in the Detroit News
is titled "Bush fails to get deserved credit for tax cut benefits" and has a nifty chart (in the USA Today style) showing the effects of the Bush tax cuts on the amount of the tax burden on each income class. It clearly shows that EVERYONE'S
taxes have been reduced and that the burden has been shifted UPWARD
From the article
A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry claiming it proves that "Over the last four years, the burden of taxes has shifted from the wealthy to the middle class."
Those are politically motivated lies that distort the findings of the report. Here's the truth.
John Kerry lied
? nooooooooooooo.... really
? can't be...
This will send our liberal friends
The report also shows that Bush's tax cuts have been "progressive" — that is, they have shifted the share of the overall federal income tax burden toward the wealthy and away from lower-income earners. Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cutes, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other group now pays a smaller share of the total income tax burden.
The Bush tax cuts are progressive
! Not only do they not "favor the rich", they actually favor the little guy.
One more time to the well
The report also shows that Bush managed to craft a tax reduction package that even benefits the lowest-earning taxpayers who already pay what amount to negative income taxes. That's right, thanks to various refundable tax credits, before the Bush tax cuts the lowest-earning 20 percent of income earners not only paid no income taxes — on average they received money from the Internal Revenue Service. Now that’s compassionate.
What is that I hear? ... The sound of the John Kerry campaign wishing that The Swifties
would run another ad?
In case you think that this is a GOP Shill newspaper, the "related articles" box on the story links these stories:
"Bush's military story still has holes - 08/26/04"
"Bush campaign lawyer resigns - 08/26/04".
How long before Ollie
mentions this (or any other data showing this effect)?
If he actually does mention it...
How will he be able to contort the numbers to vilify President Bush?
How will he insert race into the issue?