|
The Republican National Committee claims the Vermont Democrat "disrespects" the heroes of Sept. 11, but the charge shows the GOP disrespects the truth
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]
A Republican National Committee e-mail to party activists this week compares the war on terrorism to the GOP's political fight with Democratic senators, and falsely accuses Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., of "attacking the courage and memory" of the firefighters and policemen who died on Sept. 11.
The e-mail was sent Thursday night to registered members of the RNC's Team Leader program by Blaise Hazelwood, the political director of the Republican National Committee.
In a letter to the activists contained in the e-mail, Hazelwood draws an outrageous parallel between America's war on terror and the Republican fight against Democratic opposition in domestic politics:
"Fellow Americans, we are fighting two wars right now. Abroad we fight terrorism and at home we fight the disgraceful and obstructionist Democrat senators."
After attacking Daschle for blocking a vote on making President Bush's tax cut permanent, Hazelwood lays into Leahy for "attacking the courage and memory of our fallen heroes from the attack on 9/11." In another section of the e-mail, an "Action Alert" titled "Senator Leahy Disrespects NY's Heroes," Hazelwood tells team leaders to "[e]xpress [their] outrage over Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) refusal to bring a bill to a vote that would have awarded the Presidential Medal of Valor to firefighters and policemen who responded to the 9/11 attack last year."
Nowhere in the e-mail is it mentioned that Leahy pushed the resolution in question through the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, on Thursday, or that Thursday night Democrats passed it unanimously on the Senate floor, along with two similar bills.
Here's what happened: On Oct. 30, the House passed a resolution calling on President Bush to award the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor to the police, fire and rescue workers who died on Sept. 11. It was referred to Leahy's committee and was still awaiting action (along with the two other bills, which originated in the Senate) last Friday, April 12, when the New York Post broadsided Leahy with a scathing article claiming he "single-handedly killed" the House legislation.
Leahy's spokesman called the report inaccurate, and the senator announced later that day that all three bills would be brought before the committee on Thursday, April 18.
The explanation for the delay, according to Leahy and his staff, is that the senator wanted to wait for the medal review board of public safety officers to be formed, as originally intended under the legislation. The reported goal was for the officers themselves to make recommendations for recipients, rather than having politicians make the choice. Also, the committee had to reconcile the three bills in question. After the controversy arose, Leahy decided instead to support moving all three bills forward.
It's certainly fair to criticize Leahy for letting procedural issues hold up the bill and then reversing himself under pressure, although Leahy's explanation seems reasonable. But the GOP e-mail completely fails to acknowledge Leahy's actions since the Post story came out. And clearly, Leahy never attacked "the courage and memory" of the officers who died on Sept. 11, as Hazelwood falsely claims. Republican spokesman Jim Dyke told me Friday afternoon that when the e-mail went out Thursday afternoon or evening, they "were not aware" that the bill had passed out of committee. When we spoke, he also did not know that the bills had been approved by the Senate as well. It's not clear what's worse, the GOP's vicious rhetoric, or the sloppiness with which it's bandied about.
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
[This post was available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]
4/19/2002 03:50:12 PM EST |
The fight over Arctic oil drilling brings out the wild beast in senators on both sides
By Bryan Keefer
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]
The proposal to allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which the Senate voted down on Thursday, brought out overheated rhetoric from public officials and pundits on both sides. Each did their best to frame the issue advantageously: Opponents charged it was big oil vs. the environment, and supporters suggested it was volatile OPEC goons vs. national security and freedom.
Both sides have treated the facts in this debate cavalierly. As journalists Seth Borenstein and James Kuhnhenn point out, environmentalists have often overstated their claims about the potential damage to caribou herds, while some supporters of drilling have exaggerated the amount of oil in the refuge. When the proposal finally came under consideration in the Senate this week (the House approved the proposal last August), the spin reached a new level as each side tried to tie its viewpoint to everything from the war on terrorism to the Bush administration's energy task force.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, took on opponents of drilling with a rare attempt at direct intimidation on the Senate floor. Attacking the idea that the Wildlife Refuge is wilderness, he claimed on Tuesday that "anyone who comes to the floor and says this is wilderness is a liar -- a liar. Anyone who tries to pretend that somehow or another we are violating the law is a liar. If it was back in the old days, I would challenge them to a duel."
Stevens continued: "This area, the ANWR Coastal Plain, is not wilderness" because "it is hell in the wintertime -- 60 below." As Stevens should know, however, temperature has nothing to do with the definition of wilderness. He's twisting the meaning of the term -- normally, "a place without people" -- to crudely reframe the debate using nothing more than bluster.
Other proponents of the drilling plan tried to link their side of the fight to the war on terrorism by intentionally blurring the timeline so that the oil exploration looked as though it could have an immediate impact. Most experts (including an Exxon executive who testified before Congress) calculate that it would take six to 10 years to develop ANWR's oil reserves. Yet Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., claimed on CNN's "Crossfire" last Tuesday that "the idea that we would sit here and let countries in the Middle East decide if our economy is going to be stable, if we are going to be able to prosecute this war on terrorism, is outrageous."
Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, picked up the theme on the Senate floor, suggesting on Wednesday that "the risk [to our national security] is very real. The risk may go beyond the risk associated with just a political view of this issue ... I would like to think every member of this body values not only the president but his office to see what is in the best interest of our country, our nation and our national security." Both Murkowski and Hutchison are clearly attempting to associate the current war on terrorism with oil drilling in the ANWR. But while national security may be a valid concern several years down the line, to make the claim that oil from the refuge will have an immediate impact is disingenuous.
Not to be outdone, opponents of drilling have indulged in cheap shots of their own. Paul Begala attacked drilling supporter Hutchison on "Crossfire" on Tuesday with the question, "It seems to me the only rationale for a party for drilling in Alaska but against fuel efficiency is that you are following what big oil wants, aren't you?" Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., recycled the same theme on Wednesday: "[ANWR] is the centerpiece of their policy because the people who wrote the policy, the special interest groups that sat down and crafted the policy, have another agenda. It isn't energy security; it isn't energy independence. It is about profitability."
None of this deals with whether drilling in the ANWR is actually sound policy -- support for drilling does not by itself invalidate Republican arguments about national security or energy independence. The opponents' argument is just a way of discrediting drilling by association. That tactic is used by drilling proponents, too. Stevens suggested Wednesday that "a real problem is the people who really take advantage of the nation when we are evenly divided, the minority of the population -- 2 percent -- which represents these radical environmentalists."
With the proposal off the table for the moment -- it may reappear as the energy bill moves to a House-Senate conference committee -- the debate will perhaps simmer down enough to allow reasonable consideration of the issue. Then again, maybe we'll simply see another round of distorted facts and challenges to face off at 20 paces.
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
[This post was previously available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]
4/18/2002 10:07:05 PM EST |
See Dick distort (4/18)
By Ben Fritz
Beware politicians looking to connect their pet policies to current programs and trends--specious reasoning is sometimes hiding just below the surface.
Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, the House Majority Leader, demonstrates this in an op-ed in today's Washington Times advocating a flat income tax, a proposal he has been pushing for years. While there is nothing deceptive about Armey's arguments for a flat tax, he hangs his piece on a comparison to the tax cut passed last year at the behest of President Bush. Problem is, Armey advocates a flat tax based on its simplicity: "It treats everyone the same. No more favoritism toward some citizens and harassment of others. No tax shelters. No tables. Nothing." Yet the tax cut signed into law last year is anything but.
"I believe that the tax relief plan Congress passed last year embodies many of the principles found in the flat tax," Armey writes The main principle of a flat tax -- one income tax rate for all payers with few or no deductions -- is nowhere to be found in last year's tax cut, even in the very provisions Armey lists. He contends that the tax system was made fairer by the changes, including rate reductions for all tax brackets, an end to the so-called "marriage penalty" and expanded deductions for IRA and 401(k) savings plans. But while it is true that the flat tax supported by Armey has lower tax rates for most people, eliminates the marriage penalty and would not tax savings, these are not the core provisions of a flat tax. Many tax systems just as simple -- or even simpler -- have these same qualities. There is nothing inherently simpler about lower rates and adding in more deductions arguably makes the tax code more, not less, complex.
Eliminating estate taxes is the only specific policy change enacted last year that actually simplifies the code, as a flat tax would. But Armey is somewhat deceptive on this count, overlooking the fact that after years of reduction, it is only completely eliminated for one year (in 2010). Then the tax cut expires and the estate tax returns to current rates, along with all the other tax cuts in the law.
Armey is most deceptive, however, on the issue of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). While he argues that the Bush tax cut provided "some relief," he ignores the fact that most of the relief lasts only until 2004 and, ultimately, the complex AMT will affect millions more taxpayers. Congress's Joint Tax Committee found that by 2010 the law will make an additional 15 million citizens pay the AMT, which places a new tax on those whose deductions otherwise exempt them from income taxes. (For more on this and other provisions of the Bush tax cut, see a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)
From a conservative perspective, a report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may have put it best when it said "the Bush tax cut ... did little to reform a tax code that is too big, too complex and too hard to comply with." It's certainly legitimate for a proponent of lower taxes such as Armey to support this as a positive change. But he should be honest about its effects rather than twisting it into an argument for his own preferred policy.
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
Related links:
-Bush tax cut costs $1.35 trillion . . . no, $1.8 trillion (Ben Fritz, 6/21/01)
-Recycling Rhetoric: Media Coverage of the Bush Tax Cut (Ben Fritz column, 5/29)
4/18/2002 07:55:06 PM EST |
"Tax Freedom Day" is here again -- but the anti-tax zealots behind it are fudging the numbers
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]
Each year, right before Americans grudgingly pay their taxes, a Washington group called the Tax Foundation tries to capitalize on the national mood with a report dating the arrival of Tax Freedom Day®, the symbolic day in the calendar year when American taxpayers can finally start saving the money they earn. According to this year's report, on April 27 -- the 117th day of the year -- "Americans will finally have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year."
And every year, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and other liberal critics accurately point out that the methodology used in the calculations is totally misleading. This year, alas, is no different.
The Washington press corps has finally grown wise to the tricky statistics being used (or sick of the whole debate), but regional newspapers across the country are already starting to uncritically regurgitate Tax Foundation spin yet again.
Here's a report filed by the Washington correspondent for Salt Lake City's Deseret News, for example:
"The Tax Foundation says the average American works 117 days to pay all federal, state and local taxes."
And here's the Detroit News in an editorial:
"The Tax Foundation -- a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. -- calculates Tax Freedom Day every year. This year, the national Tax Freedom Day is April 27. Last year it was April 29. In 2000, it was May 1."
What few articles explain, however, is what the statistic means. The Tax Foundation is tricky about its language -- in the release on its Web site, it refers to "how long Americans work for government" and a staff economist discusses changes in "the average American tax burden," implying that Tax Freedom Day is representative of the experience of middle income Americans.
Here's what's actually going on: The Tax Foundation adds up total tax receipts and divides them by an estimate of national income. Since the federal tax system is progressive, with higher rates for those with higher incomes, such a statistic is an incredibly crude representation of the tax burden facing the "average" American family, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out in its annual critique. Specifically, it significantly overestimates the federal tax burden facing families in the middle of the income distribution.
The whole approach has been called invalid by no less an authority than the chairman of the Federal Reserve. CBPP notes that Alan Greenspan rejected it during congressional testimony earlier this year, saying "you can't use tax receipts over nominal GDP as a tax rate." The same critique applies to the similar national income figure (called Net National Product) used by the Tax Foundation. Greenspan pointed out one problem in particular: Capital gains taxes are included in the total tax figure, but capital gains income is not included in GDP (or Net National Product).
What's even more absurd is that while the Tax Foundation is calculating "average" tax burdens that blur distinctions in the rates paid by different income groups, it separately denounces the increasing proportion of income taxes paid by upper-income taxpayers, which means, correspondingly, that those farther down the scale are paying increasingly less as a proportion of the total. The group even points out that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid only 4 percent of federal individual income taxes in 1999 -- a fact that is obscured by the methodology of its other report.
So, as state-specific Tax Freedom Days start coming fast and furious, look for this exercise in cynical Washington politics to come to a newspaper near you.
[This post was available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
4/16/2002 08:42:21 PM EST |
Home | Columns | Posts | Topics | Email list | About | Search
This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.
Comments by YACCS
|