What is Tom Brokaw talking about?

In case you missed it, Tom Brokaw asked this puzzling question Sunday on Meet the Press of Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall:

MR. BROKAW: Congressman Udall, we've been checking the statistics in the Denver area. I'm quite familiar with it. In the second quarter of 2008, one in every 95 households in the Denver area were in foreclosure. The United States average was one in 171. Colorado ranked fifth in the nation statewide. A lot of that was a result of speculation for profit, people going in and hoping to make a quick buck and turn it around. Why should other taxpayers across the country have to now bail out those Colorado mortgage buyers who just did the irresponsible thing?

Um, wasn't the bill almost entirely focused on bailing out Wall Street firms whose balance sheets are loaded with "toxic" mortgage-backed securities? One of the primary critiques of the legislation was precisely that it didn't do enough to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure.

Brokaw also failed to object when Udall's opponent, former Congressman Bob Schaffer, promoted the dubious claim that tax cuts in the 1990s increased revenue and when McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt offered the misleading suggestion that Barack Obama voted to increase taxes on people making over $42,000.

All in all, it was a terrible performance on substance.

Comments

[David]

The New York Times wrote: the budget resolutions that Mr. Obama endorsed would raise taxes for some individuals making $42,000 a year. But it would not raise taxes for all of them.

So, it's literally true that Obama voted to raise taxes on individuals earning $42,000. I acknowledge that it's imprecise not to specify whether the increase would apply to all or to some in this category. However, I think most listeners would interpret it as applying to some, so I don't consider the statement to be particularly misleading.

However, if one judges McCain's accusation to be misleading because the proposed increase would not apply to all individuals making $42,000, then Obama's denial without explanation would seem to be at least as misleading. I think someone hearing Obama deny McCain's assertion would understand wrongly that Obama was claiming that his tax increase would not apply to anyone making as little as $42,000.

I don't agree with Brendan's criticism of Brokaw's question. The bill did include some benefits to homeowners in danger of foreclosure, so it's reasonable to ask whether that's appropriate. The fact that some people think it should do more to aid such homeowners doesn't invalidate the question.

If that were the only question Brokaw asked then I would agree that he was focusing on a relatively minor point. However, I assume that Brokaw asked questions about the major aspects of the bill as well.

[Stacy]

David, that's a pretty big stretch.

If I went to my mechanic and he said, "cars with this type of tire will see a blowout in 50,000 miles," you bet your tush I would get my tires changed before my odometer met the 49,000 mark.

I don't know what tax bracket you're in, or even if you make close to that - but that's almost exactly what I make. And if I'm a swing voter, that's going to sway my decision IMMENSELY.

You can go ahead and split hairs on whether or not Mr. Schmidt didn't say "some," but you don't have the authority on determining what most listeners think.

[Howard Craft]

Regarding voting to raise taxes, the item in question was a non-binding forward looking budget resolution and not a tax bill. It did not set new tax rates (it was not a law) and it did not prohibit new tax legislation.

The Bush tax cuts were built to revert back to generally higher rates starting in 2010. Both candidates have tax plans to address the expiring rates established under those tax laws. The resolution didn't incorporate either of their proposals.

By failing to address the lapsing legislation a case is being made that Obama voted for a budget that didn't make provisions to deal with the expiring tax cuts. What is omitted in the discussion is that there is a complete certainty that new tax legislation will superseded that budget if McCain or Obama wins the election.

An indication that the budget resolution was unimportant is that McCain didn't even cast a vote.

[David]

Stacy, I think your tire analogy supports my interpretation. Goodyear sells "Integrity 50,000 mile Tires". That doesn't mean that every single Integrity tire will wear out after 50,000 miles; it means that some of them will.

[David]

Howard Craft, the budget resolution is important in that it provides a clue as to how Obama will actually govern. Like candidates in the past, both Obama and McCain are presenting unrealistic economic projections. Their numbers just don't add up. Whoever is elected will have higher taxes and/or lower government services than he is promising.

Therefore, we need to go beyond a candidate's words to guess how he will govern. Obama's past willingness to support a tax increase on middle class people suggests that he will do the same as President.

[Rob]

Precisely, David. Long experience has taught us to heavily discount a candidate's words and promises and rely instead on inferences drawn from the candidate's prior acts. Obama tells us what his tax plan is, but we are also entitled to consider what he's voted for in the recent past. Even if Obama is Not Your Usual Politician, even if he's a Change Agent, even if he's The One, we're not obliged to take his promises at face value.

And if Republican descriptions of Obama's past votes are not sufficiently nuanced, he has a heap of money with which he can buy his own advertising and explain to the voters what he voted for and why. The remedy for speech with which we disagree is more speech--what a concept!

[Howard Craft]

The revenue figures came from the Congressional Budget Office, based on the tax rates established by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003.

That McCain did not vote against a budget resolution which raised taxes for all taxpayers - wealthy, upper class and middle class - indicates a willingness to raise taxes across the board.

McCain's actions speak louder than any words. Perhaps he will justify his actions at the next Presidential debate. He can do so for free.

Maybe McCain couldn't make himself vote against Bush?

[Jinchi]

By failing to address the lapsing legislation a case is being made that Obama voted for a budget that didn't make provisions to deal with the expiring tax cuts.

If it's fair to accuse a candidate of raising taxes because he does nothing, then it's far more appropriate to say that George Bush raised our taxes (starting in 2010) by including the expiration date language in the original bill.

Worse yet, by running massive deficits taxpayers will ultimately be on the line for an even higher bill than if we'd simply paid in full at the outset.

I say let them all expire and try to get the budget back in the black.

[David]

Jinchi wrote: Worse yet, by running massive deficits taxpayers will ultimately be on the line for an even higher bill than if we'd simply paid in full at the outset.

This is true only if one assumes that higher tax revenues wouldn't have led to higher government spending. Unfortunately, history shows that Congress and the President will spend at least 100% of whatever income the government has. More taxes collected mean more spending.

The only exception I can think of was a brief period when Clinton was President and Gingrich was Majority Leader. Both had pledged to contain spending. Clinton and Gingrich held down each other's spending increases.

Unfortunately, going forward, I don't expect a Democratic Congress to hold down President Obama's spending, nor vice versa.

[Jinchi]

This is true only if one assumes that higher tax revenues wouldn't have led to higher government spending.

I think you're missing the point that we ultimately have to pay the debt, and annually pay the interest on the debt regardless of the government's tax revenue vs it's spending.

We haven't simply run deficits these last few years, we're running close to a $500,000,000,000 deficit this year alone, not including the recent bailout package. We also pay hundreds of billions of dollars every year, simply to service the debt. This is unsustainable in the long term. Apparently many politicians have convinced themselves that you don't have to pay for things you really need (like health care or the Iraq war). At some point no-one will lend us money any more and the entire system will come grinding to a catastrophic halt.