Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

TRUTH PATROL: Obama tax-cut claim right on target

The Rocky

Published September 2, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More Elections

More stories »

Denver was a slugfest of claims and counterclaims as Democratic power brokers held court in the Mile High City. Now the show has moved to Minneapolis-St. Paul and the Republicans. Confused about who is telling the truth? The Rocky Truth Patrol sets the record straight.

Can't we all get a break?

Claim: Barack Obama says he would cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.

Rocky Truth Patrol says: Rock solid

Obama's "Make Work Pay" plan would give tax credits to an estimated 150 million workers: $500 per person or $1,000 per working family. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit tax education organization, has analyzed both candidates' tax plans. It says about 44 million people already have no tax burden.

Obama's plan would raise taxes on the top 1 percent of wage earners but give most everyone else a tax break. Even people who earn roughly between $93,000 and $192,000 a year would see a tax break, the foundation says.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers would see a tax hike of $131 billion while the other groups would see a tax cut of $155 billion, according to a Tax Foundation report.

Iraq's bulging bank account

Claim: Iraq will have an extra $79 billion in its bank account from surplus oil money by the end of the year.

Rocky Truth Patrol says: Rock solid

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are talking a lot about the war in Iraq during the political campaigns. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, shows Iraq has not been spending its excess revenue on rebuilding the country.

By the end of this year, Iraq is expected to have a $79 billion surplus, while the U.S., which has a deficit of more than $9.5 trillion, has spent about $48 billion rebuilding Iraq.

Gap between rich and poor

* Claim: Former President Clinton said we've had the "biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s."

* Rocky Truth Patrol says: Rock solid

* With his reference to the 1920s, perhaps Clinton was trying to raise the specter that if John McCain wins in November, we'll tumble once again into a Great Depression.

But could this fact possibly be true?

Clinton made the claim while slamming George Bush for failing to keep the economy humming for working-class folks.

"In this decade, American workers have consistently given us rising productivity. That means, year after year, they work harder and produce more," Clinton said.

"Now, what did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-fourth as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s."

Larry Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, happens to be in Denver this week and said Clinton's rhetoric is accurate.

Mishel said Clinton was probably referring to an income gap study conducted by Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Saez found that in 2006, the top 1 percent of earners had claimed 22.9 percent of income. That's the greatest share since 1928.

Comments

  • September 2, 2008

    4:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    daRock writes:

    If 44 million of the 150 million already have no tax burden then it is a wealth redistribution program. How can 95% of all working families get a reduction in taxes when so many already pay no taxes? Since there are only 301 million in total US population, including children and others who fall outside of the tax payers, how can the Rocky 'Truth Squad' claim this is ' Rock Solid'?

  • September 2, 2008

    6:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    infidel91 writes:

    This isn't a tax cut. It's money Obama plans to confiscate from some Americans and distribute to other Americans who haven't earned it. He might as well have a sign: "Vote for me, and there's a 95% chance I'll write you a check for $500 or $1000."

    I'm all for cutting taxes (for everyone), but it should be done in conjunction with spending cuts, not robbery.

  • September 2, 2008

    10:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Castle writes:

    Seeing as how the top 1% of tax payers already pay 39% of the tax burden, why do you think it's good to tax them more. To continue on that line, the top 5% of tax payer pay 60% of the burden and the top 10% pay 80% percent of the burden. On the bottom end, the lower 50% of the tax payers pay a total of 2.99% of the tax burden. That's pretty much a redistribution of wealth on Obama's part.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicat...

  • September 3, 2008

    12:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    r0ckyAurora writes:

    The Truth Patrol missed regarding the "Gap between rich and poor", and Clinton's phrase "biggest increase in income inequality..."
    The supporting evidence refers to the percent of income claimed by the top 1 percent of earners, as compiled by Emmanual Saez of UC Berkeley.
    According to that data, under Clinton (1992-2000), that percentage grew from 14.67% to 21.52%, a growth of 6.85 percentage points.
    During the first 6 years of Bush (2000-2006 (latest available)), it grew from 21.52% to 22.90%, a growth of 1.38 percentage points.
    In fact, the growth ("...biggest increase...") of this statistic was larger under Clinton than any other President since the 1920's. In Clinton’s last year, the figure of 21.52% was itself higher than any year since 1929!
    This should have been rated "JUST WRONG".