About NNN
Since March 2005, New Nebraska Network has been Nebraska's online voice for progressive political change. Thank you for being part of the NNN community!

Managing Editor:
Kyle Michaelis,
kyle@newnebraska.net

NNN is a meritocracy. Contribute and you will be rewarded.


Join the Network

Subscribe: RSS Front

Subscribe: RSS Diaries

Subscribe: By E-mail

NNN on Facebook

NNN on Twitter

Read NNN Archives
(pre-August 2007)

Poll
How does Jon Bruning come back from losing election based on ethics and character issues?
He doesn't. He's done.
Don't know but got plenty of $$$ to keep spirit up
May be done climbing but AG as long as he wants it
Not a problem. Will declare for Governor 2014 soon

Results

Search




Advanced Search


Local Blog Roll
  • Running Chicken
  • Flag On The Play
  • Progressive Oasis
  • Bold Nebraska - News
  • Aksarbent
  • NE Appleseed Blog
  • Blog for Rural America
  • Neal Obermeyer 'Toons
  • Paul Fell Cartoons
  • Bill Dunn Cartoons
  • The State Line (OWH)
  • The Hall (OWH)
  • Nebraska Watchdog
  • NE Greensprouts
  • Revolution-21
  • Leavenworth Street
  • Objective Conservative
  • Grassroots In NE
  • Winterized
  • Harold W. Andersen
  • Red State Report
  • Right-Wing Professor
  • Omaha Liberal Examiner
  • Today On The Lege
  • BJ Nebraska
  • Lincolnite
  • Rise of the Center
  • Mark Fahleson
  • Red State Eclectic
  • Heartland Notebook
  • Conservative Examiner
  • Republican Examiner
  • Nebraska Outback
  • Economic Trends
  • Art Diamond Blog
  • Vital Signs
  • Domestic Divapalooza
  • Omaha TV News

  • 50 State Blog Network
  • Alabama
  • Arizona
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • DailyKos
  • Firedoglake
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • MyDD
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • New York (a)
  • New York (b)
  • North Carolina
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio (a)
  • Ohio (b)
  • Oklahoma
  • Open Left
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • Swing State Project
  • Tennessee
  • Texas (a)
  • Texas (b)
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin

  • Rebutting Right Wing Zombie Lies

    by: Ronaldo

    Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 10:26:49 AM CDT


    We now live in an era where disinformation is spewed out by the Right Wing Media 24/7.  Millions of Americans get most (or all) of their news from the Right Wing Media and as a result, they are very poorly informed.  For example, polling reveals that a much higher percentage of Fox viewers believe that we found WMDs in Iraq when we didn't find any.  The presence and influence of the Conservative Media has led to a number of very influential Right Wing Zombie lies.  I'm going to take a swing at rebutting some of the more prominent lies but I must confess rebutting Right Wing Zombie lies is a full time job.  Here we go.

    1.  Tax cuts pay for themselves.

    This is probably the most prominent and pernicious lie.  Because most of the GOP tax cuts go to the wealthy, right wingers have to justify this by telling people that these tax cuts don't cost them anything and are a free lunch.  However, the empirical evidence certainly doesn't back up this claim.  The GOP aligned Heritage Foundation (a source frequently relied upon by the GOP) in a  2006 analysis of extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts estimated that only 30 percent of the gross revenue loss would be recouped through increased economic activity generated by the tax cuts.  Because the Bush tax cuts have cost us $2.5 trillion over the last 10 years, that means that these tax cuts have reduced the federal government's revenue by $1.75 trillion over the last 10 years.

    Even the architects of the Bush tax cuts don't believe that they pay for themselves.  Alan Viard, senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during Bush's first term, told the Washington Post in 2006, "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." Robert Carroll, deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department during Bush's second term, also told the Post, "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." On September 28, 2006, Stanford economist Edward Lazear, chairman of the CEA in Bush's second term, testified before the Senate Budget Committee: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data...do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today."

    It should also be noted that federal tax revenues declined from 21% of GDP in 2000 to 18% of GDP by 2007. At the same time, federal spending as a percentage of GDP increased from 18% to 21%.  It's no wonder Bush ushered in a new era of huge deficits.

    2. 50% of Americans don't pay taxes.

    A common Zombie lie you hear in the Right Wing Media is that 50% of Americans don't pay taxes.  Actually, it is 50% of Americans that don't pay federal income taxes.  How did this happen?  During his Administration, Ronald Reagan expanded the earned income tax credit.  George W. Bush further reduced taxes for middle class and poor Americans.  Where was the "outrage" from the Right when Reagan and Bush took millions of Americans off the federal income tax rolls?

    Those same 50% who don't pay federal income taxes do pay FICA, Medicare and Social Security taxes at the federal level.  Moreover, the 50% also pay state and local taxes.  All of those taxes tend to be regressive in nature and the poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their income in these taxes than the wealthy do.  

    Some of the more "honest" right wing media outlets like the Wall Street Journal have expressed outrage that 50% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes.  Some elected Republicans officials have joined in this outrage.  Does the Wall Street Journal and some Republican politicians advocate tax increases on the poor and middle class during a weak economic recovery?  If so, I say bring it on.  I would welcome a debate on that proposal during the 2012 election cycle.

    3.  The wealthy and corporations are over taxed.

    We always hear from our Republican friends that the "oppressed" wealthy and corporations are over taxed.  That is yet another Right Wing Zombie lie.  Currently, the top 400 American income earners pay around 16% of their income in federal taxes.  This is because most of their income is taxed at the 15% capital gains and dividend rates.  This leads to the bizarre paradox where Warren Buffett's secretaries pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes than Buffett does.  Back in 1995, those same top 400 income earners paid around 30% of their income in federal taxes.  

    Right Wingers and Republicans are united in their demand for a tax cut for U.S. corporations.  They claim that U.S. corporations actually pay the 35% top corporate tax rate.  That, of course, is yet another Right Wing Myth, because on the average, most U.S. corporations pay an effective rate (after taking allowable deductions) of around 25% - which is one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the industrialized world.  Some corporations like General Electric and Exxon Mobil pay no corporate taxes at all!  Any corporation that is paying the 35% rate should fire their tax lawyers and sue them for malpractice.

    4.  Tax cuts create jobs and tax increases hurt the economy.

    When Bush was making the big push for his tax cuts, he claimed that they would create 200,000 new jobs per month.  As most of us in the reality based community already know, the Bush tax cuts have been a failure.  According to the January 9, 2009 Wall Street Journal, Bush had the worst jobs creation record since Herbert Hoover.  We all know that the economy continues to struggle even though the Bush tax cuts were extended late last year.  If lower tax rates on the wealthy were the key to an economic recovery, we would be enjoying the fruits of an economic boom right now.

    Conversely, tax increases on the wealthy don't hurt the economy.  In 1982, Ronald Reagan had the Congress pass into law the largest peace time tax increase in history.  During his Administration, Reagan rolled back around 40% of his 1981 tax cuts.  Nevertheless, the economy performed pretty well between 1983 and 1990.  This was the "morning in America" recovery that Reagan touted during his 1984 re-election campaign.

    In 1993, President Clinton passed into law over united Republican opposition, his budget package that consisted of both tax increases and spending cuts.  Every Republican predicted that the tax increases would lead to a recession and wouldn't cause any increased revenues.  Of course, they were dead wrong and the GOP would like you to forget those wildly erroneous predictions.  (The key to the Right Wing's propaganda is the bad memories of their supporters.)

    5.  Obama blew up the deficit.

    One of the big claims you hear from the Right is that Obama blew up the deficit.  I heard Sean Hannity recently accuse the President of increasing the annual deficit from $450 billion to $1.5 trillion.  In reality, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that Obama inherited an annual deficit of $1.3 trillion from the Bush Administration.  The increase in the annual deficit since then to $1.5 trillion is largely due to the extension of the Bush tax cuts - something the GOP supported.

    It should also be noted that so far, during the Obama Administration, that the national debt has increased 23%.  That compares pretty well to the record of Ronald Reagan - whose Administration increased the national debt by 186%.  Other increases in the national debt during recent Administrations were as follows: George H.W. Bush 54%, Clinton 41% and George W. Bush 72%.

    There are so many Right Wing Zombie lies, I could write a Russian novel about them but I took the opportunity to rebut some of the most pernicious ones.  The next time you are at a cocktail party and one of your Republican friends says "of course tax cuts pay for themselves,"  you will be ready with a quick and accurate rebuttal.  The major rationale for most of these Zombie Lies is to justify tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations.  The GOP and the Right Wing Media know that billionaires, oil companies, insurance companies and Wall Street aren't very popular.  That requires them to cloak the central platform plank of the GOP in Zombie Lies.  

    Ronaldo :: Rebutting Right Wing Zombie Lies
    Tags: , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email
    Share on FB
    Tweet This

    Exactly right (0.00 / 0)
    Great post! You're right on target here.

    Radical right (0.00 / 0)
    Thank you.  

    [ Parent ]
    Department of redundant redundancy (0.00 / 0)
    Uh, you are aware FICA and social security tax are the same thing, right?


    If people are so upset... (0.00 / 0)
    that half of Americans don't pay income tax, then the thing to do would be to increase the economic status of those at the bottom so that their income is high enough to contribute.  

    Yeah, or better yet... (0.00 / 0)
    ...we could abolish the unjust income tax and institute federal transaction taxes.  That way, everyone's tax expenditures would be voluntary (when one spends one's own money) and tax loopholes and/or tax cheats would be eliminated in one fell swoop!

    [ Parent ]
    Radical right (0.00 / 0)
    That sounds like some kind of a national sales tax.  Unfortunately, sales taxes are regressive because the poor and middle class pay out a higher percentage of their income on necessities and other consumer goods.  As a result, the poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than the wealthy do.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sales taxes are a massive failure... (0.00 / 0)
    because they fail to capture so much income at the higher levels.  If states moved away from regressive property and sales taxes and toward income taxes, it would generate revenue and free up income for a large portion of the population to spend more money.

    An example of the regressive nature of sales taxes can be found in Texas, which has no income tax.  Texas has the 6th lowest tax burden in the country, yet taxes on the lowest 20% of income earners are the 5th highest in the country.  I suppose that is a conservatives wet dream.


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, that's why I live here... (0.00 / 0)
    ...and no longer in Nebraska!  I'll explain my idea of tax justice below...

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure how ... (0.00 / 0)
    whatever-is-best-for-you equates to "justice".  I guess that is Texas justice.

    [ Parent ]
    No, not Texas justice... (0.00 / 0)
    ...my justice!  Justice IS subjective, to each and every subject (person).


    [ Parent ]
    How would that be better? (0.00 / 0)
    We should keep people in poverty and tax them when they voluntarily spend their money on food, clothing, medicine and shelter?  And it does not eliminate loopholes, it codifies them.  Ask a proponent of "the Fair Tax" if their 30% national sales tax would apply to financial transactions, i.e.purchases of stocks and bonds.  The answer is invariably no, meaning the wealthy could see a substantial portion of their income untaxed and used to generate additional income that would largely go untaxed.  Meanwhile, the poor pay taxes on 100% of their income because they spend every dollar that they make.  Again, tell me how that would be better.

    While you are at it, you might include why you think taxing people based on how much they benefit from living in this country is unjust.


    [ Parent ]
    It's better for me... (0.00 / 0)
    ...and my adult daughter with DD who has always and will continue to live with me for the rest of my life.  I save around $10K per year on state income tax here.  Like Nebraska, Texans don't pony up when it comes to providing for the DD population.  So I need my $10K, for her.  Surely you can understand my position: I could have stayed in Nebraska where y'all kill your DD population (BSDC 2010), or- I could return to Texas with my ample retirement income plus my tax savings, and live comfortably with my daughter, where the economy is booming, the quality of life is good, and I don't have to shovel snow!  

    And when I die, my daughter gets to inherit our household, rather than me having to surrender my earned wealth to folks in Nebraska, who never gave a damn about her or her needs while we lived there and paid your outrageous tax rates.  Oh sure, she got special education, -but I had to bully the system to simply take what the law clearly defined as her due!  Nebraskans are very selfish and cruel people (generally speaking).  Have you noticed?

    Anyway, I got to thinking about my personal situation, a lot, and I soon realized that everybody has a personal situation to defend.  In the same manner that I want to spend my wealth on my daughter, others have their proper priorities, too.  And that's why I don't believe the income tax is just.
    As to the "Fair Tax," well, it's been several years since I've looked at the fine print.  But I will say this:  the fact that impoverished people have to spend every dollar they make, whereas the rich don't, does not impact an idea of tax equity as justice.  And that's my axiom.  

    "Taxing people based on how much they benefit from living in this country" is a subjective quagmire.  I was literally brought to Nebraska to pay taxes (LB775) and believe me, there was no BENEFIT!  Y'all thought there was, and indeed y'all did benefit from your policy of shifting the tax burden from corporations to upper income earners.  But even your benefit was only slight.  'Cause 'ya keep up creating bigger and newer tax subsidies for farmers and corporations to an extent that it was projected to take thirty years or more to reap that benefit at the time I left.  And it's not just western Nebraska Republicans who did that; check the voting records of stalwart Democrats who remained in the Unicameral decades before term limits.  I have no doubt your Democrats are still voting corporate tax expenditures into state policy even now, while the economy is tanking....(check out the latest just passed in Spring 2011)!!!


    [ Parent ]
    I don't know how that line got in there. (0.00 / 0)
    I sure didn't type it there!  And I stand by my opinion that y'all killed those BSDC folks in 2010.  You did withhold adequate health care for them.  Right?  I believe if you'll check the vetoes (and failure to override) from the 2009 budget you'll see that BSDC did take it on the chin...

    [ Parent ]
    Your logic is flawed... (0.00 / 0)
    because for every person who benefits substantially from regressive taxation, there are hundred in the same situation who suffer for it.  Your move to lower your tax bill only increases it for others who can scarce afford it.  While you pat yourself on the back for having beaten the system, there are mothers in the exact same situation who will see their daughters go without the care they need, perhaps without adequate nutrition, or adequate heating, or cooling, and they will be paying the fifth highest taxes in the country for their income quintile.  You may say you don't care because you got your, but your daughter will still be worse off for living in a society that allows that kind of public policy.

    In Texas, you execute the developmentally disabled.

    BTW, the line across your post occurred because you surrounded it with hyphens.  It's an auto format thing.


    [ Parent ]
    First: Thanks for the auto format explanation; I didn't know that. (0.00 / 0)
    Second:  Where's my logical flaw?  I gave my axion; I stated my premises; I took you to a logical conclusion; and I justified my personal position.   We all act in our own best interest, always.  Even when we think we are being altruistic; we are really only acting out our personal ideals.  

    You're quite right about the affect of folks leaving Nebraska for better tax rates (and upper income retirees are doing it in droves).  Those remaining do have a greater burden.  But my daughter is no worse off (indeed she's much better off here!) for "living in a society that allows that kind of public policy."   We've got the same kind of public policy going on here.   And yes, we do execute in Texas.  That's sad too.  

    But our mutual societies are what they are.  Consider this:  a full decade before my daughter was even born, the federal government demanded of the states (10th Amendment notwithstanding) that persons such as my daughter must be accepted in the public schools.  The feds said 'not-to-worry,' "we'll pony up 40% of the excess cost to the states for this federal demand."   Fast forward four decades:  the feds still don't fully fund that old, old promise.  Are you suggesting that I should continue to have faith that they ever will?  There have been Democratic administrations and congresses during this very big window of opportunity to do-what's-right about the DD population.   It is what it is, Darwin!  

    I have taken this effort to write to you because I get the idea that correspondents here truly believe fleeing retirees, anti-tax activists and tea party participants are just being selfish.  NO!  That's not it!  Many of us would welcome an opportunity to live in the utopia you dream about.  But that's not reality.  And given our very real circumstances, we are acting of self-preservation.  I know so many, many people who have lost their retirement savings due to the financial collapse of 2008.  They simply can't afford to remain in Nebraska.  (And speaking of 2008, early 2009:  now that was REAL SOCIALISM in action!)  

    I have a special request of you:  instead of chastising those acting of self-preservation, why not chastise those who will not yield the taxing advantages they have secured via campaign donations?  There of plenty of those around who align themselves with the Democrats and Progressives.  Ben Nelson comes to mind...


    [ Parent ]
    I'll give you credit. (0.00 / 0)
    At least you admit you don't give a shit about anyone else.  And I know you don't spend a lot of time around here, but I believe you are the first person to accuse me of not being hard enough on Senator Nelson.

    [ Parent ]
    Love 'Em or Lynch 'Em. (0.00 / 0)
    If you didn't realllllllly love Ben Nelson you'd prove it by going out and recruiting another candidate and throwing away all of your time and money promoting him/her.........  If you're not making love to Senator Nelson then it's proof you have a secret crush on Jon Bruning.........

    [ Parent ]
    Voluntary? (0.00 / 0)
    "Voluntarily" spending their money on food, clothing, medicine and shelter? Heh, heh. I hope you meant that ironically.

    Yeah, this is all voluntary. You can either spend your money on food or you can starve to death. It's entirely up to you. :)

    Yes, I realize that you're just using TexasAnnie's word here, but it's still pretty funny, don't you think? There is nothing voluntary about the poor needing to spend more of their income than the wealthy do.


    [ Parent ]
    New Nebraska Network
    Not Just Red to Blue - More than One Label for Another


    Active Users
    Currently 1 user(s) logged on.

    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:



    Forget your username or password?


    NNN on Twitter

    102nd Legislature

    Progressive Partners
  • Nebraskans For Civic Reform
  • Coalition For Lifesaving Cures
  • Nebraskans For Obama
  • Bold Nebraska
  • Nebraska Democratic Party
  • Nebraska Young Democrats
  • Nebraskans for Peace
  • Center for Rural Affairs
  • Nebraska Appleseed Center
  • Center for People in Need
  • ACLU Nebraska
  • Sierra Club Nebraska
  • Common Cause Nebraska
  • Voices For Children
  • Opportunity@Work
  • Power Up Nebraska

  • Politicians & Candidates
  • Ben Nelson for Senate (D)
  • John Ewing for Congress (D-02)
  • Gwen Howard for Congress (D-02)
  • Jon Bruning for Senate (R)
  • Deb Fischer for Senate(R)
  • Don Stenberg for Senate (R)
  • Lee Terry for Congress (R-02)
  • Brett Lindstrom for Cong. (R-02)
  • Jack Heidel for Congress (R-02)
  • Sen. Ben Nelson (D)
  • Sen. Mike Johanns (R)
  • Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-01)
  • Rep. Lee Terry (R-02)
  • Rep. Adrian Smith (R-03)
  • Governor's Office
  • Atty General's Office
  • Sec. of State's Office
  • Unicameral Directory
  • Mayor Jim Suttle (D, Omaha)
  • Mayor Chris Beutler (D, Lincoln)
  • Nebraska Democratic Party
  • Nebraska Green Party
  • Nebraska Republican Party

  • Local Media
  • Nebraska State Paper
  • Prairie Fire
  • The Reader
  • North Platte Bulletin
  • Sandhills Express
  • Southwest Nebraska News
  • NET Nebraska Public Radio
  • KFAB Talk Radio (Omaha)
  • KLIN Talk Radio (Lincoln)
  • Channel 3 - CBS (Omaha)
  • Channel 4 - ABC (Kearney)
  • Channel 5 - NBC (Hastings)
  • Channel 6 - NBC (Omaha)
  • Channel 7 - ABC (Omaha)
  • Channel 8 - ABC (Lincoln)
  • Channel 10 - CBS (Lincoln)
  • Channel 42 - Fox (Omaha)

  • Submit a Letter to the Editor
  • Omaha World-Herald
  • Lincoln Journal-Star
  • Daily Nebraskan (UNL)
  • Grand Island Independent
  • Kearney Hub
  • North Platte Telegraph
  • Norfolk Daily News
  • Fremont Tribune
  • Columbus Telegram
  • McCook Daily Gazette
  • Scottsbluff Star-Herald
  • Hastings Tribune

  • Powered by: SoapBlox