IP: "Political Dynamite" Fails to Explode: Extreme proposals of Treasury'sO'Neill mostly unreported

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Note from your Editor -- I took some time to send this out since I was 
surprised and wanted to get verification that the material was indeed from 
the FT. See the end note from Richard Solomon re verification. Time to 
start reading the Financial Times more carefully. Dave


> > Subject: [Fwd: "Political Dynamite" Fails to Explode: Extreme proposals of
> >      Treasury'sO'Neill mostly unreported]
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:10:42 -0700
> > From: Henrietta Mckee Carter <world.song () gte net>
> > Organization: Rossmoor Voice Studio
> > To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> >
> > >                                   FAIR-L
> > >                      Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
> > >                 Media analysis, critiques and news reports
> > >
> > > June 13, 2001
> > >
> > > When a high-level government official calls for drastic changes in U.S.
> > > law, it ought to be big news. But in an interview reported by the
> > > Financial Times' Amity Shlaes (5/19/01 & 5/22/01), treasury secretary 
> Paul
> > > O'Neill called for sweeping changes in U.S. tax and social policy, and
> > > some three weeks later, those statements have made hardly a ripple in the
> > > U.S. media. Most Americans have probably not heard a word about them.
> > >
> > > In the interview, O'Neill called the current U.S. tax system "an
> > > abomination" that required changes to its "very structure." His preferred
> > > changes? O'Neill "absolutely" supports the elimination of taxes on
> > > corporations-- and the shifting of the tax burden to individuals, saying
> > > government would work better if it "collected taxes in a more direct way
> > > from the people."
> > >
> > > He also called for the abolition of Social Security and Medicare, on the
> > > grounds that "able-bodied adults should save enough on a regular basis so
> > > that they can provide for their own retirement, and, for that matter,
> > > health and medical needs." In fact, O'Neill believes the U.S. should
> > > reconsider the whole purpose of taxation: "National defense is a federal
> > > responsibility," Shlaes paraphrases O'Neill as saying, "but all other
> > > outlays need review."
> > >
> > > And O'Neill assured Shlaes he was not speaking only for himself: "Not 
> only
> > > am I committed to working on this issue, the president is also intrigued
> > > about the possibility of fixing this mess."
> > >
> > > The Financial Times described O'Neill's comments (approvingly) as
> > > "radical" and "political dynamite."  Yet the story has so far failed to
> > > take hold in the U.S. press.
> > >
> > > Three columnists at New York's Newsday noted O'Neill's remarks: Robert
> > > Reno (who said the Treasury Secretary "comes across as a man who has paid
> > > a lot of taxes and clearly resents it"-- 5/27/01) Marie Cocco (5/31/01)
> > > and Paul Vitello (5/24/01). An obviously irked Vitello took it the
> > > furthest, actually calling O'Neill's spokesman at Treasury to confirm 
> that
> > > these were not "made-up quotes":
> > >
> > > "The secretary didn't really mean to say that no matter how old, no 
> person
> > > who has paid into the Social Security system all his or her life would be
> > > entitled to benefits until he or she is physically no longer able to 
> work?
> > > He didn't really mean to say that ExxonMobil and Time Warner should be
> > > treated as we treat the church-- as tax exempt?
> > >
> > > "'Yes,' said the spokesman, 'that is our position. The quotes were all
> > > accurate.'"
> > >
> > > Thomas DeFrank of New York's Daily News also reported O'Neill's comments
> > > (5/22/01), but he apparently got a different response from the Treasury
> > > Department. "Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols said O'Neill's comments on
> > > Social Security reflected his personal views, not the Bush
> > > administration's," he noted.
> > >
> > > Outside of local New York papers, the story was harder to find. Cox wire
> > > service reporter Scott Shepard filed a story (5/20/01), which noted only
> > > O'Neill's description of the tax system as an "abomination" and the claim
> > > that the president was "also intrigued" about major changes, including
> > > cutting corporate taxes. A short piece in the May 22 Investor's Business
> > > Daily ("A Whiff of Reform in the Air") did the same, and was echoed 
> in its
> > > approving tone by a column in the May 23 Washington Times ("Signals for
> > > Tax Repair?").
> > >
> > > O'Neill has made several television appearances since the Financial Times
> > > interview, but a search of the Nexis.com database turned up just two TV
> > > references to the remarks, neither on a Big 3 network.  The Financial
> > > Times' own Robert Thomson teased his paper's interview at the end of 
> a May
> > > 18 appearance on CNNfn's "The N.E.W. Show" whose main subject was the
> > > Lucent/Alcatel merger. And Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow asked O'Neill
> > > about the idea of "getting rid of the corporate income tax" on June 3.
> > > (O'Neill declined to answer, saying only that "we need to fundamentally
> > > look at the way our tax code works.")
> > >
> > > What about the country's major outlets, the place one would look for a
> > > story of such import? So far, O'Neill's radical statements have made it
> > > into the New York Times only in an op-ed by Democratic partisans James
> > > Carville and Paul Begala (5/27/01). USA Today ran an Associated Press
> > > column (5/22/01) that placed O'Neill's calls for eliminating taxes on
> > > corporations at the end, after discussion of estate taxes and
> > > "simplification" of the tax system, and noted only that the Treasury
> > > Secretary has plans for "reform" of Social Security. (AP's original
> > > headline on the piece: "O'Neill: Further Tax Relief Coming," 5/21/01.)
> > >
> > > Washington Post columnist John O. Fox used O'Neill's "abomination" quote
> > > to shore up his own argument about the U.S.'s "monstrously complicated"
> > > tax code, but ignored the rest of his statements.  And the Post's David
> > > Broder made no reference to the Financial Times interview in his June 6
> > > column, which referred to Bush administration plans to "open [Social
> > > Security and Medicare] up to market forces."
> > >
> > > Broder did note congenially that "as Treasury Secretary Paul
> > > O'Neill...reminded me the other day, what makes the task so difficult is
> > > the need to educate people about the current system, before they can be
> > > persuaded that it needs to be changed as the administration proposes."
> > >
> > > Indeed, the American people could use "educating" about just what the 
> Bush
> > > administration and its Treasury Secretary propose. But where will 
> they get
> > > it if not from the mainstream news media?
> > >
> > > ACTION: Please write to national and local media outlets and ask them why
> > > Paul O'Neill's calls for eliminating corporate taxes and Social Security
> > > were not a major news story.
> > >
> > > Some suggested contacts include:
> > >
> > > ABC World News Tonight
> > > Anchor and Senior Editor
> > > Peter Jennings
> > > mailto:PeterJennings () abcnews com
> > >
> > > NBC News
> > > DC Bureau Chief & Host, "Meet the Press"
> > > Tim Russert
> > > mailto:mtp () msnbc com
> > >
> > > New York Times
> > > mailto:nytnews () nytimes com
> > > Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS
> > >
> > > Washington Post
> > > Deputy National Editor (Domestic Policy)
> > > Leonard Bernstein
> > > mailto:bernsteinl () washpost com
> > >
> > > Los Angeles Times
> > > DC Bureau Chief
> > > Doyle McManus
> > > mailto:doyle.mcmanus () latimes com


Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:13:16 -0400
To: dave () farber net
From: Richard Jay Solomon <richard () goodread com>
Subject: note also my earlier message on the FT article

It is for real. i found the quotes on the FT site. Here is my message again 
if you didn't get it because of the bouncing:
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
From: Richard Jay Solomon <richard () goodread com>
Subject: Re: could this be true??? -- Looks like it is

Here are the urls for the articles she cites:
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/articles.html?id=010519000694&query=Paul+O%27Neill
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/articles.html?id=010518009700&query=Paul+O%27Neill
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/articles.html?id=010521009981&query=Paul+O%27Neill
It does sound like that's what he said. I haven't checked it word for word, 
but will in the morning. I have captured the pages if you can't access them 
yourself. Using the FT's search engine was tricky -- not a well designed page.
Richard



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/