Kristi McGarity - previously featured quotations

Part 2: Who's really paying for this war?

Part 3: Protections for federal workers? OK, sure, I promise.

Part 1: Loud and Clear

"I also really want to thank members of Congress, both House members, Senate members, members of both political parties, for the strong resolutions that came off the floor of their respective bodies, resolutions which said loud and clear, our country supports the men and women in uniform. Not only do we support those brave souls who are sacrificing on our behalf, but we want to thank their parents and their families for their dedication, as well." -- President George Bush

"By a vote along party lines, the majority members of the House Budget Committee passed and reported for a vote by the House a budget resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans' medical care next year and $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the budget resolution would cut $15 billion from the disability compensation and other benefit programs over the next 10 years." -- Disabled American Veterans

Part 2: Who's really paying for this war?

Awww, he sounds so sweet:

"These are the basic ideas that guide my tax policy: lower income taxes for all, with the greatest help for those most in need. Everyone who pays income taxes benefits-- while the highest percentage tax cuts go to the lowest income Americans . . . It is an economics of inclusion. It is the agenda of a government that knows its limits and shows its heart." -- President George W. Bush, "The President's Agenda for Tax Relief"

But here's the problem:

"The Bush tax cut proposal entirely leaves out working-poor families. They would receive no assistance under the plan. No relief is provided until a family's income exceeds 130 percent to 160 percent of the poverty line, depending on family size and configuration. The plan does not reduce taxes for all who pay them. Many low-income working families that do not owe income tax pay significant amounts in payroll taxes, even when the impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit is taken into account. These families are not aided by the Bush plan. On February 2, President Bush cited a waitress who is a single mother earning $22,000 a year as an example of someone who would benefit significantly from his plan. But a waitress who earns $22,000 and has two children would receive no tax cut under the plan." -- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

"Nationwide, 31 percent of taxpayers would get nothing from the Bush plan. The dozen states with the highest percentages of taxpayers who would get nothing at all from the latest Bush tax proposals include: Mississippi (44%), Louisiana (42%), West Virginia (42%), Arkansas (40%), Alabama (39%), Kentucky (38%), Oklahoma (38%) , South Carolina (36%), Montana (36%), Idaho (35%), Tennessee (35%), and New Mexico (35%). Ironically, all of these states except New Mexico cast their electoral votes for Bush in the last presidential election." -- Citizens for Tax Justice

"Most taxpayers get little help from latest Bush tax plan; typical tax cut is about $120 in 2003-04, then drops to zero thereafter: Despite misleading presidential rhetoric, almost half of all American taxpayers will get less than $100 this year and next from President BushÕs just-passed tax plan. In 2005, three-quarters of taxpayers will get less than $100, and in 2006 and later years almost nine out of ten will get less than $100." -- Citizens for Tax Justice

The Wall Street Journal calls people eligible for income-based tax credits "lucky duckies" and recommends higher taxes for the poorest Americans:

"As the Republicans construct their tax plan, there is a large and under-appreciated fact they would do well to keep in mind. . . . The most recent data from the IRS, in 2000, show that the top 5% coughed up more than half of total tax revenue. . . . Say a person earns $12,000. . . . almost 13% of all workers have no tax liability and so are indifferent to income tax rates. . . . Who are these lucky duckies?" -- Wall Street Journal

What? You say the working poor still pay payroll taxes? Oh, no, those are just a figment of your imagination:

"Answering critics who say the working poor do face high taxes because they pay high Social Security payroll taxes, outgoing White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey told the AEI tax forum that the 12.4 percent Social Security levy should not be considered when tax burdens are calculated." -- Washington Post

Bush's Council of Economic Advisers likes the "lucky duckies" theory:

"By 2000, the top one percent of taxpayers were the source of 37 percent of individual income tax receipts, while the top five percent accounted for more than one half (57 percent) of receipts. In light of these figures, academic discussions of the progressivity of the income tax often have a 'missing the forest for the trees' feel to them - the income tax is paid almost entirely by the well-to-do. . . . The increasing reliance on taxing higher-income households and targeted social preferences at lower incomes stands in the way. . . . Reform is more important than ever, but will not be easy." -- R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman, President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers

The truth is that the top 5% of U.S. taxpayers earn a large percentage of the money each year and hold an even greater percentage of the accumulated wealth. Plus, income taxes are not the only taxes that should be counted:

"It's true that the top 5% of earners pay 55% of all federal income taxes, but it's not because the tax tables are so ferociously progressive. It's because they have all the money. That top 5% earns 34% of all the income. In fact, if you look at total tax burdens, the top 5% of taxpayers earns 34% of the national income and pays out about 34% of all taxes." -- Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly

Part 3: Protections for federal workers? OK, sure, I promise.

"President Bush supports legislation for the Department of Homeland Security which specifically affirms the [civil service and collective bargaining] protections currently provided to the federal workforce. They include all merit system principles such as whistleblower protection and veterans' preference." -- Kay Coles James, director, Office of Personnel Management

"The President asked for statutory authority to create a personnel system that is 'flexible, contemporary, and grounded in the public employment principles of merit and fitness,' and he promised that the new system would protect employee rights." -- U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee

"The Bush administration insisted on removing some of the traditional Civil Service and union protections for workers in its new Department of Homeland Security . . . [T]he administration's proposal would give the directors of homeland security and the federal Office of Personnel Management wide-ranging authority to waive all civil service laws -- including merit principles, whistleblower protection, the right to belong to a union, and pay and benefits for any employee of the new department." -- Colleen Kelley, president, National Treasury Employees Union

Back to Previously Featured Quotations