
Ed, one of my concerns is that only the top 5% of workers will pay all of the tax. We're almost there, now, anyway. What is the rationale for the other 95% to ever stop government spending, since they do not contribute?
After WWII, the US engaged in Keynsian economics, with the top tax hitting 90% (no typo). The problem is, when the rate goes up, the loopholes emerge. By 1980, the top rate was 70%, inflation was double digit, and interest rates were at 20%. Reagan changed all of that.
By instituting supply side economics, we've seen the greatest economic boom ever in the US over the past 25 years. The standard of living for all Americans is the highest its ever been. Our so-called poor can afford all of the modern technological advances, own a home and at least one car. The government programs in place for these people, from home loans to college grants, are there for those who want it. All thanks to Ronald Reagan.
The majority of workers are employed in small business, the target of Obama. By dramatically raising the tax on those earning $250K+ you have effectively hit every small business and family farm. Those businesses will do all they can to stay in business, at the expense of hiring or maintaining a level of employees. Furthermore, the small business owners take all of the risk in this economy and you want to penalize them most of all.
Finally, with this ever-growing worldwide economy, it is not clear that a shift from supply side economics would even work. The rest of the world depends upon the free trade of America for their very survival. The massive unemployment of socialist countries, and the subsequent public debt burden, could not stand alone if they could not persue the free markets of America for investment. The world has never had the amount of free countries and free spending as now.
Post WWII, America was number one, and re-built the rest of the free world. We do not enjoy the monopoly any longer.
John K: Ed Heath wants 95% of the people in the cart to demand that 5% of the remaining people pull the cart. And they had better do it right. A few days ago the lefties posted the Declaration of Independance in here and then scolded me for thinking I had not read it nor the Constitution. Tell me Ed, where does it say in either of those documents that 95% of the people ride in the cart and the other 5% pull it? You left wingers. LOL LOL LOL what a bunch of stalinists.
Well, Xranger, reasonable people can debate whether Supply Side economics would work in a theoretical world. Reasonable people can debate whether what Reagan instituted was supply side economics or whether he merely spent like a (bad) Keynsian. In fact, reasonable people can debate whether the rate of growth was all that spectacular. What I think reasonable people have to agree on is that income disparity has increased since the Reagan years (I suspect Republicans would say that is not a bad thing). See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States). The cause of that increasing disparity is a matter for debate, but the changes in the top rate of taxation in a likely suspect.
Now, I don’t think that the top ten percent were paying all the taxes in 1950 or 1970, and the certainly aren’t paying all the taxes now (maybe in 1910 they were). One point is that American workers having been seeing massive jumps in productivity (having more to do with working long hours and also Dell computers than with supply side economics). Yet wages have stagnated or even fallen some over the last ten years. Because the wealthiest ten or even one percent have pulled it away from workers.
You know, I wonder about family farms and small businesses. Their revenue may be $250,000 or a half million, but I suspect they have expenses that leave them with actual income of quite a bit less. Farmers grow more and more corn to receive federal subsidies, but in so doing they drive the price of corn down (if all of them increase supply). Gas station owners make a couple of pennies on a gallon of gas, if they manage to choose a price that’s not so low as the bankrupt them, but not so high as to lose business. They have to get people inside their convenience store to make any money at all.
Sure, there are doctors and lawyers who are small businesses. And I’m ok with taxing them at a higher level.
I doubt anyone wants a 90% tax rate for the top bracket. But how about 5% more, a war tax, to help pay for Iraq and Afghanistan? You support the troops, don’t you.
You say that “Post WWII, America was number one, and re-built the rest of the free world.” But you also say that “After WWII, the US engaged in Keynsian economics, with the top tax hitting 90%”, and that it stayed high, dropping only as far as 70% by 1980. How could we have been number for the thirty years we were raping our wealthiest citizens?
Look, in the real world a President Obama won’t change much, because Presidents can’t. There is a chance that at the first midterms the Republicans will gain a slim lead in the Senate, and reduce the Democrats lead in the house. Americans like divided government, and are nervous right now. My predictions for a President McCain would be about the same, except I suspect his policy proposals would be worse for the poor and better for the rich.
I understand you have to call Obama names and predict doom and disaster if he is elected. But too bad you can't make actual proposals to help the poor. Unless you think the poor deserve to be poor.
And for John K, in you analogy of the 5% pulling the 95%, if the people were sized according to how much money they had, the 5% would be giants, easily able to pull the rest. Hey, its your analogy.
No, the poor should not be poor, but I don't think it's the State's duty to make them less poor. Remember, the State giveth, and the State taketh away.
"No, the poor should not be poor, but I don't think it's the State's duty to make them less poor. Remember, the State giveth, and the State taketh away."
So the state should just look the other way while African American's are paid less, and systemically denied access to housing in white neighborhoods. No, wait, the state should step in and make laws codifying the separation of races. Because that’s just common sense.
If people need jobs they should just apply for them. There are plenty of fast food jobs that include health insurance, just what a 40 year old single mom wants for her life.
Ed, the point I should have focused more attention upon was that while the tax rates were 90 and 70%, the rich were actually paying less than when they were lowered to the 28-35% range. The reason is simple: loopholes. The system was so rigged decades ago that the wealthy could easily right off income left and right.
We are currently taking in more money to the federal coffers now than at any time in our history. We have taken in more money since supply side economics was instituted than during the rest of the post-war era.
The spending increases during Reagan's term were for the military buildup. In the large pie chart that is federal spending, the so-called entitlements gobble up the vast majority, and are untouchable. Spending on domestic programs are the debatable section during every budget passage. When the military spending must increase, as in the Cold War and current war on terror, nothing else gets cut, so we morph into deficit spending.
"If people need jobs they should just apply for them. There are plenty of fast food jobs that include health insurance, just what a 40 year old single mom wants for her life."
I was a 40 year old mother who got off whining and excuses and got some education and a great new job with benefits. America is the land where anyone can live their dream.
This will sound racist, I know, but why is it my fault if they stay poor. There are decisions made by every individual that determines there own circumstances.
"So the state should just look the other way while African American's are paid less, and systemically denied access to housing in white neighborhoods."
For the sake of argument, let's say it's the government's job to fix those problems.
1) Isn't that what the Civil Rights Act was supposed to fix.
2) What does that have to do with progressive taxation?
"No, wait, the state should step in and make laws codifying the separation of races. Because that’s just common sense."
Non sequitur. Calling those opposed to progressive taxes anti-poor or racist is the kind of smear tactic from the Left that would be decried if it came from the Right.
Well, …”while the tax rates were 90 and 70%, the rich were actually paying less than when they were lowered to the 28-35% range. The reason is simple: loopholes. The system was so rigged decades ago that the wealthy could easily right off income left and right.”
I’m actually not absolutely anti-loophole, some loopholes like charitable deductions benefited the public, but ok, so you are saying there was some actual “reform” in the ’80’s legislation.
“We are currently taking in more money to the federal coffers now than at any time in our history. We have taken in more money since supply side economics was instituted than during the rest of the post-war era.”
We are also a larger country than any other time in our history, both in terms of population and in terms of money. So larger revenue intake would occur anyway. And there have been considerable gains in worker productivity due to technology and people giving up their lives by working 50, 60 or 70 hours a week. In fact I am still not convinced that we are in or ever were in a government taxation program that could properly be called a program that conforms to the maxims of “supply side economics”. In fact, you telling me that the *effective* rates of taxation have not dropped for the wealthy argues against our having implemented supply side economics in the eighties. The major idea behind supply side is to reduce payroll taxes and put more money in the hands of people to spend and particularly invest. You tell me in your first paragraph that while “paper” tax rates went down, in fact the rich are still paying as much as they ever did.
“The spending increases during Reagan's term were for the military buildup. In the large pie chart that is federal spending, the so-called entitlements gobble up the vast majority, and are untouchable. Spending on domestic programs are the debatable section during every budget passage. When the military spending must increase, as in the Cold War and current war on terror, nothing else gets cut, so we morph into deficit spending.”
Sure, but my point was that there was deficit spending, during the Reagan years. Military contractors pay wages, their employees buy stuff, the economy is stimulated, in the short term. Pure Keynesian economics. In the long term, you worry that all the borrowing to pay for deficit spending crowds out money that would have gone to investment in the economy, but what the heck, maybe we don’t need as much capital because we have gotten out of manufacturing and into a service economy. Comparative advantage and all that.
Actually, I should apologize, Eric. I have been mostly responding to xranger, and didn't put as much thought into my one response to you. Still, your arguement against progressive taxation is apparently moral, as opposed to economic. I won't argue that my morality is superior to yours (although you seem to want make that arguement from your perspective), I will just say that if you think your view is superior, you can try to get enough libetarian congresspersons elected to effect a change in the tax code. It strikes me that it would be disasterous, but the Unite States has done disasterous things before (such as legal segregation).
By the way, poverty created by racism is a version of Market Failure, and needs to be addressed by a factor outside the market, usually the government.
Post a Comment