McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again

[Amelia]

FACTCHECK.ORG

More Tax Deceptions

McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.

Brooks Jackson

link to article@Newsweek

Aug 9, 2008

Summary

McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.

A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.

A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.

A second radio ad, in English, says, "Obama has a history of raising taxes" on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.

These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.

Analysis

Sen. John McCain's campaign released the 30-second spot Aug. 8. Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the ad would be running in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

John McCain 2008 Ad: "Painful"

Announcer: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That's the real Obama.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

The ad continues McCain's pattern of misrepresenting Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals as falling on middle-income families. It claims that Obama "promises more taxes on small businesses, seniors, your life savings, your family." But that's untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama's actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income.

Better, But Still Deceptive

We are pleased to see that in this ad McCain has corrected one earlier misrepresentation. He and others in his campaign have been saying for weeks that Obama once voted for a Democratic budget bill that McCain falsely claimed would raise taxes on persons making as little as $32,000 a year. We challenged that false claim in an article posted July 8. In this ad, McCain says Obama voted to raise taxes on persons making "just $42,000 a year," which is true for some but not all. Yet the ad still misleads.

A Misleading Picture

The measure Obama supported contained a provision – which is not part of his current tax proposals – that would have increased the rate paid by those who have taxable income high enough to fall into the 25 percent tax bracket. The 25 percent rate would have increased to 28 percent, as it was before the Bush tax cuts. The effect would have been to increase taxes for a single taxpayer with as little as $32,550 in taxable income in 2008, after all deductions and exclusions from total annual earnings.

But that works out to be $41,500 a year in total income for a single taxpayer with no dependents who takes the standard deduction and exemption allowed by the tax code. So it's true that a single taxpayer making $42,000 this year would see an income tax increase – of $15. That assumes the provision Obama voted for had been enacted and assumes further that the taxpayer did not qualify for more than the standard deduction.

But the McCain ad misleads with a strong visual message. The $42,000 claim is true for a lone taxpayer, but it is not true for the woman who is pictured in the ad while the announcer is speaking. She's reading to two small children, apparently her own. If she is supposed to be a single mother of two, then she would be able to make as much as $62,150 in total income in 2008 without being affected by the measure Obama once supported. She would file as a "head of household" with more generous tax brackets and standard deductions than for a single filer, and she would also qualify for exemptions for herself and her two children. (She would also qualify for a $1,000 credit for each child, since they both are obviously under 17, but this would be true whether or not the 25 percent bracket had been increased to 28 percent.)

Furthermore, if viewers are to believe that the woman in McCain's ad is married and files taxes jointly with her husband, the couple could make as much as $90,000 this year without being affected. And anyway, as noted earlier, Obama isn't proposing to implement any such increase in the 25 percent bracket.

(Tax tables for 2008 can be found here, including the tax brackets, exemptions and exclusions that apply to income earned this year.)

The TV ad also says that Obama "promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family." This statement is simply not true for the vast majority of viewers who will see it. Obama, in fact, promises to deliver a $1,000 tax cut for families making up to $150,000 a year, and he says he would increase income tax rates, capital gains tax rates and taxes on dividends only for those with family incomes over $250,000 a year, or for single taxpayers making over $200,000.

Tax Deception en Español

McCain also released a 60-second, Spanish-language radio ad Aug. 8 with additional deceptions, claiming that Obama would raise taxes on listeners' income, savings and home sales, and falsely claiming that he had voted to increase taxes on "families" making $42,000 a year.

John McCain 2008 Radio Ad: "Are You Ready For Obama?"

(English translation supplied by McCain campaign)

Announcer: With the economy as bad as it is, gas prices going up, home foreclosures, and jobs being lost, we need to be careful about who we pick as our next president.

No doubt, Barack Obama is a popular figure, a celebrity who says the right thing. But will he do the right thing?

So here's the question you need to ask yourself, in these tough economic times, are you ready for a president who voted for higher income taxes on working families making $42,000 a year?

Are you ready for Barack Obama, for his tax plans that will hurt senior citizens?

Are you ready for the higher taxes on income, savings and the sale of your home that Barack Obama promises?

It's not that you're not ready. Barack Obama is not ready yet. Because when it comes to the economy, experience matters, and he just doesn't have it.

He says he'll give you change, but that's what he'll leave you with.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

The English-language translation supplied by the McCain campaign says Obama voted for higher taxes on "working families" making $42,000 a year. (In Spanish, it says Obama "voto para aumentarle los impuestos a las familias que ganan 42,000 dolares al año.) The Spanish for "working" does not actually appear in the ad, but either way the claim is false.

As noted, what Obama once supported would have increased taxes for a single taxpayer at that income level, but not for a family. The smallest possible "family" would be a single parent with a single child, and such a single parent would have to make $58,650 to have been affected. As noted, a family of four would have to make $90,000. And in any case, Obama's plan would cut taxes for families at all those levels, not increase them.

The ad also falsely claims Obama proposes higher taxes on "the sale of your home." In fact, neither Obama nor McCain propose any change in the current exemption for home sales, which allow all profits to go untaxed up to $500,000 for a couple or $250,000 for a single person, provided that the home has been a primary residence at least two of the previous five years. Obama has proposed an unspecified increase in the tax rate for capital gains, but this would fall only on home-sale profits that exceed the current exclusion and would therefore affect only a very small percentage of all sellers.

False "History"

Later the same day, the McCain campaign released another 60-second radio ad, titled "Recipe." This one is in English, and it's also misleading.

John McCain 2008 Radio Ad: "Recipe"

Announcer: Life in the spotlight must be grand for Barack Obama. But is he ready to lead in tough economic times?

Official records document, Barack Obama has a history of raising taxes – even on middle class Americans making just $42,000 a year.

If elected president, Obama's promises would mean even more taxes on income, electricity, oil, small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes when times are tough enough.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal calls Obama's ideas "a recipe for economic disaster."

The Washington Post says Obama's policies are "poorly crafted" and will result in "higher prices at the pump."

And The Wall Street Journal reports Obama's plans will "stunt small business" and threaten "America's economic competitiveness."

More taxes. Higher gas prices. A recipe for economic disaster.

That's the real Obama.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

Announcer: Paid for by John McCain 2008.

It says: "Official records document, Barack Obama has a history of raising taxes – even on middle class Americans making just $42,000 a year." But that's false. No taxes were increased, and the vote that the McCain campaign refers to could not by itself have resulted in any increase on anybody.

The measure for which Obama voted was a budget bill for fiscal 2009. Budget bills set revenue and spending targets for appropriations and tax-writing committees, but don't by themselves legislate any changes in taxes or spending.

It is correct to say that Obama's vote showed a preference for the Democratic budget package, which included an increase in the 25 percent tax bracket, over the Republican alternatives. But it is false to say that this amounts to "a history of raising taxes," since no taxes were actually increased. It is also misleading, as we've noted, because Obama has campaigned consistently on a promise to cut taxes for most taxpayers while raising them only on the most affluent.

A Continuing Pattern of Deceit

These three new McCain ads continue what has become a pattern of deceit, with McCain repeatedly misrepresenting what Obama is proposing.

Here are some of McCain's previous false claims, with links to previous analyses:

- McCain falsely claimed Obama's plan would increase taxes on 23 million small-business owners, when the vast majority of them would get a cut. Any increase would actually fall only on the most affluent, a few hundred thousand business owners.

- McCain falsely claimed Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity," though Obama has said no such thing and his tax plan contains no proposal for a tax on electricity.

- As noted already, McCain falsely claimed Obama once voted for a Democratic budget bill that called for raising taxes on persons making as little as $32,000 a year, when in fact the proposal would not have affected anyone with total income under $41,500 a year, or $83,000 for a married couple with no children.

- McCain stated that Obama would raise taxes "if you have an investment for your child's education or own a mutual fund or a stock in a retirement plan." This was found to be "false" by our colleagues at Politifact.com, and we concur.

McCain has been twisting tax facts about Obama as far back as June 10, when he gave a speech to a small-business gathering saying: "Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise." There may be persons of "every background" among the affluent, but McCain's phrasing was misleading. These ads continue his long-running pattern of deception on taxes.

(Republished with permission from Factcheck.org

The consumer advocate for voters published by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.)

Sources

"Individual Income Tax Brackets, 1945 - 2008." 4 November 2007. Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 7 July 2008.

U.S. Internal Revenue Service, "Topic 701 - Sale of Your Home," Web site accessed 8 Aug 2008.

Len Burman, et. al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Revised 23 July 2008.

[Dr. Shane]

First, and this is important to bare in mind, Newsweek is a liberal magazine. Even more liberal than Time. So Newsweek reporting "McCain misrepresents Obama's..." is pretty much like Rush Limbaugh reporting "Obama misrepresents McCain's..." My point is both Newsweek and Rush Limbaugh have an idealogical dog in the fight. Neither are objective sources for news. When read, they need to be balanced out with the other side.

That said, this article really deals with splitting hairs and some misunderstandings. Raising taxes on people making $250,000 a year will hit some small businesses, elderly and middle class families hard because many small businesses are not incorporated and thus the owner of the business files the company income as his personal income. The article actually admits the increase in capital gains tax proposed by Obama would impact a small percentage of home owners and yet they still maintain their claim McCain is dishonest for pointing that out. Saying an unmarried individual cannot be part of a family is a bit of splitting hairs too. The fact is there are many unmarried men that have fathered children and not been married that are taxed as an individual. Increasing their taxes impacts their "family".

Newsweek really has to be in the tank for Obama to publish junk like this. It would be a decent article if they balanced it by showing similar discrepancies in the Obama campaign but they wouldn't do that because they have their idealogical dog in the fight.

[Amelia]

Quote:

First, and this is important to bare in mind, Newsweek is a liberal magazine. Even more liberal than Time.

The article was reprinted from FactCheck.Org by Newsweek. I'm pretty sure that is clear if you read the whole article. Factcheck.org breaks down data from both parties. I provided a link to their website at the bottom of the article.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The article was reprinted from FactCheck.Org by Newsweek.

Yes, I saw that. It is yet another example of selective reporting. One can use the same root source "FactCheck.org" to find dishonest or misleading things the Obama campaign is doing. So,,, why didn't Newsweek report those too? Can we all say it together?

"Liberal Bias, liberal bias, liberal bias"

Ok, one more time for the Gipper.

"Liberal bias"

[Neil D]

I have seen some pretty far right and left sources accurately protray a situation without thier ideological bias come into play.

Such is the case, here, where Newsweek quotes factcheck.org.

It matters not which entity is liberal or conservative, republican or democrate...What is important is that facts are presented to the voter for evaluation.

So, the challenge to you, Shane, since you bring it up, is to present Obamas biased ad campaigns from factcheck.org here for us to evaluate.

That way, the voter is the one evaluating each canidate....

[Neil D]

Ok, one more time for the Gipper.

"Liberal bias"

Oh, and Shane, ......

[Neil D]

It is interesting to note, that when one goes to check out the factcheck.org, this month there are 7 ads that the Factcheck.org has issues with from the McCain ads. And only 2 from the Obama camp. And if you are weighing in on accuracy, the MCain ads seem to lack that accuracy and instead use distortion of Obamas record more often, where as Obama looks more to [to put it in the worst light] inflate some of his history.

I don't care if it is two jobs during the summer to put himself thru college or a combination of summmer jobs and loans...the point is that he got thru school and he did it.

But to distort and misrepresent what a person says, is an act of desparation. And that is what McCain is doing.

[Jeannieb43]

But to distort and misrepresent what a person says, is an act of desparation. And that is what McCain is doing.

Trouble is, this Rove-ian type of desperation worked once before -- it got Bush elected. This is what the GOP is hoping for this time.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

It is interesting to note, that when one goes to check out the factcheck.org, this month there are 7 ads that the Factcheck.org has issues with from the McCain ads. And only 2 from the Obama camp.

Now why, the question begs to be asked, does anyone have to go to FactCheck.org to find this out? Why, (there's that question again) didn't Newsweek state this information in their publication?

Obvious answer:

Shall we say it together?

Liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias.

Politicians play games with words. Bill Clinton wasn't sure what the meaning of the word "is" is. This is typical. It is not unique to Republicans, Democrats or even the wicked, evil, satanic, greedy, hate-filled, lying, war-mongering Karl Rove. Organizations like FactCheck.org try to keep politicians on their toes. That's a good thing. But it is disingenuous for Newsweek to report only the ads where McCain is playing with semantics and not the ones where Obama is. This is a perfect example of selective reporting. In this case it shows liberal bias. There are scores of other examples where there is conservative bias. This highlights the importance of getting our news from more than one idealogical source.

[Neil D]

Quote:

It is interesting to note, that when one goes to check out the factcheck.org, this month there are 7 ads that the Factcheck.org has issues with from the McCain ads. And only 2 from the Obama camp.

Now why, the question begs to be asked, does anyone have to go to FactCheck.org to find this out? Why, (there's that question again) didn't Newsweek state this information in their publication?

Obvious answer:

Shall we say it together?

Liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias.

Politicians play games with words. Bill Clinton wasn't sure what the meaning of the word "is" is. This is typical. It is not unique to Republicans, Democrats or even the wicked, evil, satanic, greedy, hate-filled, lying, war-mongering Karl Rove. Organizations like FactCheck.org try to keep politicians on their toes. That's a good thing. But it is disingenuous for Newsweek to report only the ads where McCain is playing with semantics and not the ones where Obama is. This is a perfect example of selective reporting. In this case it shows liberal bias. There are scores of other examples where there is conservative bias. This highlights the importance of getting our news from more than one idealogical source.

Shane.....

What the heck are you talking about?????? The liberal bias of the Newsweek? From MY post????

Let me inform you of something.....I never mentioned Newsweek. I, me, myself went to checkfact.org and ME, MYSELF and I looked over the sight. If you do that, my might find that they have separated their facts checks into months...the months of July show that there were 7 ads from the McCain camp that were checked by this organisation vs the 2 from Obama camp. No spin on my part...just reporting on an organization...no 2nd hand informational organizations like Newsweek...Just ME, MYSELF, and I...I reported those interesting facts....

there's no liberal bias there, except to say, that I was weighting the content of those ads as to what was wrong with them...I was up front when I said that information in those ads from the McCain camp was more from distortion of facts than mis-information of how many jobs Obama had. And it still seems to me that someone who is distorting facts of his opponent is more desparate to win the white house than someone who mis-informs as to how many jobs he had in college.

So, Shane, go to factcheck.org. Look it over...Am I being Liberal for scritunizing McCain like that?

[Amelia]

*gp*

Factcheck.org is neither liberal or conservative. That is why you will find breakdown data on both parties. That is called nonpartisan. If Newsweek chose to use data on just one candidate that is their prerogative. If you feel that Newsweek is too liberal then don't read the article. If you wish to refute the article then do so with data that contradicts the facts stated. But yelling LIBERAL BIAS about Newsweek is nothing but smokescreen to take the topic off focus. This topic is not about Newsweek nor liberal bias.

[Jeannieb43]

*gp*

Factcheck.org is neither liberal or conservative. That is why you will find breakdown data on both parties. That is called nonpartisan. If Newsweek chose to use data on just one candidate that is their prerogative. If you feel that Newsweek is too liberal then don't read the article. If you wish to refute the article then do so with data that contradicts the facts stated. But yelling LIBERAL BIAS about Newsweek is nothing but smokescreen to take the topic off focus. This topic is not about Newsweek nor liberal bias.

Well stated.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

yelling LIBERAL BIAS about Newsweek is nothing but smokescreen to take the topic off focus.

I beg to disagree. I could come in here and post articles from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or other idealogical sources every day and all day long. These are idealogical sources of news. They are famous for selective reporting. That means they don't provide all the facts but only the facts they want people to be talking about. FactCheck.org is nonpartisan. The same cannot be said of Newsweek.

The title of this thread states that McCain misrepresents Obama. BUT that is according to Newsweek. When we go to their root source, FactCheck.org we find that Obama also misrepresents McCain - and we haven't even gotten to the conventions yet! It was intellectually dishonest for Newsweek to exclude the examples of Obama misrepresenting McCain.

Newsweek is a liberal publication just as much as Rush Limbaugh is a conservative commentator. I am not saying it is wrong to read Newsweek any more than it is wrong to listen to Rush Limbaugh. But for goodness sake, let's open our eyes and not be in denial about the bias of such news organizations.

[Amelia]

OK, here is the article direct from Factcheck.org

More Tax Deceptions

August 8, 2008

McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.

Summary

McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.

A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.

A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.

A second radio ad, in English, says, "Obama has a history of raising taxes" on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.

These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.

Analysis

Sen. John McCain's campaign released the 30-second spot Aug. 8. Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the ad would be running in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Announcer: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That's the real Obama.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

The ad continues McCain's pattern of misrepresenting Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals as falling on middle-income families. It claims that Obama "promises more taxes on small businesses, seniors, your life savings, your family." But that's untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama's actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income.

Better, But Still Deceptive

We are pleased to see that in this ad McCain has corrected one earlier misrepresentation. He and others in his campaign have been saying for weeks that Obama once voted for a Democratic budget bill that McCain falsely claimed would raise taxes on persons making as little as $32,000 a year. We challenged that false claim in an article posted July 8. In this ad, McCain says Obama voted to raise taxes on persons making "just $42,000 a year," which is true for some but not all. Yet the ad still misleads.

A Misleading Picture

The measure Obama supported contained a provision – which is not part of his current tax proposals – that would have increased the rate paid by those who have taxable income high enough to fall into the 25 percent tax bracket. The 25 percent rate would have increased to 28 percent, as it was before the Bush tax cuts. The effect would have been to increase taxes for a single taxpayer with as little as $32,550 in taxable income in 2008, after all deductions and exclusions from total annual earnings.

But that works out to be $41,500 a year in total income for a single taxpayer with no dependents who takes the standard deduction and exemption allowed by the tax code. So it's true that a single taxpayer making $42,000 this year would see an income tax increase – of $15. That assumes the provision Obama voted for had been enacted and assumes further that the taxpayer did not qualify for more than the standard deduction.

But the McCain ad misleads with a strong visual message. The $42,000 claim is true for a lone taxpayer, but it is not true for the woman who is pictured in the ad while the announcer is speaking. She's reading to two small children, apparently her own. If she is supposed to be a single mother of two, then she would be able to make as much as $62,150 in total income in 2008 without being affected by the measure Obama once supported. She would file as a "head of household" with more generous tax brackets and standard deductions than for a single filer, and she would also qualify for exemptions for herself and her two children. (She would also qualify for a $1,000 credit for each child, since they both are obviously under 17, but this would be true whether or not the 25 percent bracket had been increased to 28 percent.)

Furthermore, if viewers are to believe that the woman in McCain's ad is married and files taxes jointly with her husband, the couple could make as much as $90,000 this year without being affected. And anyway, as noted earlier, Obama isn't proposing to implement any such increase in the 25 percent bracket.

(Tax tables for 2008 can be found here, including the tax brackets, exemptions and exclusions that apply to income earned this year.)

The TV ad also says that Obama "promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family." This statement is simply not true for the vast majority of viewers who will see it. Obama, in fact, promises to deliver a $1,000 tax cut for families making up to $150,000 a year, and he says he would increase income tax rates, capital gains tax rates and taxes on dividends only for those with family incomes over $250,000 a year, or for single taxpayers making over $200,000.

Tax Deception en Español

McCain also released a 60-second, Spanish-language radio ad Aug. 8 with additional deceptions, claiming that Obama would raise taxes on listeners' income, savings and home sales, and falsely claiming that he had voted to increase taxes on "families" making $42,000 a year.

John McCain 2008 Radio Ad:

"Are You Ready For Obama?"

(English translation supplied by McCain campaign)

Announcer: With the economy as bad as it is, gas prices going up, home foreclosures, and jobs being lost, we need to be careful about who we pick as our next president.

No doubt, Barack Obama is a popular figure, a celebrity who says the right thing. But will he do the right thing?

So here's the question you need to ask yourself, in these tough economic times, are you ready for a president who voted for higher income taxes on working families making $42,000 a year?

Are you ready for Barack Obama, for his tax plans that will hurt senior citizens?

Are you ready for the higher taxes on income, savings and the sale of your home that Barack Obama promises?

It's not that you're not ready. Barack Obama is not ready yet. Because when it comes to the economy, experience matters, and he just doesn't have it.

He says he'll give you change, but that's what he'll leave you with.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

The English-language translation supplied by the McCain campaign says Obama voted for higher taxes on "working families" making $42,000 a year. (In Spanish, it says Obama “voto para aumentarle los impuestos a las familias que ganan 42,000 dolares al año.) The Spanish for "working" does not actually appear in the ad, but either way the claim is false.

As noted, what Obama once supported would have increased taxes for a single taxpayer at that income level, but not for a family. The smallest possible "family" would be a single parent with a single child, and such a single parent would have to make $58,650 to have been affected. As noted, a family of four would have to make $90,000. And in any case, Obama's plan would cut taxes for families at all those levels, not increase them.

The ad also falsely claims Obama proposes higher taxes on "the sale of your home." In fact, neither Obama nor McCain propose any change in the current exemption for home sales, which allow all profits to go untaxed up to $500,000 for a couple or $250,000 for a single person, provided that the home has been a primary residence at least two of the previous five years. Obama has proposed an unspecified increase in the tax rate for capital gains, but this would fall only on home-sale profits that exceed the current exclusion and would therefore affect only a very small percentage of all sellers.

False "History"

Later the same day, the McCain campaign released another 60-second radio ad, titled "Recipe." This one is in English, and it's also misleading.

John McCain 2008 Radio Ad:

“Recipe”

Announcer: Life in the spotlight must be grand for Barack Obama. But is he ready to lead in tough economic times?

Official records document, Barack Obama has a history of raising taxes – even on middle class Americans making just $42,000 a year.

If elected president, Obama's promises would mean even more taxes on income, electricity, oil, small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes when times are tough enough.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal calls Obama's ideas "a recipe for economic disaster."

The Washington Post says Obama's policies are "poorly crafted" and will result in "higher prices at the pump."

And The Wall Street Journal reports Obama's plans will "stunt small business" and threaten "America's economic competitiveness."

More taxes. Higher gas prices. A recipe for economic disaster.

That's the real Obama.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

Announcer: Paid for by John McCain 2008.

It says: “Official records document, Barack Obama has a history of raising taxes – even on middle class Americans making just $42,000 a year.” But that's false. No taxes were increased, and the vote that the McCain campaign refers to could not by itself have resulted in any increase on anybody.

The measure for which Obama voted was a budget bill for fiscal 2009. Budget bills set revenue and spending targets for appropriations and tax-writing committees, but don't by themselves legislate any changes in taxes or spending.

It is correct to say that Obama’s vote showed a preference for the Democratic budget package, which included an increase in the 25 percent tax bracket, over the Republican alternatives. But it is false to say that this amounts to “a history of raising taxes,” since no taxes were actually increased. It is also misleading, as we've noted, because Obama has campaigned consistently on a promise to cut taxes for most taxpayers while raising them only on the most affluent.

A Continuing Pattern of Deceit

These three new McCain ads continue what has become a pattern of deceit, with McCain repeatedly misrepresenting what Obama is proposing.

Here are some of McCain's previous false claims, with links to previous analyses:

McCain falsely claimed Obama's plan would increase taxes on 23 million small-business owners, when the vast majority of them would get a cut. Any increase would actually fall only on the most affluent, a few hundred thousand business owners.

McCain falsely claimed Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity," though Obama has said no such thing and his tax plan contains no proposal for a tax on electricity.

As noted already, McCain falsely claimed Obama once voted for a Democratic budget bill that called for raising taxes on persons making as little as $32,000 a year, when in fact the proposal would not have affected anyone with total income under $41,500 a year, or $83,000 for a married couple with no children.

McCain stated that Obama would raise taxes "if you have an investment for your child’s education or own a mutual fund or a stock in a retirement plan." This was found to be "false" by our colleagues at Politifact.com, and we concur.

McCain has been twisting tax facts about Obama as far back as June 10, when he gave a speech to a small-business gathering saying: "Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise." There may be persons of "every background" among the affluent, but McCain's phrasing was misleading. These ads continue his long-running pattern of deception on taxes.

-by Brooks Jackson

Sources

"Individual Income Tax Brackets, 1945 - 2008." 4 November 2007. Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 7 July 2008.

U.S. Internal Revenue Service, "Topic 701 - Sale of Your Home," Web site accessed 8 Aug 2008.

Len Burman, et. al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Revised 23 July 2008.

Related Articles

Wind Power Puffery

McCain's new ad touts "renewable energy," but his energy plan offers little to support it.

Obama's Overstatement

An Obama ad says McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil." The total is actually $1.3 million.

McCain's Small-Business Bunk

He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.

The $32,000 Question

The McCain campaign falsely claims that Obama voted to raise income taxes on individuals earning "as little as $32,000 per year."

[Amelia]

And just to make Shane happy; here is one about Obama. Also from Factcheck.org

Obama's Overstatement

August 4, 2008

Updated: August 6, 2008

An Obama ad says McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil."

The total is actually $1.3 million.

Summary

Obama released a TV spot saying McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil" while McCain proposed "another $4 billion in tax breaks" for the industry.

The truth is that McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.

Furthermore, McCain is not proposing new tax breaks specifically targeted to the oil industry. He's proposing a general reduction in the corporate income tax rate, which Democrats figure would benefit the five largest oil and gas companies by $3.8 billion.

Analysis

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released the ad Aug. 4. Its core claim is that McCain accepted $2 million in campaign contributions from "Big Oil" and is "in the pocket" of the industry. The Obama campaign even named the ad "Pocket."

Announcer: Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets. Now Big Oil’s filling John McCain’s campaign with 2 million dollars in contributions.

Because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another 4 billion in tax breaks. After one president in the pocket of big oil… We can’t afford another.

Barack Obama… A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you.

Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.

An Inflated Figure

It's certainly true that McCain gets far more money from donors in the oil and gas industry than Obama does. And there's no question that McCain's recent support for expanding offshore drilling is a position that the industry favors. But the $2 million figure is inflated.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics – which both campaigns cite as authoritative from time to time – McCain had received $1,332,033 from persons in the oil and gas industry (both directly and through company-sponsored political action committees), not $2.1 million as the Obama campaign claims. Those are the most recent and authoritative figures available and are based on reports on file at the Federal Election Commission as of July 28.

The Obama campaign said it cobbled together its $2.1 million figure by adding one total from a report in the Washington Post, which said oil and gas donors gave $1.1 million to McCain in June, and an older total from CRP, which put the McCain campaign's total at just over $1 million through May 30. But that turns out to be adding apples to oranges, and it does not give an accurate figure for money that went directly to "John McCain's campaign," as the ad puts it. Much of the money given in June went to a joint fundraising venture of the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and several state GOP committees, an unknown portion of which was passed through to the McCain campaign itself.

The Post said its report was based on an analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund, a group that advocates taxpayer financing of political campaigns. That group's Campaign Money Watch project released a report July 31, titled "It's a Gusher: As John McCain Fights For Big Oil, They Open Their Wallets." That report refers to $1.2 million that went to "McCain’s Victory ’08 Fund," a joint fundraising committee. The report does not say how much actually ended up in McCain's own campaign coffers and how much went to other Republican candidates and committees.

Furthermore, the figures given by the Post don't exactly match those in the Campaign Money Watch. David Miller of Campaign Money Watch told us the Post reporter "didn't actually see our report" but was briefed on preliminary findings a few days before the report was completed. David Donnelly, the national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, defended the Obama campaign's ad: "There's a strong case to be made that more than $2 million was given by the oil and gas industry to advance John McCain's campaign." But he's counting money to various Republican party committees, for use in supporting McCain and other candidates as well.

We judge the $1.3 million figure from the Center for Responsive Politics, which includes any money transferred to McCain's campaign, to be the most authoritative tally of oil and gas donations to the campaign. And we conclude that the $2 million figure in Obama's ad is the result of counting some donations raised during June that actually went elsewhere.

In Big Oil's Pocket?

It bears repeating, as we've reminded readers before, that oil companies themselves don't make donations. It's illegal under federal law for corporations to donate directly to candidates and has been since 1918. The ad refers to donations from executives and employees of oil companies, given either directly or through company-sponsored political action committees, or PACs.

Both candidates accept donations from individual employees of oil companies. In fact, when Obama claimed in an ad last March that "I don't take money from oil companies," we criticized him for being a little too slick. The CRP puts Obama's total from oil and gas donors at $394,465.

Based on CRP's figures, McCain's oil and gas donations account for just 92 cents out of every $100 he's raised. Obama's oil and gas total comes to 12 cents per $100. That's a significant difference between the two candidates, and it's clear that the industry is favoring McCain with its donations. Whether that puts him "in the pocket" of the industry is a judgment we'll leave to our readers.

Correction, Aug. 6: Our original article incorrectly stated that McCain's oil and gas donations were 0.9 cents per $100 and Obama's were 0.1 cents per $100. We miscalculated the decimal place in both figures.

"Another $4 Billion"

The ad's claim that "McCain wants to give [oil companies] another $4 billion in tax breaks" is also somewhat misleading. McCain is not proposing any special tax breaks for the oil industry. What he's proposing is a reduction in the corporate income tax rate for all companies. The $4 billion figure that Obama and many Democrats have constantly repeated recently is their estimate of the amount by which oil company taxes would be reduced should this proposal be enacted without any additional offsets, such as closing of existing preferences or "loopholes."

McCain's proposal would cut the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It also would allow for immediate write-offs for companies buying new equipment and technology, and a tax credit of 10 percent of the amount companies spend on wages devoted to research and development. The Obama campaign points to an analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund from March 27, which estimated that the McCain plan would be worth a total of $3.8 billion per year to the five largest U.S.-based oil companies, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy and Marathon. That was based on 2007 earnings and tax figures. Since then, the industry's profits have risen substantially, so the reduction in corporate tax rates might benefit them even more by the time it could be enacted in a McCain administration. But the benefit would go to all companies, not just those in the oil business.

– by Brooks Jackson, with Emi Kolawole

Sources

Mosk, Matthew. "Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling." Washington Post, 27 July 2008.

Center for American Progress Action Fund. "The McCain Plan to Cut Oil Company Taxes by Nearly $4 Billion," 27 March 2008.

Obama'08. "Senator Barack Obama Announces Emergency Economic Plan," news release 1 Aug 2008.

The Associated Press. "McCain hits Obama on windfall profits tax," 17 June 2008.

Campaign Money Watch: "IT’S A GUSHER: As John McCain Fights For Big Oil, They Open Their Wallets," 31 July 2008.

Related Articles

Obama's Oil Spill

Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.

[Dr. Shane]

In most forms of media today their is a bias. Sources that are trying to be fair or objective recognize that bis. Far from "hiding behind a tree," recognizing the bias places the reporter out in the light. I was recently reading one of our church publications which, before quoting a source, noted the source was known to have a liberal bias. There is nothing wrong with that. Often times ideologues make valid points. Rush Limbaugh isn't always wrong. Nor is Micheal Moore. But when we quote them to those who are not familiar with them, it is only right to point out their known bias.

[Neil D]

It is of interest to me, that presenting these articles has to be done ONE way, a specific way, or it has to be labled as something fowl or the intent is to mislead . That was not the case here at all....

Both the Newsweek articles and Factcheck.org say basically, the same thing. McCain has a lot of ads that are misleading and have to be doublechecked by factcheck.org.

And as one looks at the newsweek source, in this case, Factcheck.org, they also give an additional bonus....a report on Obama;s misleading ads...It is of note, that there is still 7 misleading Ads of McCains to Obama 2 for the last month. It still is of note, that the weight of guilt of deliberate misleading the american people is in McCains favor.

And if the American people were asked if they want to be mislead, like they were with Bush and the Iraq war, I am sure the American people would give a resounding "NO!" to that quiry.

Nevertheless, to insist that certain things have to be done a certain way, or to make a strawman arguement over something as trivial as this incident is, is just plain controling...and stupid.

[Dr. Shane]

Something trivial, and perhaps stupid, is to make a big deal out of the issue of semantics at hand. Obama did vote to raise taxes for individuals earning $42,000. McCain's ad stated he voted to raise taxes on families making $42,000. Ok, FactCheck gets real picky and looks at even the small things. Never mind the fact that many singles, while not married, are part of families. Looking at these candidates under a microscope is a public serve.

For Newsweek to pick up one article, highlighting some minor discrepancies is clear bias. As long as they think minor discrepancies are newsworthy, why not hunt some up on Obama? They wouldn't have to go too far. FactCheck.org has a couple for them right on their site. The reason Newsweek only hit McCain is because they are in the tank for Obama just like Rush Limbaugh is in the tank for McCain.

The basic message of McCain's ad is that Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class before and he will do it again. That is true. That is the message. Regardless if it is $42,000 or $60,000 it is still the middle class. There was no big deception there. Certainly nothing worthy of being printed in the pages of a major national news magazine. Unless, of course, that major news magazine has an agenda to get Obama elected to office.

[Bravus]

Still, wouldn't it be nice to see some of those objective moral standards that the Republicans are always talking about? 'Hi did it too, Mum' is not exactly a high standard. How about everyone on every side made a commitment to honesty - and the standard there is the impression given, not just whether on some interpretations the words are factually accurate. If every candidate (or even one candidate) were to commit to absolute truth and honesty, how would that change the campaign?

[Dr. Shane]

I think we need to bare in mind we are talking about splitting hairs. These are minor discrepancies. These are not like the Willy Horton ads, Swift Boat veterans or the NAACP's ads against Bush. Both of these campaigns have been running good clean campaigns so far as compared to past campaigns. We still have a long way to go. It may get bad before it is over.