Media Blog

NRO’s MSM watchdog.

Tax-Hike Talk on PBS


On Washington Week on PBS, liberal reporters look at the scarier new deficit projections and say it’s time to scratch the Obama no-new-taxes pledges:

KAREN TUMULTY, Time: Well, if something’s got to give on the deficit front at some point, is that something likely to be the president’s promise that he will not raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year?

DAVID WESSEL, Wall Street Journal: I think so. I don’t see how it’s arithmetically possible for the president to pursue those parts of his spending agenda which are popular with people and the Congress without raising taxes on the bulk of Americans. There’s just not enough money in the over $250,000-a-year crowd to pay for what he wants to do.

The only other notable moment on the show was NBC’s Pete Williams (the former Cheney Pentagon spokesman) making no mention at all of how nakedly partisan it would be for the Bay State Dems to switch the Senate appointment rules back from the no-picks-for-Romney policy of five years ago:

PETE WILLIAMS: Can I ask a question about that? I’ve been puzzled about why knowing that this was going to happen Massachusetts didn’t change its law sooner. The one – they changed a couple of years ago so that Mitt Romney, the governor, couldn’t appoint a successor to a vacant Senate seat. Now you can’t have a successor until there’s an election. Why didn’t they change this sooner and are they going to do it now?

DAVID BRODER: Well, I think, Pete, because they didn’t want to seem to be brushing Kennedy off the scene. And they wanted to wait until it was almost the end. And then he sent that letter asking them, please make the change back.

No one at the table wondered if it was favorable to the state of Massachusetts (especially Democrats) to have a place-holder senator who missed 97 percent of the votes this year. In the Kennedy family game of Legacy Quest, who was brushing off whom? (Conservatives surely favored a liberal senator with that kind of attendance record.)


Subscribe to National Review