Will Arrogant Obama Quote ('It's Math') Get Relayed Widely?

It will be interesting to see if a quote noted at the end of Jim Kuhnhenn's early Associated Press report about the President Obama's proposed tax increases (saved here for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) makes the cut in later revisions. I'll bet not, because it sends both the arrogance and ignorance meters well into the red.

This post will look at the first and third paragraphs of the 11:20 a.m. version of the AP dispatch, and then relay the quote (bolds are mine throughout):

In a blunt rejoinder to congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes Monday, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. "We can't just cut our way out of this hole," the president said.

Geez, Barack -- You, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid didn't have any trouble spending your way into "this hole," did you? Without bothering to correct the accounting trickery (discussed here and here for those who are interested), deficits in fiscal 2009 and 2010 amounted to $1.42 trillion and $1.29 trillion, respectively. With one month remaining, the fiscal 2011 deficit is on track to reach $1.3 trillion.

Also "somebody" said in 2009 (HT Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin's place) that "Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have instead cut taxes." Of course, Kuhnhenn has thus far "forgotten" to pass that nugget on to AP readers.

Obama's recommendation to a joint congressional committee served as a sharp counterpoint to Republican lawmakers, who have insisted that tax increases should play no part in taming the nation's escalating national debt. The new taxes would predominantly hit wealthy Americans, ending their Bush-era tax cuts and limiting their deductions.

Well, at least Kuhnhenn called them "new taxes." But at some point (which should have been about five years ago), you would think that the press would recognize that "the Bush-era tax cuts" occurred in 2003, that we've been operating under essentially the same income-tax system for nine years (2003 through 2011), and that tax increases should simply be called, well, "tax increases."

But speaking of tax increases, Kuhnhenn "somehow" forgot -- but in July, the Wall Street Journal didn't -- that $438 billion in tax increases are already on the books thanks to Obamacare. If the law survives court review and repeal attempts, the economy's producers will face over $1.9 trillion in additional taxes over the next decade.

If the President wants to increase the amount of money Uncle Sam takes in, all he needs to do is unleash the economy. Maximizing fossil-fuel production could bring in as much as $50 billion a year in royalties and related taxes beginning a few years from now. Easing the regulatory burden in the rest of the economy and throwing the arbitrary authoritarianism in the trash could easily lead to at least much in additional annual income and other tax collections within a year, if not sooner.

In any event, the problem isn't the intake, it's the outgo. If fiscal 2011 spending comes in at roughly $3.60 trillion as expected, that will represent a 32% increase over the $2.73 trillion spent in fiscal 2007. What in the world do we have to show for it?

Okay, here's that final-paragraph quote:

Responding to a complaint from Republicans about his proposed tax on the wealthy, Obama added: "This is not class warfare. It's math."

This statement will not be well received, which in my view explains why Kuhnhenn saved it for the end. Even if it survives in future AP dispatches, the guess here is that it probably won't be picked up at very many of the wire service's subscribing outlets, and you won't hear it much if at all in broadcast network news reports. We'll see.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Labeling Bias by Omission Media Bias Debate Taxes Budget Economy 2012 Presidential Campaigns & Elections Wall Street Journal Major Newspapers Associated Press Wire Services/Media Companies Jim Kuhnhenn