The Wall Street Journal editorial board recently used the word “genius” to describe the way Obama has marketed his tax proposals to the American people.
The “genius” part, according to the WSJ, is that Obama is proposing “tax credits,” but referring to them as “tax cuts.”
But these “credits” aren’t properly called “tax cuts,” according to the WSJ, because:
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
Get it? The WSJ believes it’s wrong for Obama’s proposed “tax credits” to be called “tax cuts” because 63 million Americans who would receive the credits don’t actually pay any federal taxes (or pay so little in federal taxes that the cuts would exceed the sum total of what they pay).
Get it? 63 million Americans — those on the poorer side, I assume — don’t pay taxes! (They are SO lucky!) And how can you get a tax cut if you don’t pay taxes, right?
Amazingly, the WSJ goes on the complain about why McCain hasn’t called out Obama on this issue:
One mystery — among many — of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama’s 95% illusion to go unanswered.
I suppose it is possible that the WSJ editorial board is so politically stupid that it cannot figure out why McCain wouldn’t spend tons of time pointing out that 63 million Americans apparently pay no federal taxes.
So I will address you directly, WSJ editors, and explain it to you. Just imagine if McCain tried to attack Obama’s tax cut proposals by saying, “These aren’t tax cuts! They’re handouts! It’s impossible to cut taxes for the poor and middle class in this country, because they don’t pay enough in taxes to receive cuts! If you want to cut taxes, the only people whose taxes can be cut are people who are paying more — like the rich!”
If McCain did that, it would reveal the truth about the Republican Party’s obsession with “cutting taxes” — this right-wing benefits the rich far, far more than it benefits the poor and middle class.
If you can find one of these 63 million Americans who would (as the WSJ sees it) unfairly benefit from Obama’s tax credit, you should tell him or her that they can’t receive tax cuts because they don’t pay any taxes, or almost no taxes. Then, observe their reaction. That experience may help you understand the “mystery” of why McCain hasn’t spent more time explaining why Obama’s “tax credits” aren’t technically “tax cuts.”