Fox News Continues To Push Phony Benghazi "Stand Down" Claim

ANDREW LAWRENCE/Media Matters For America:

Fox News host Martha MacCallum claimed that a "stand down" order was given the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - an order that prevented U.S. troops from saving the lives of Americans stationed there. MacCallum's claim ignores the reality that no "stand down" order was ever given.

In the months following the September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate, Fox hosts accused the Obama administration of ordering troops to "stand down" and not respond immediately to the attack. Media Matters analysis shows that on at least 85 different occasions Fox mentioned this accusation during segments in prime time.

On the July 26 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, MacCallum said, "My mind goes back to the order to stand down, and how none of this may have happened if that order to stand down had not been given.  And we still don't know who gave that order, so that remains a really serious question here as well."

MacCallum also claims that the source of the alleged stand down order is unknown. This phony assertion has been repeatedly debunked.

During May 8 congressional hearings into the Benghazi attacks, then Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli Gregory Hicks testified that Lt. Col. Gibson, who commanded special forces troops in Tripoli, was ordered to "stand down." Following that testimony, Gibson met with the House Armed Services Committee on June 26 and told the Republican-led committee that no "stand down" order was given:

In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi.

"Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi," the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.

Additionally, in February Leon Panetta testified before Congress that President Obama "ordered that the Defense Department respond to the attack with 'all available DOD assets' and try to protect U.S. personnel." Fox's own Benghazi special which aired in late June reported that an April House GOP interim report into the attacks confirmed that the "Department of Defense officials and military personnel reacted quickly to the attacks in Benghazi."

Fox's Jonah Goldberg Lies About White House Benghazi Response

CONNOR LAND/Media Matters For America

Fox News contributor Jonah Goldberg perpetuated the right-wing smear that the White House "didn't respond" to the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, an accusation that ignores multiple military leaders and congressional testimony.

On the July 23 edition of Fox's Happening Now, National Review Online editor and Fox contributor Jonah Goldberg discussed remarks that General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command during the September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, had made days earlier at the 2013 Aspen Security Forum. When Ham was asked whether he initially believed terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks, he had replied that he "started to gain [that] understanding within the hours after the initiation of the attack."

Co-host Patti Ann Browne asked Goldberg about Ham's statement, wondering "Why is it that this is being considered political when people try to complain about the spin being put out by the White House that it had to do with this video?" Goldberg replied, in part, by denying that the administration even responded to the attacks:

GOLDBERG: We basically know what the truth is. Is that the White House, or the administration, was ill prepared for an attack. We were attacked. It was a terrorist attack because spontaneous protesters don't bring RPGs and coordinate fire. And so it was a terrorist attack. The White House didn't respond to it. American -- brave Americans died and afterwards, the White House in the midst of a presidential campaign, particularly because Hillary Clinton wants to run in 2016, concocted essentially what they thought was a face-saving cover story about what happened -- partly out of politics, partly out of error. And the problem is most people now know this and what Carter Ham has just said basically confirms this. The problem is that you're never going to get the White House to admit it at this point. 

Goldberg's accusation blatantly ignores military leaders' congressional testimony, which detailed the White House's response to the attacks. On February 7, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that upon learning of the unfolding attack in Benghazi, President Obama "at that point directed both myself and General Dempsey to do everything we needed to do to try to protect lives there." Following Obama's directive, Panetta ordered nearby anti-terrorism teams in Spain to deploy to Libya. A six-man security team from Tripoli also deployed to Benghazi. Unfortunately, the units from Spain arrivedafter attacks on the consulate had ceased.

Other forces present in Tripoli during the Benghazi attack were ordered by General Ham to stay in Tripoli to protect the U.S. embassy and care for Benghazi survivors at the airport. Additionally, as Ham made clear in the very remarks Goldberg referenced, he rerouted a drone from eastern Libya to Benghazi once commanders learned of the fighting.

What's more, despite Goldberg's insinuation otherwise, the day after the Benghazi attacks President Obama addressed the nation from the Rose Garden about the "acts of terror" that had taken place in Libya. He remarked, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is down for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

In the ten months since the September 11, 2012 deadly attacks, Fox has habitually misled on theadministration's response to the Benghazi crisis. 

Fox Muddles Surveillance Debate With Fabricated Hypocrisy Claim

 JEREMY HOLDEN/Media Matters For America

Fox News is misrepresenting President Obama's position on surveillance and the threat of international terrorism to falsely accuse him of hypocrisy and fecklessness.

According to reports, the National Security Administration continues to collect metadata, including phone numbers and the duration of phone calls, from telephone providers, and works with Internet companies to mine data on user activity. The continuation of these programs, which were in place before President Obama took office, raises significant questions about the scope of surveillance powers established under the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

But rather than focus on legitimate questions, Fox's guests are misstating Obama's past positions in order to accuse him both of hypocrisy and of downplaying the continued threat of international terrorism. During an appearance on the June 7 edition of America's Newsroom, Rudy Giuliani offered this take:

The other problem you have here, Bill, this is, Obama is -- this is totally hypocritical for Obama. If Bush was doing this, if Mitt Romney following George Bush was doing this, it would be one thing. 

Obama ran against all of this. He also ended war on terror couple weeks ago last time I checked. War on terror is over. So the war on terror is over. Right? If we don't have much of a threat anymore  and we are going to up our surveillance of American citizens the incompetence of this administration is really impossible to catalog and describe.

Jamie Weinstein of the Daily Caller echoed Giuliani on Fox later that day, saying that the existence of surveillance programs "contradicts what [Obama] said on the campaign trail," adding, "and recently he said Al Qaeda is receding."  

The reality is that Obama's position on surveillance is in line with the position he took during the 2008 general election. At the time, Obama cast a controversial vote in favor of a bill expanding the 1978 FISA law. Then-Sen. Obama explained his decision to do so by explicitly citing the need to continue surveillance programs:

In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

[...]

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.

Obama faced criticism from civil liberties groups and progressive organizations for backing the bill, which The New York Times reported was "a major expansion of the government's surveillance powers." That vote was ashift from the position he took during the primary that year, as Obama had said he opposed controversial policies that the bill enshrined into law. In 2012, when Congress reauthorized the FISA Amendments, Obama announced that he "strongly supports" the bill that reauthorized the government's surveillance powers, which at the time were expiring. Obama also signed a 2011 extension of the Patriot Act, calling the law "an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat."

Giuliani and Weinstein are also misstating Obama's position on the current threat of terrorism. Giuliani's claim that Obama "ended the war on terror" and said "we don't have much of a threat anymore" is an apparent reference to Obama's May speech on counter-terror strategies. In that speech, Obama very clearly said that while the nation is "safer" than it was a decade ago, the threat of international terrorism remains:

Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists.  From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth.  But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11.  With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today's threats and how we should confront them.

There are legitimate questions about striking the proper balance between counter-terrorism and civil liberties that are raised with greater understanding of the scope of the government's data mining programs. But those questions are not answered by Fox pundits hijacking the conversation in its role as the voice of the opposition. 

Bachmann could face lawsuit for ‘propagating complete and utter lies’

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

A religious freedom advocate told U.S. News he is considering suing Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) over allegedly slanderous comments she made in a fundraising pitch.

“We are caucusing with our legal counsel to consider the most expeditious course of action we can take in a federal court to stop these bald-faced lies,” Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) said. “About 96 percent of our members [at MRFF] are Protestant or Roman Catholic… of our unpaid volunteers, at least well over 80 percent are Christian… I say [to Bachmann]: Tell it to the judge.”

Earlier this month conservative bloggers falsely claimed that Weinstein was behind a plan to court-martial Christians in the military who shared their faith. The conspiracy was quickly debunked by the Pentagon itself, which noted that proselytizing — a form of religious harassment — has long been prohibited, but service members are free to evangelize and speak about their faith.

But as of Wednesday Bachmann’s website still stated that Weinstein’s conspiracy with the Pentagon could “prevent our military from practicing their own faith.” She described Weinstein as a “left-wing, anti-Christian activists” and a “radical.” She also claimed that Weinstein had compared “sharing the gospel to ‘spiritual rape’ and ‘treason,’” when he actually described misogyny, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as “spiritual rape” and “treason.”

Weinstein accused Bachmann of “propagating complete and utter lies.”

As a proponent of the separation of church and state, Weinstein has clashed with fundamentalist Christians like the American Family Association and the Family Research Council. He described the groups as “pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers” who “have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as ‘family values’” in an article published at theHuffington Post earlier this year.

Fox News Falsely Accuses Obama Of Trying To Change The Constitution

By ADAM SHAH/Media Matters for America

Fox News host Steve Doocy misrepresented President Obama's proposal to avoid the possibility of a federal government default on its financial obligations in order to claim that the president has proposed changing the Constitution.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner proposed that Congress should pass a law giving the president authority to avoid default by raising the ceiling on how much the federal government can borrow. Under the proposal, the president's authority would be subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress. Geithner's proposal was based on an idea originally put forward by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Geithner's proposal is urgent because the federal government is expected to reach the debt ceiling early in 2013, meaning that if Congress does not act, the federal government will begin defaulting on some of its obligations for the first time in history.

On the December 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Doocy interviewed Republican Sen. John Thune (SD) and opined that it was "good news for the Republicans" that there would soon be a fight between Obama and congressional Republicans over the federal debt ceiling because Republicans would "obviously have the upper hand on that." Thune responded in part by saying that "what we're told is the president is even thinking about what he might be able to do to raise the debt ceiling without going through Congress, which would be a huge mistake and ought to be unconstitutional."

Doocy replied: "He just wants to change the Constitution." In fact, the Obama administration has not proposed any such change and has actually specifically rejected a novel interpretation of the Constitution that would allow the president to ignore the debt ceiling in order to avoid government default.

Rather than amend the Constitution or change the way it has been interpreted, Obama has proposed legislation that would amend the current statute that puts a limit on the federal government's borrowing.

The debt ceiling is merely a provision of law passed by Congress, which can be amended or repealed at any time through ordinary legislation without any change to the Constitution. 

The debt ceiling is merely a provision of law passed by Congress, which can be amended or repealed at any time through ordinary legislation without any change to the Constitution.

The Congressional Research Service  reports that since March 1962, Congress has amended the debt ceiling law 72 times. The last instance was in 2011 following a showdown in which congressional Republicans threatened to force a government default by not raising the debt ceiling, and it amended the debt ceiling law in almost precisely the same way that Obama now proposes.

As part of the deal, Congress incorporated a provision originally proposed by McConnell that allowed the president to raise the debt limit three times. Congress could reject the president's increase by voting to prevent it, although the president could veto such legislation and Congress in turn could override that veto. The provision was included in an ordinary bill, not a constitutional amendment, and senators, including Thune, overwhelminglyvoted for the bill.

The Obama administration has now proposed that Congress make McConnell's proposal permanent with some modifications. But as with the original McConnell deal, the mechanism is ordinary legislation, not a change to the Constitution. 

Romney continues GOP fictions against Obama

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

'Closing the Lid' on Right-Wing Lies

By Joshua Pugh/Progress Michigan

In perhaps the most memorable line of his State of the State address, Gov. Snyder played off typical right-wing distaste for so-called “job-killing government regulations” by citing an obscure Department of Environmental Quality rule requiring that outhouse users close the seat while not in use. The only problem? There is no such regulation.

The governor's spokesperson told the Free Press it makes no difference whether the governor “misstated” the regulation, saying it perfectly illustrated “the types of regulations that are outdated and need review.”

This is actually a perfect illustration for the conservative movement’s overwhelming focus on rhetoric and anecdote, at the expense of the truth. 

Conservatives love creating their own parallel reality, like by claiming only certain jobs matter, so they can point to the numbers that make them look good. Gov. Snyder simply made up an anecdote in order to support his argument that government regulations are standing in the way of job creation, when in reality businesses tell us that government regulation has almost nothing to do with small-business job creation.Economists tell us the same thing:

In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.

Gov. Snyder constructed a falsehood within a falsehood, simply to fit a cheap joke into his narrative on how the economy works and how businesses create jobs. I think we can all agree that if there’s one thing that needs to stay closed, it’s the lexicon of lies and dishonesty that far-right extremists promote in order to preach their discredited theories.

Contradicting Romney’s Account, Fellow Missionaries Say Candidate Lived In A ‘Palace’ On Mission

By Alex Seitz-Wald/Think Progress


Seeking to show Americans that he can understand their troubles, multimillionaire GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been harping on the supposedly hardscrabble 30 months he spent in France as a Mormon missionary. Romney said he lived in apartments that were so rundown that he was forced to defecate in a bucket and shower with a hose. “Most of the apartments I lived in had no refrigerators,” Romney said last week at a town hall New Hampshire. “I don’t actually recall any of them having a refrigerator.” Watch it, via Patch:

But according to fellow American missionaries who spoke with the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph, Romney not only had a refrigerator and toilet, but a lot more. The missionaries said Romney spent most of his time in France in a Paris mansion that some described as a “palace.” It featured a cook, a servant, stained glass windows and expensive art, and later became an embassy:

Although he spent time in other French cities, for most of 1968, Mr Romney lived in the Mission Home, a 19th century neoclassical building in the French capital’s chic 16th arrondissement. “It was a house built by and for rich people,” said Richard Anderson, the son of the mission president at the time of Mr Romney’s stay. “I would describe it as a palace”. [...]

The building, on Rue de Lota, was bought by the Mormons in 1952, having been seized by the Nazis during the Second World War. The Church sold it again in the 1970s, and it was until recently the embassy of the United Arab Emirates. It is currently worth as much as $12 million (£7.7 million).

It’s entirely possibly that Romney lived in hovels in addition to the Mission Home, but it seems clear that Romney has been exaggerating the story of his lean years in France a bit.

Millionaire GOP Congressman Tells Town Hall: ‘I Ain’t Wealthy…I Live Like The Rest Of You Folks’

By Lee Fang 



Speaking to a town hall audience last week, freshmen Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) cautioned his constituents against raising taxes on wealthy Americans. As he made his case, he meandered into an explanation of his own personal wealth, which he said was not particularly noteworthy, saying he was “just like the rest of you folks.” The small crowd was made up of police officers, public school teachers, a city council member, and about fifteen others from the Tusayan area:

GOSAR: In the last election I was labeled a millionaire. Seriously. I ain’t wealthy. I built my own house, I wouldn’t do it again. I own my building, I have a dental practice. I live just like the rest of you folks. It’s all on paper, it’s not in cash.

Watch it:


Reliable wealth data is unavailable for Arizona’s first congressional district, the vast, largely rural area represented by Gosar. However, the median income is about$32,900 — a far cry below Gosar’s approximate $174,000 a year gig as a member of Congress. As Gosar mentions, he also owns substantial real estate, including a building worth up to $1 million, a dental practice worth up to $500,000, an antique store worth up to $500,000, and other assets.

Beck invents facts to attack food safety bill

From Media Matters:

Glenn Beck distorted a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate to claim that food-safety legislation would mean "higher taxes for you," baselessly claimed the bill would drive up food costs, and underplayed concerns about food safety. Beck demonized the legislation as a George Soros-backed effort to "control you."

Beck distorts CBO report to claim legislation means "higher taxes for you"

Beck: Food Safety Modernization Act "will mean higher taxes for you." During the November 29 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck claimed that the Food Safety Modernization Act is "going to mean higher taxes for you as well. Congressional Budget Office estimates between $1.4 billion and up, between 2011 and 2015." Beck said the bill represented a George Soros-backed effort to "control your food" and "control you." [Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]

FACT: CBO said the bill would "increase spending subject to appropriation" -- not taxes. In its cost estimate of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the CBO wrote, "CBO estimates that implementing the bill with the manager's amendment would increase spending subject to appropriation, on net, by about $1.4 billion over the 2011-2015 period, assuming annual appropriation action consistent with the bill." [Congressional Budget Office, 8/12/10]

FACT: CBO said the bill would authorize collection of fees from food manufacturers -- not "higher taxes for you." In its cost estimate, CBO reported:

S. 510 would amend and modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize the FDA to collect fees to help defray some of the FDA's costs of performing food safety activities. The bill would create new fee programs including: a facility reinspection and recall fee program for mandatory recalls, an importer fee program for voluntary qualified entities, and a fee program to support accreditation of third-party auditors.

The legislation also would authorize the FDA to collect fees for food (including animal feed) export certificates under the current export certification program. Fees are currently collected for drugs and devices that are issued export certifications.

Fees authorized by the bill would be collected and made available for obligation only to the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in appropriation acts. As a result, those collections would be credited as an offset to discretionary spending.[Congressional Budget Office, 8/12/10]

Beck baselessly claims bill will result in higher grocery prices

Beck: The cost to "you at the grocery story" is "expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year." From the November 29 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Cost to the private sector -- you know, you at the grocery store? Now, they haven't calculated that yet, but it is expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

FACT: Michigan State University professor says bill "isn't likely to make a huge dent" in food prices. As Media Matters documented, Craig Harris of the Food Safety Policy Center at Michigan State University reportedly said that the bill is unlikely to raise consumers' food costs:

Although costs of food production may rise as a result of the bill, the amount isn't likely to make a huge dent in most large food companies' profits, Harris said, so the added costs shouldn't trickle down to the consumers. For small companies and local farmers, the bill includes exemptions and special accommodations, recognizing that some companies may not be able to keep up with the costs of adopting new safety practices.

Beck underplays food-safety problem

Beck: "Is there a big problem" with food safety "that I don't know of?" From the November 29 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Congress is working hard to make sure that the food that you eat is completely safe. Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "Glenn, I think my food is already safe." But that's just how stupid you are. They know better in Washington.

Apparently, our food is very unsafe. That's why tonight, the Senate is scheduled to start voting on S510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. It is fanta-- it's gonna be so modern, what they're doing. May I ask you, who on the planet has a safer food supply than we do while feeding 300 million people? Is it China? Is it India? Is it -- oh, is it Great Britain? Ooh, Sweden? Oh, no.

Is there a big problem that I don't know of? I mean, I know that, you know, we could always make things better here. There was a problem with spinach a couple of years ago, and then guacamole or avocados, or something. I think that was quickly resolved -- minimal to no interruption of our normal food supply.

[...]

BECK: We could always improve, but there will be never be a perfect system with zero problems, will there?

FACT: GAO declared federal oversight of food safety a "high-risk" problem. From a 2007 Government Accountability Office report that was part of its series on "high-risk problems":

Each year, about 76 million people contract a food-borne illness in the United States; about 325,000 require hospitalization; and about 5,000 die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, agriculture, as the largest industry and employer in the United States, generates more than $1 trillion in economic activity annually, or about 13 percent of the gross domestic product. The value of U.S. agricultural exports exceeded $68 billion in fiscal year 2006. An introduction of a highly infectious foreign animal disease, such as avian influenza or foot-and-mouth disease, would cause severe economic disruption, including substantial losses from halted exports. Similarly, food contamination, such as the recent E. coli outbreaks, can have a detrimental impact on local economies. For example, industry representatives estimate losses from the recent California spinach E. coli outbreak to range from $37 million to $74 million.

A challenge for the 21st century is how several federal agencies can integrate the myriad food safety programs and strategically manage their portfolios to promote the safety and integrity of the nation's food supply. In numerous previous reports, we have described the fragmented federal food safety system in which 15 agencies collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. The two primary agencies are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for virtually all other foods. Among other agencies with responsibilities related to food safety, the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce conducts voluntary, fee-for-service inspections of seafood safety and quality; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the use of pesticides and maximum allowable residue levels on food commodities and animal feed; and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for coordinating agencies' food security activities.

The food safety system is further complicated by the subtle differences in food products that dictate which agency regulates a product as well as the frequency with which inspections occur. For example, how a packaged ham-and-cheese sandwich is regulated depends on how the sandwich is presented. USDA inspects manufacturers of packaged open-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with one slice of bread), but FDA inspects manufacturers of packaged closed-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with two slices of bread). Although there are no differences in the risks posed by these products, USDA inspects wholesale manufacturers of open-face sandwiches sold in interstate commerce daily, while FDA inspects closed-face sandwiches an average of once every 5 years.

This federal regulatory system for food safety evolved piecemeal, typically in response to particular health threats or economic crises. During the past 30 years, we have detailed problems with the fragmented federal food safety system and reported that the system has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources. [Government Accountability Office, January 2007]

Media stretch definition of "small business" to claim Obama is raising taxes on 50% of their income

From Media Matters Conservative media have claimed that 50 percent of "small business income" would be taxed at a higher rate if Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts for the top brackets to expire. However, the apparent sources for that claim, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), explained that business income on individual tax returns does not necessarily reflect what most consider small businesses, but includes such enterprises as law partnerships and real estate investments.

Conservative media claim 50% of "small business" income would be hit under Obama's plan

Wallace claimed that "50 percent of small business income would be hit by raising taxes on the so-called wealthy." On the September 12 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace misleadingly told White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) chair Austan Goolsbee that TPC and JCT found that "50 percent of small business income would be hit by raising taxes on the so-called wealthy," a claim Goolsbee called "highly misleading." From the segment:

WALLACE: The president says that Republicans want to hold the tax cuts for the middle class hostage until they get also the tax cuts for the so-called rich.

But I want you to take a look at some numbers that we put together. Fifty percent of small business income -- and this comes from the Tax Policy Center and the Joint Committee on Taxation -- 50 percent of small business income would be hit by raising taxes on the so-called wealthy. That's 900,000 small businesses that employ millions of workers. Question: You don't think that a 13 percent hike in the taxes of small businesses is going to slow them down?

During the segment, Wallace aired the following graphic:

Brooks argues against letting tax cuts expire for "top 2 percent" because "It does remain a fact that the majority of small business profits are up at that income level." On the September 10 edition of PBS' NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks suggested that the reason it is important to "fight over this -- the top 2 percent" is "[b]ecause it does remain a fact that the majority of small business profits are up at that income level. And small businesses are just completely uncertain right now." Brooks made a similar argument the week before, claiming that "if you raise taxes on those top rates, you will be increasing taxes on the majority of small business profits."

Rove: "50 percent of small business income ... will be taxed at a higher rate" if top brackets of tax cuts expire. On the August 9 edition of Fox News' Your World, Karl Rove claimed that "50 percent of small business income will pay -- will be taxed at a higher rate if they -- if they let the top bracket go up."

Krauthammer: "Half of small business income in the United States will end up in this bracket." On the September 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer criticized President Obama's portrayal of the Bush tax cuts, claiming that "[h]e portrays it as, you know, a cut in taxes on the idle rich, the millionaires who sit around." Krauthammer argued that "[i]n fact, half of small business income in the United States will end up in this bracket. It will have its taxes raised by about 5 percent, which is relatively large."

Fox's Bream cites JCT for claim that "50 percent of small business income would be impacted." During the September 8 edition of Fox News Special Report, correspondent Shannon Bream reported that "[t]he nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 50 percent of small business income would be impacted by the jump in taxation now proposed by the president. But the president says American businesses did just fine before the Bush tax cuts." [Accessed via Nexis]

Both TPC and JCT said taxpayers with business income are not necessarily "small" businesses

JCT: "These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small.' " A July 12 analysis of Obama's FY2011 Budget Proposals by the Joint Committee on Taxation stated that "three percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income" would see higher taxes under Obama's plan, adding that "[t]hese figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small' ":

The proposal provides tax relief to a large percentage of taxpayers, which will provide incentives for these taxpayers to work, to save, and to invest and, thereby, will have a positive effect on the long-term health of the economy. The proposal also results in increased marginal tax rates on upper income taxpayers (as is provided for by the present-law sunset of EGTRRA), which will correspondingly reduce incentives for these taxpayers to work, to save, and to invest. Opponents of this latter aspect of the proposal often note that many small businesses, and a large fraction of small business income, will be adversely impacted by an increase in the top two tax rates. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2011 just under 750,000 taxpayers with net positive business income (three percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income) will have marginal rates of 36 or 39.6 percent under the President's proposal, and that 50 percent of the approximately $1 trillion of aggregate net positive business income will be reported on returns that have a marginal rate of 36 or 39.6 percent. These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered "small." For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million.

TPC: "We don't know how many of these businesses are really small." On August 4, the Tax Policy Center blog stated that 2.5 percent of taxpayers who report business income on their individual tax returns would pay higher rates under Obama's plan and that "we don't know how many of these businesses are really small":

Most small businesses report their income on individual tax returns, either on Schedule C (for self-employment or sole proprietorships), Schedule E (for S corporations) or schedule F (for farms). We don't know how many of these businesses are really small, but next year about 36 million taxpayers will report income from these sources on their 1040s. Only about 900,000, or 2.5 percent, would pay higher rates if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire for those in the top brackets. However, that relative handful of business owners will report $400 billion, or almost 44 percent of all the business income included in individual returns.

The TPC post further noted that "[a] half million top-bracket filers will report net positive business income averaging more than $700,000. These are the people--not the mom-and-pop business owners-- who would be hit by the expiration of the top bracket tax cuts. Who are they? Many are doctors, lawyers, and investors. Others are very successful entrepreneurs who may own a chain of grocery stores or dry cleaners, or a lot of real estate. Do they fit your image of a small business owner? That, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder."

JCT: "There is no legal requirement of any correspondence between the size of the business and the form of business organization." In a June 2008 document, JCT noted, "While many small businesses are organized as a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or an S corporation, not all businesses organized in those forms are small and not all businesses organized as C corporations are large." JCT further stated:

In very general terms, it is not possible to relate the differences in tax consequences to any substantive non-tax attributes of these different legal forms of doing business, except that businesses that wish to access the public capital markets generally must be taxed as regular (so-called "C") 2 corporations. Indeed, the Code affords business enterprises and their owners the effective flexibility to elect one tax regime or another without varying any of the meaningful non-tax substantive relationships among the enterprise and its owners.

[...]

All forms of entities may be used by business enterprises of any size, from very small to very large, whether measured by assets or revenues. S corporation rules restrict the number and type of shareholders, but an S corporation may have thousands of employees and unlimited equity valuation.

[...]

While one may often associate small businesses with organization in the form of a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or an S corporation, there is no legal requirement of any correspondence between the size of the business and the form of business organization. While many small businesses are organized as a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or an S corporation, not all businesses organized in those forms are small and not all businesses organized as C corporations are large.

Other economists and fact-checkers agree income affected may not be what is normally considered a "small business"

TPC's Rosenberg: Data suggest "that the majority of affected income may not come from what we generally think of as a small business." In an August 13 TPC blog post, Joseph Rosenberg wrote that a 2008 JCT study found "61 percent of net income from partnerships and S corporations is earned by firms with gross receipts over $10 million" and that the data suggests that most of the income that would be affected by Obama's plan "may not come from what we generally think of as a small business":

The narrowest measure of small business income is that which is reported by nonfarm sole proprietors (on Schedule C of the IRS Form 1040). These would include the self-employed and many people running truly small family businesses, like the proverbial corner grocery store, but also would include some independent professionals (doctors, lawyers, independent consultants). The potential impact of raising the top two rates on these independent business owners is considerably smaller than the impact on taxpayers reporting business income from other sources. TPC estimates that fewer than 250,000 taxpayers, about 1.5% of tax units reporting positive Schedule C income, will fall within the top two income tax brackets in 2011. These high-income taxpayers will report $38 billion in income -- just over 11 percent of total positive sole proprietor income and only about 4 percent of all flow-through business income.

The vast majority of business income reported by taxpayers in the top two tax brackets comes from partnerships and S corporations and these taxpayers report most of the net positive income from these sources ($400 billion, or nearly 63 percent of net positive income from such businesses). Not surprisingly, that income is also highly skewed within the top bracket. For example, just 17 percent of the $133 billion of partnership income in the top bracket goes to business owners reporting less than $500,000 of income, and 46 percent goes to those reporting less than $1 million. Income from S corporations is even more concentrated -- 64% of the $211 billion subject to the top rate is for owners with more than $1 million in income.

What do we know about the types of businesses that are generating these large incomes? Unfortunately the answer is not as much as we would like. Individual returns provide very little information about the underlying businesses and the IRS does not release any firm-level data to the public. A 2008 JCT study (see Table 8a) reports that 61 percent of net income from partnerships and S corporations is earned by firms with gross receipts over $10 million and fully 43 percent by firms with gross receipts in excess of $50 million. Those data suggest that the majority of affected income may not come from what we generally think of as a small business, although we do not know whether large and small firms differ in how they distribute income among taxpayers in different income groups.

CBPP: Much "business income" does not go to "what most Americans think of when they hear the term 'small business.'" In an August 3 post, Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote that extending the tax cuts for high-income taxpayers "would do little for small business because only the top 3 percent of people with any business income, let alone income from a small business, would benefit." The post further stated that "large amounts of 'business income' go to concerns like large corporate law practices, accounting firms, and wealthy people who invest in financial and real estate partnerships. These are not what most Americans think of when they hear the term 'small business.' " Also from the post:

Those who claim that raising the top rates would seriously harm small businesses also tend to rely on an extremely broad definition of "small business." Because the IRS does not publish specific, satisfactory data on the taxes that small businesses pay, analysts are left to examine various sources of business income that individuals receive. Some analysts define any taxpayer who shows any business income on a tax return -- including passive income that very wealthy investors secure -- as a small business. Defining small businesses in this manner greatly overstates the actual number of small businesses, particularly among households with very high incomes.

For example, most Americans would not describe the nation's wealthiest 400 individuals, some of whom are billionaires, as small businesses. Yet the "Top 400" individuals have a great deal of money to invest and consequently receive significant business income -- which means that they qualify as "small business owners" under the broad definition of the term. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have these data) -- an average of $83 million each, according to the IRS. In addition to the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, the following types of individuals are commonly included in the definition of "small business" used in tax debates:

• partners in very large corporate law firms,

• partners in lucrative medical practices, and

• Wall Street bond traders who receive multi-million dollar bonuses and invest some of their income in investment partnerships.

The commonly used definition of "small business" also includes many wealthy executives of the nation's largest corporations and financial institutions, who are considered "small business owners" if they rent out their vacation homes.

FactCheck: It's "not clear how many who report business income actually employ any workers." On July 14, 2008, FactCheck.org stated that more than 600,000 taxpayers with business income fall into the top two tax brackets, adding, "Not all of those can properly be called 'small-business owners,' however. Some are farmers. Many are lawyers, accountants or other professionals who get some of their income in the form of partnership distributions. Others may be passive investors in real-estate partnerships or similar investment arrangements and not really persons who own and manage a business." FactCheck further noted:

It is also not clear how many who report business income actually employ any workers. In 2004, the Tax Policy Center found that hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers who had business income from partnerships or subchapter-S corporations (whose owners pay taxes as individuals) did not claim any tax deductions for employee expenses.

PolitiFact: "It's impossible to know how many of these high earners are what most people think of as small business owners." PolitiFact.com stated on July 27:

The U.S. Treasury Department found in 2007 that many of the wealthiest tax filers report some type of non-wage income, such as income from a sole proprietorship, a partnership or an S corporation. (An S corporation is simply a corporation that chooses to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes.) The Treasury Department estimated that 75 percent of tax payers in the top bracket reported this type of income.

Does this mean that all those wealthy taxpayers were small business owners? Probably not. This kind of income could be reported from anyone who earned money from a source other than a regular job, such as consulting or public speaking. It could also be reported by those who make most of their income from partnerships, such as law firms and medical practices. And it could include investors who have little involvement in the day-to-day operations of a company.

It's impossible to know how many of these high earners are what most people think of as small business owners. One indication, however, might be if these wealthy taxpayers reported that most of their income was from this business-type income. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed IRS data in March 2009, looking to see how many wealthy tax filers could say that half of their income or more came from business income. The center found that, among the wealthiest filers -- the top 1 percent -- only 25 percent earned more than half their income from business-type income. The percentages for non-wage income were even smaller among taxpayers earning less. (Editor's note: After we initially published this item, the Tax Policy Center released a new analysis looking at business income by tax bracket. They found that in the top bracket, only 32.5 percent earned more than half their income that way.)

[...]

In conclusion, do many wealthy tax payers report types of business income that might be from owning a small business? Sure. But it's impossible to tell how many meet the definition of what most of us think of when we think of small business owners.

TPC: "[M]ost people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income." William Gale of the Tax Policy Center wrote in an August 1 Washington Post op-ed that "just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income":

And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.