AJC’s Cynthia Tucker: So very good at being so very, very wrong

Yet again, I am mystified at why the Atlanta Journal-Constitution continues to wonder why their circulation is in a downward spiral. Maybe they should look (again) at what their resident moron, Cynthia Tucker (pictured, at left, by proxy with a white female so as to not harm the delicate sensibilities of some ninnies who can’t handle criticism of some segments of the population), has announced. Today she blogs that we simple people should be praising President Obama for the $800,000,000,000 “stimulus” that was passed last year because (gasp) it contained the largest amount of tax cuts since Hammurabi! And, don’t cha know, he’s such a good dude he just skipped telling us about it because he thought it better that way for us (the aforementioned feeble minded denizens of Georgia and elsewhere).

The Obama administration made the decision not to advertise the tax cuts, though — believing that consumers were more likely to spend the money if they didn’t really notice they had it. The administration includes several economists who study consumer psychology, and they didn’t want consumers to use the tax cuts to pay bills or add to the savings account. The administration wanted them to spend it for groceries or gas or clothing or whatever. So they simply reduced the amount of money that the government withholds for taxes. That resulted in paychecks just slightly larger.

‘Just slightly larger,’ mind you. Well, thanks! Except it isn’t so. Behold this charming graph and the meat and potatoes therein:

Democrats say tax cuts represent one-third of the overall stimulus package, not a huge difference from Obama’s original goal of 40 percent. But congressional budget analysts count nearly $100 billion of these measures as spending because they are credits going to people who don’t pay taxes. The CBO adjustment reduces the tax-cut portion of the package to 22 percent.

That’s right, almost one-third of the alleged tax-cuts were going to people who didn’t pay any taxes to begin with. I call that government welfare. And that means that only 82.1 billion dollars is actually going to tax cuts. And, of course, that was not all at once but doled out over 2-3 years as the second chart here clearly demonstrates.

Further, what Tucker also fails to grasp is that changing the withholding levels without changing the actual tax rate is disingenuous, to say the least, as it does not change the total amount due based on income at any time. Shell game, anyone? And does Tucker think increasing the debt by $3,000,000,000 in two years is a good thing, I wonder?

And this fatuous nonsense about Dear Leader keeping mum about these tax cuts? Please. Cynthia Tucker must have a short memory not to recall this:

“Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans,” Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

Radio and internet address, Tucker. Hardly keeping it a secret, was he now?


  1. John Konop says:

    ….almost one-third of the alleged tax-cuts were going to people who didn’t pay any taxes to begin with….

    In the fair tax plan a 100% goes out “to people who didn’t pay any taxes” at least we collected payroll taxes before now they pay nothing! Do you support the Fair Tax Pete? Only the biggest liberals must support the Fair Tax!

  2. macho says:

    We certainly have an uphill battle, when the government gives people refunds for taxes they never paid and convinces them it’s a tax cut. It’s all very Orwellian when “welfare” becomes “tax cuts.”

      • macho says:

        Sorry, I do. In addition to all the often repeated reasons, I like the fact that it helps put American manufacturers on an equal footing with foreign manufacturers and their more favorable tax codes.

        • John Konop says:


          Please help me understand the math? Most corporations pay less than 10% in income taxes. If you add a 30 cent tax (which is more according to the Bush tax study group) on the dollar who does this help manufactories? Also if the client has to pay a 30 cent or more tax on the dollar for financing the products they buy how does this help? How does this bill solve the problem of countries like China having child/slave labor conditions, no intellectual property rights…….

      • macho says:

        If you’re referring to the automatic refund that everyone gets, I think that it’s supposed to somewhat mimic the graduated tax system we have now, and silence the knee-jerk argument on poor people paying sales tax on the bare necessities. Although, the knee-jerks still seem to ignore this aspect of the plan.

        • John Konop says:

          You promoting another major entitlement program we cannot afford!

          … Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would receive a “Family Consumption Allowance” (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.[3] The FCA is a tax rebate (known as a “prebate” as it would be an advance) paid in twelve monthly installments, adjusted for inflation. The rebate is meant to eliminate the taxation of household necessities and make the plan progressive.[5] Households would register once a year with their sales tax administering authority, providing the names and social security numbers of each household member.[3] The Social Security Administration would disburse the monthly rebate payments in the form of a paper check via U.S. Mail, an electronic funds transfer to a bank account, or a “smartcard” that can be used like a debit card.[3]

          Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100 percent participation).[36] In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud,[37] treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need.[38]

          The President’s Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform cited the rebate as one of their chief concerns when analyzing their national sales tax, stating that it would be the largest entitlement program in American history, and contending that it would “make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government”.[9][39] Estimated by the advisory panel at approximately $600 billion, “the Prebate program would cost more than all budgeted spending in 2006 on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior combined.”[9] Proponents point out that income tax deductions, tax preferences, loopholes, credits, etc. under the current system was estimated at $945 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation.[36] They argue this is $456 billion more than the FairTax “entitlement” (tax refund) would spend to cover each person’s tax expenses up to the poverty level. In addition, it was estimated for 2005 that the Internal Revenue Service was already sending out $270 billion in refund checks.[36]…..

  3. macho says:

    The withholding levels is another interesting angle. Amazingly, many people don’t understand this whole concept. You ask the average Joe how much he paid in taxes, if he remembers, chances are he’ll quote you the April 15th check he wrote for the difference between the last year’s withholding and his actual taxes. Or even worse, he might say, “I didn’t pay any taxes, I got a refund.”

    Withholding is big government’s best friend. If we eliminated Federal withholding, and people had to write quarterly checks, like independent businesspeople, the Dems (and a lot of Republicans) would be thrown out of office in the greatest landslide ever.

  4. center5 says:

    Hey Pete, geez, you could’ve saved yourself a whole lot of typing and us a whole lot of reading if you just wrote:

    A reduction in taxes is good EXCEPT when its done by Obama.

    And question: where were you when Bush was mailing “stimulus” checks like candy?

  5. hannah says:

    The object of the so-called “stimulus” (really just an updated version of revenue sharing) was to infuse money (currency dollars) directly into the economy, instead of funneling it through Wall Street and the bond market. The reason that had to be done was because Wall Street and our private corporate sector had sequestered or hoarded the currency, making it very difficult for people to engage in exchange and trade. That’s what was meant by the “liquidity crisis.” Despite a decade of low interest being charged by the Federal Reserve to make money more readily available, the financial community used it to create a real estate bubble and to float dubious financial instruments, instead of lending to Main Street to finance inventory and small manufacturers to promote innovation.
    Collecting fewer dollars up front from all the wage earners left more dollars in the economy to circulate. Sending grants to the states for capital improvements and health care, infused money directly, instead of letting the bondsmen collect a premium of every dollar spent on public works. Moving the student loan program from the private banks to the Department of Education, which was spending the dollars anyway, saves the premiums we were paying to the banks for services (vetting the borrowers and the institutions they were attending for quality) they weren’t providing anyway.
    The process that is underway, and about which Warren Stephens from Little Rock, Arkansas has complained about to the Wall Street Journal, is the federal government (our agents of government) getting into the “credit allocation” business. Why is Stephens complaining? Because deciding who gets money (allocating credit) is how bankers and brokers and insurers make a living. The trickle of dollars from every credit transaction is their life-blood. If the federal government gets into the business of allocating credit (our agents of government deciding how our money is best used) then their cushy existence will be undermined.
    The Stephens family has been in the brokerage business since before the middle of the last century. They got rich by promoting the proposition that instead of collecting revenue as needed, public corporations (nation and state) should issue bonds to qualified lenders and insure a steady income stream from the public trough — income that’s exempt from taxation, to boot. It’s a neat trick. Instead of paying your fair share to support public works, you lend your neighbors the money and collect a premium that’s untaxed. We’re not talking about a free lunch. We’re talking about a feast which the guests are paid to eat.
    Is this corrupt? No, it’s all legal.

    • Scott65 says:

      Very well said. I dont think people truly understand how this works. If you have a liquidity trap (no lending), and the paradox of thrift (people saving, and paying down debt which takes more money out of the economy), then the government is the lender of last resort. If they dont start spending…you get another Herbert Hover and the whole system collapses. The stimulus for all its demagoguery worked it just wasn’t big enough…not even close. TARP worked as well ( a Bush item). It is almost all paid back and is giving taxpayers a return thats better than treasuries. Its easy to mislead about this stuff, and the people doing the misleading cant be so stupid to not understand it all

  6. Quaker says:

    “Cynthia Tucker (pictured, at left, by proxy with a white female so as to not harm the delicate sensibilities of some ninnies who can’t handle criticism of some segments of the population), ”

    Dude, that quote tells me all I need to know about you. I guess you should get some credit for not using the “N” word.

Comments are closed.