Another day, another top-notch analysis from the Washington Post Fact Checker:
Fact Checker: No, Biden isn’t proposing that the IRS spy on bank records https://t.co/PB5yoSdNJ1
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) October 20, 2021
Seriously, it’s so good, CNN’s John Harwood just had to share it:
No, Biden isn’t proposing that the IRS spy on bank records – The Washington Post https://t.co/SMRX9dANBq
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 20, 2021
WaPo’s Salvador Rizzo gave the claim three Pinocchios. Three!
But don’t just take his word for it:
Samantha Jacoby, senior tax legal analyst at the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, called these GOP claims “complete fabrications.”
“The IRS would have no way to monitor individuals’ transactions,” she said in an email. “Moreover, the modified proposal from Senate Democrats would exempt W-2 wages and federal benefits from the $10,000 threshold. (So for example, an account holder with $50,000 in wages but less than $10,000 in other types of deposits would not be covered.)”
See? A left-wing tax legal analyst says that Republicans are totally lying!
And a policy analyst on the Right totally agrees that Republicans’ claims have no merit whatsoever:
Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst at the right-leaning Tax Foundation, said the new reporting requirements could lead to audits but declined to endorse the senators’ statements.
“The IRS reporting proposal would share aggregate inflow and outflow information on a subset of bank accounts based on the $10,000 threshold (potentially excluding certain income sources, such as wage income through direct deposit),” Watson said in an email. “It’s worth noting, however, that this information may trigger audits in certain situations, which would then potentially include a more detailed examination of bank account activity that otherwise would not happen. The Treasury Department has noted that the audit focus would be on those earning over $400,000, but it’s not clear how this would be measured as a counterfactual or how this would play into IRS auditing decisions.”
Oh. Actually, it sounds like Garrett Watson is saying that Democrats’ proposal could open the door to some pretty shady, snoopy stuff by the IRS. Which would kind of undermine Rizzo’s claim that Republicans are full of it.
Which would mean that CNN’s John Harwood is promoting a pretty lousy excuse for a “fact check.” But he’d never do such a thing, would he?
If you're going to post this link, you are really obligated to defend the reasoning put forth in the article. And good luck with that. https://t.co/czMWje1nQ2
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) October 20, 2021
Good luck, John. We’re all counting on you.
"He's not proposing that the IRS spy on bank accounts. He's just proposing that the banks provide information that will make spying on the bank accounts via subpoena much easier"
— Heimish Conservative (@HeimishCon) October 20, 2021
Ha! Second to last paragraph: "And just before this GOP news conference, Democrats had curtailed their proposal to cover fewer Americans and to exempt all wages and federal benefits from the new requirements."
So clearly there had been nothing to be concerned about! https://t.co/LqXNmLSGSK
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) October 20, 2021
Also, how is a bank going to determine what amounts going into an individual's bank account consist of "wages and federal benefits" and which don't?
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) October 20, 2021
Instead of fact checks of ridiculous claims, it would be a whole lot better if the press informed people what it would do and that even at a $10K level, you’re likely getting flagged by the IRS.
How about that, John? https://t.co/qAdGNTfxTd
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) October 20, 2021
LOL! Yeah, right. pic.twitter.com/46Orw4Xb9I
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) October 20, 2021
This "fact check" is an almost textbook example of how propagandistic fact checkers dance around facts and nit-pick to get to the conclusion they want https://t.co/5zXK0VlSLp
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) October 20, 2021
I mean, come on
Look at this quote and then look at how the fact checked calls it a lie
The fact checker basically just saying that your transaction record isn't "intimate" financial information pic.twitter.com/kRVEFBzjjz
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) October 20, 2021
Add to this the fact that the fact checker *admits* that we don't know what details the final implementation of this rule the IRS will actually implement, but then attacks the Republicans for suggesting it might be deeply private details (which it might)
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) October 20, 2021
He says they have to *prove* that it's going to be bad before they can *say* it would be bad. It's so blatantly dishonest.
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) October 20, 2021
It’s so … up John Harwood’s alley.
Wow journalist are like those brave firefighters that rush into a burning building and just call the fire a very warm blizzard. So Brave.
— Wittorical (@Wittorical) October 20, 2021
But that's exactly what the article you link says once you take the spin out of it
— Ohio (@I_Live_In_Ohio) October 20, 2021
This article doesn't do what you think it does, and I'm a liberal.
— Jason Millhouse (@ItsThrillhouse) October 20, 2021
This “fact check” gives a bad name to fact checkers. Do better.
— John (@jermsguy) October 20, 2021
Parting reminder:
The corporate press is not your friend. https://t.co/LdTdCd8eD4
— Young Americans for Liberty (@YALiberty) October 20, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member