Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Accuracy In Media Media glosses over Bush’s proposed health care tax
By Cliff Kincaid Are the media capable of providing accurate and complete coverage of issues of public importance? Consider the coverage of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Forget the endless commentaries about the president’s demeanor and the congressional reaction. What did the president actually say? Did journalists recognize and report that President Bush, in an unprecedented development and break with previous policy, had proposed a tax increase on the middle class?
One honest liberal, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, said, in her Wednesday column, that President Bush had proposed a “tax increase” — and she labeled it as such — in the form of a health care reform proposal. She doesn’t like the fact that Democrats in Congress have rejected it simply because it comes from Bush. She says the Democrats are engaging in a “knee-jerk” response by opposing a proposal that “would actually bring in extra revenue as the years go on …”
Reuters quoted a White House official as saying that about 30 million Americans could face a tax hike under the Bush plan.
However, in an official document, the Bush White House disguised the proposed tax increase, saying that the president was proposing that health insurance be treated as “taxable income” and that “This is a change for those who now have health insurance through their jobs.” Yes, a “change” that would hike their taxes.
Now how did the media cover — or cover up — the nature of the president’s proposal?
To their credit, Jonathan Weisman and Michael A. Fletcher of the Washington Post noted that Bush had
proposed “the first real tax increase of his presidency” in the health care measure. Their story ran under the headline, “Bush Adopts Some Priorities Of Congressional Democrats.”
A CNNmoney.com story acknowledged that “it could ultimately mean a tax hike for many who are covered by their employers, if they don’t change their health spending habits.”
The New York Times was kind to Bush, saying that he wants employer-provided health insurance, which is how more than half of Americans get their coverage, to “be treated as taxable income. For decades, those benefits have been exempt from income and payroll taxes.” Of course, this is another way of saying that Bush wants to raise their taxes.
Unfortunately, some conservative or libertarian groups masked the nature of the Bush proposal.
The Heritage Foundation defends the Bush plan, arguing that those affected “do not really need a tax break.” This is another way of saying their taxes will go up. The proposed Bush tax increase will affect at least 20 percent of Americans.
The Cato Institute took an interesting approach. In a list of scholars prepared to talk about the president’s State of the Union proposals, one said that the health care proposal was “revolutionary” because the “unlimited tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance does enormous damage to America’s health care system.” That implied support for the president’s proposal. On the other hand, another Cato expert said that Bush should have used the speech to “make an unequivocal promise that he will oppose all tax increases in the final two years of his
administration.” But one cannot have it both ways.
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) inexplicably argued that the Bush proposal was “not a tax increase onAmerican workers.”
It said that the Bush measure would “eliminate the discrimination of tax benefits for healthcare” and is “exactly what is needed for lower healthcare costs and improve [sic] benefits.”
Of course, by eliminating so-called “discrimination” in the provision of “tax benefits for healthcare,” the proposal will raise taxes, by the White House’s own admission. That means the proposal runs counter to ATR’s concrete opposition to any tax increase. Indeed, ATR wants Bush to veto any bill with a tax increase. So ATR cannot have it both ways, either.
There comes a time when supporters of the president have to put their pro-Republican bias aside and be honest and straightforward about the tax-raising provisions of his proposal.
As the president moves forward and offers liberal proposals in other areas, such as immigration, it will be important for the media — and conservative groups — to tell the complete and honest truth about the White House agenda.
This is also an area where conservative talk radio should shine. Will talk show hosts label the Bush health care proposal as what it is — a tax increase? Or will they come under the influence of White House spin? Time will tell. The response will help determine whether conservative talk-show hosts are Republican shills or independent conservatives.
Cliff Kincaid is editor of Accuracy in Media.
Letter to the editor
Wartime media doesn’t always deliver the truth about events
In regards to last week’s letter about the bombing of “innocent” civilians at a TV station (“Military has killed innocents when bombing Arab TV”), let’s take a look at the media in wartime.
Since its inception, the radio and later the television, has been used for propaganda and subversive activities. The Nazis used it during WWII to promote their own message of hate and would kill civilians caught listening to the British BBC broadcasts because it contained hidden messages and codes for resistance fighters.
How about Tokyo Rose, who tried to bring down U.S. fighting forces morale with her daily messages?
√ Washington: Wolf management strategy must accommodate all affected groups
From Page 10B with continued proper management, implemented by state and local experts.
The reintroduction of wolves was, and is, controversial and emotional. When Idaho takes over daily wolf management, people, wolves and other affected species will find the right balance. I, along with the other members of Idaho’s Congressional Delegation, asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate what Idahoans have accomplished regarding the recovery of wolves. Its conclusion: introduction of wolves in Idaho is a biological success. Now, the wolf program must also succeed in the current cultural, political and economic environment. It’s
important to continue operating the existing program in a responsible manner for both people and species. As with other wildlife such as deer, elk, mountain lion and black bear, our state is more than capable of handling management of yet another of our prized wildlife resources.
I’m confident that the State of Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe will professionally manage wolves and assure long- term success that has much broader, if not unanimous, public support. To link directly to the comment period information, please go to my Web site: http://crapo.senate. gov.
Mike Crapo is a Republican U.S. senator from
Letters to the editor policy
Look at the world today when killing someone and then posting it on the Internet is how they plan to get their message out. The media in any form and headlines is what they are looking for to gain support for whatever cause it is they think is right.
Outside of the U.S., most of the media outlets (papers/ radio/TV) are state/government-run and owned.
The Owyhee Avalanche welcomes letters to the editor. Our policy is that locally written letters receive priority. We do not publish mass-pro- duced letters. The length must be limited to 300 words; the letters must be signed and include the writer’s address and a daytime phone number where the writer can be reached for verification.
In today’s world, when it’s hard to tell who is your friend and who is not, sometimes the only thing you can do is take preventive measures, and not believe everything you hear or see on TV.
Chris Even Marsing U.S. Navy veteran
Letters can be e-mailed to firstname.lastname@example.org or faxed to (208) 337-4867 or mailed to P.O. Box 97, Homedale ID, 83628.
The deadline for submitting letters to the editor is noon on Friday. For more informa- tion, call (208) 337-4681.