In an October 13 column, Washington Times opinion editor Emily Miller claimed that "the simple fact is the middle class isn't paying higher tax rates than the wealthy." But a recent Congressional Research Service analysis found that "[a]bout 25 percent of millionaires in the U.S. pay federal taxes at lower effective rates than a significant portion of middle-income taxpayers."
In her September 13 Washington Times column titled, "It is a Ponzi scheme," senior opinions editor Emily Miller wrote:
Texas governor [Rick Perry] is under attack for telling the unpleasant truth. At the GOP debate in Florida on Monday, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked presidential contender Rick Perry whether he was changing his tune after other Republicans and pundits slammed him for saying Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme." The Lone Star State chief executive stood his ground: "It has been called a Ponzi scheme by many people long before me."
Mr. Perry is correct in his assessment, but Republicans shouldn't waste air time arguing semantics.
As the [SEC] defines the practice, "Ponzi-scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk." That's exactly what the Social Security law does when it guarantees seniors the full amount in benefits, no matter what happens with the markets.
The SEC adds, "With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue." Thanks to the baby boomers hitting retirement, Social Security has more retirees receiving benefits than workers needed to meet payments. Consequently, Social Security was in the red last year - $49 billion more than came into the fund.
A Ponzi scheme always collapses. The question is whether the American people will elect a president who has the courage to rebuild FDR's Ponzi scheme into something that can last.
Washington Times senior editor Emily Miller falsely claimed that a bill under consideration in California would require only that undocumented students attend state high schools for three years to be eligible to receive financial aid. In fact, undocumented students must meet several requirements to qualify for aid and would receive certain grants only after every legal California resident has received awards for which he or she is eligible.
Following the Obama administration's decision to postpone the deportation of certain undocumented immigrants in order to prioritize "convicted felons" and "public safety threats," right-wing media have reacted by resorting to fearmongering, inflammatory rhetoric, and falsehoods.
In an August 23 Washington Times op-ed titled, "Obama's immigration shake-up, White House grants amnesty to anyone but convicted felons," Emily Miller wrote:
President Obama is using his executive authority to grant backdoor amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the administration's immigration-enforcement efforts would ignore "low-priority cases." That means most criminal aliens can stay, and only convicted felons will get the boot.
This new case-by-case-basis interpretation of immigration laws will give illegals a work permit to stick around in the United States, taking jobs away from the 9.1 percent of Americans looking for work. Congressional Democrats, who couldn't get their laissez-faire immigration bill passed last year, applauded the White House move.
Basically, it's a free pass as long as you don't get convicted of a serious crime.
Mr. Obama might as well stand at the border with a sign saying, "Come on in. Do whatever you want, just don't get caught."
In a May 17 column, The Washington Times' Emily Miller wrote that Senate Democrats' attempt to end tax breaks for oil companies "would only increase prices at the pump this summer." In fact, as Media Matters has noted, energy experts have explained that cutting the tax incentives would have little to no effect on prices at the pump. Further, as Miller herself even acknowledged, a recent Congressional Research Service report stated that eliminating the tax breaks would have a negligible impact on gas prices.
From Miller's column:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's attempt to raise taxes on U.S. oil companies Tuesday night would not have lowered the $4 price tag on a gallon of gasoline. The political stunt fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage, but Mr. Reid vowed to bring back the attack on "big oil" before any final deal on next year's budget or the debt ceiling could be reached.
At a press conference just prior to the vote, Mr. Reid read notes from a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report that concluded the Democratic bill would not raise gas prices. I asked Mr. Reid if his legislation would lower the price at the pump, and Mr. Reid said no: "I think that it's not going to have any effect on the price of gasoline."
Although Mr. Reid insists that raising taxes on oil producers would not increase the cost of gasoline, Republicans beg to differ. The Democratic bill "will raise the price of gasoline at the pump," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Increasing domestic production, keeping taxes low and cutting out bureaucracy is exactly what is needed to tackle high gas prices. Unfortunately, Democrats appear more interested in scoring political points than helping American families. Mr. Reid's continued fight to push through a $20 billion tax hike on oil companies would only increase prices at the pump this summer.
Led by Fox's Andrew Napolitano, right-wing media figures have embraced yet another conspiracy theory aimed at attacking President Obama: that Osama bin Laden might not be dead. Right-wing media have previously promoted the false conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in United States and the myth that Obama is a Muslim.
From the November 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...