Bush Assertion on Tax Cuts Is at Odds With IRS Data

[UpInArms]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A488-2004Feb23.html

President Bush defended his tax cuts yesterday as economic fuel for the small- business sector in response to mounting criticism from Democratic presidential candidates that the cuts chiefly benefited the wealthiest Americans.

But the president's contention that upper-income tax cuts primarily benefit entrepreneurs conflicts with some of the government's own data.

<snip>

But under Treasury's definition, both Bush and Vice President Cheney are members of the entrepreneurial class. In his 2002 tax return, the president reported $1,549 from rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations and trusts, including income from GWB Rangers Corp., a remnant of his days as co-owner of the Texas Rangers. Of the Cheney household's $1.2 million income, $238,682 was from business ventures within the White House's definition of small business.

Economists say the broad Republican definition of "small-business man" includes not only doctors, lawyers and management consultants but also chief executives who earn $3,000 renting out their chalets in Aspen or report $10,000 in speaking fees. An aide on the Joint Economic Committee conceded that the definition includes the army of accountants and consultants at such giant partnerships as KPMG LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, not the firms that "small business" brings to mind.

...more...

So who pissed in the Post's wheaties? They have 2 stories today that are doing the pitiful butt licking routine.

[mhr]

1. The Post May Be Receiving Reader Backlash Such That Denial Is Not Working

I wrote several weeks ago on the jobless recovery and spoke with the Ombudsman and the editorial department.

In both conversations, I was told that they were receiving substantial negative feedback on their economic reporting.

We can only hope.