CNBC’s John Harwood maintained Wednesday evening after the third GOP debate that he wasn’t wrong to accuse Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., of supporting a tax platform that benefits only the top one percent, even though he has admitted that the senator’s plan is a bit more nuanced than that.
“Sen. Rubio said to me that I had misstated something about his plan. That was not true. I did not misstate it, about his tax plan. And as I explained to him, [it] provides greater after-tax income to the top one percent than the middle,” Harwood told MBNBC’s Chris Mathews after the debate.
During the third televised showdown between Republican candidates, CNBC’s Harwood said to Rubio, “The Tax Foundation, which was alluded to earlier, scored your tax plan and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top one percent as to people in the middle of the income scale.”
“Since you’re the champion of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, don’t you have that backward?” he asked.
The Florida senator and GOP presidential candidate answered simply, “No, you’re wrong.”
“In fact, the largest after-tax gains is for the people at the lowest end of the tax spectrum,” he added.
The two then proceeded to speak past one another, as Harwood continually interrupted the senator to press for answers.
Rubio at one point mentioned that the CNBC reporter was compelled earlier this year to issue a correction after stating that the Florida lawmaker was pushing a policy that favored the one percent.
“[Y]ou wrote a story on it, and you had to go back and correct it,” the Florida lawmaker said.
“No, I did not,” Harwood shot back.
As it turns out, there is some truth to the senator’s claim.
Harwood suggested last week that Rubio’s plan would benefit those at the top the most, while those at the bottom would take the biggest hit. This is incorrect, and Harwood admitted as much on social media:
“CORRECTING earlier tweet: Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more (55.9) than top 1% (27.9%). Avg for all: 17.8%,” he said.
Under Rubio’s policy, the lower 10 percent stands to gain nearly twice as much proportionately as the top one percent, and that the lower end would gain the most, according to the Tax Foundation.
The group’s president reiterated this claim Wednesday evening when Harwood again suggested Rubio’s tax platform is a designed to benefit the so-called one percent.
“Rubio was right about his plan. Poor get larger tax benefit than the rich,” the Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge said during the debate.
The issue that has many confused is that Harwood’s claim Wednesday evening is different from the one that he corrected last week. His original claim saw him accusing Rubio of favoring the wealthy over the poor. The CNBC reporter has noted this is not a correct reading of the senator’s tax proposal.
Harwood’s line Wednesday evening was that the senator’s plan would favor the wealthy over the middle class.
Though there is a difference between the two claims, it hasn’t been apparent enough to stave off criticism that Harwood was trotting out a talking point that even he admitted was false. Also, that Harwood denied issuing a correction for an earlier Rubio tax analysis when he absolutely did likely hasn’t helped him any.
But not everyone has been tough on the CNBC reporter. A few thought Harwood’s tax play against Rubio was slick and admirable, including former senior advisor to President Obama Daniel Pfeiffer.
“[John Harwood] is one of the most serious, substantive journalists in Washington, attributes that are not exactly valued in this arena,” he said on social media at around the same time that the CNBC reporter asked Rubio about the debunked story.
CORRECTING earlier tweet: Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more (55.9) than top 1% (27.9%). Avg for all: 17.8%.
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 14, 2015
The Tax Foundation analysis of Rubio that Harwood mentioned reported that, “Senators Rubio and Lee have constructed a comprehensive tax plan that combines a number of solidly pro-growth reforms with a major social policy provision.”
“If enacted, we estimate it would deliver strong growth for many years. Further, it would significantly raise the incomes of the poor, rich, and middle class. The plan, however, would substantially increase the federal government’s deficit during the budget window,” it added. “By the end of the budget window or slightly later, though, we estimate that the reforms would have generated so much extra growth that federal revenues would be higher than under current law, and its budget deficit smaller.”
—
This story has been updated to make the language of back-and-forth between Harwood and Rubio clearer.
