CNBC Moderator Harwood Admits Premise of His Question on Rubio's Tax Plan is Erroneou


Earlier tonight moderator John Harwood, of CNBC and the New York Times, attacked Senator Marco Rubio’s tax plan on the grounds that it disproportionately benefited the top one percent of earners. Rubio insisted the premise of his question was wrong, but Harwood stuck to his guns. Here’s the exchange:
HARWOOD: Senator Rubio, 30 seconds to you.
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 1 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?
RUBIO: No, that’s – you’re wrong. In fact, the largest after- tax gains is for the people at the lower end of the tax spectrum under my plan. And there’s a bunch of things my tax plan does to help them.
Number one, you have people in this country that…
HARWOOD: The Tax Foundation – just to be clear, they said the…
RUBIO: …you wrote a story on it, and you had to go back and correct it.
HARWOOD: No, I did not.
RUBIO: You did. No, you did.
Well, it turns out that Harwood did previously admit that the premise of his question was wrong on Twitter:
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
Further, the president of the Tax Foundation, the organization Harwood is citing, said Rubio was correct:

Rubio was right about his plan. Poor get larger tax benefit than the rich. #CNBCGOPdebate
— Scott A. Hodge (@scottahodge) October 29, 2015
There were some questions about whether or not Harwood, who tends to reflexively spout a lot of liberal opinions, was an appropriate debate moderator. Committing such a major error seems to justify those concerns. An error of this magnitude should have been corrected on air, espcially since CNBC seemed to have no trouble tracking down a quote from Donald Trump that vindicated the moderators when Trump disagreed with them.

CNBC Moderator Harwood Admits Premise of His Question on Rubio’s Tax Plan is Erroneous | The Weekly Standard

This guy Harwood seems to be a major scumbag.


I thought they all were. They were debating against the candidates.

I think it was Christie who asked Harwood; “do you want me to answer or do you want to answer”?

And that Becky woman was just as obnoxious. If she asked a “gotcha” question and didn’t get the answer she wanted, she would argue with them.

The moderators also got booed several times by the audience.


From what I heard, the candidates won…


He is from the HIllary Campaign.


…which is what Skeptic just said, isn’t it?


Rubio responded to the false statement with dignity and was seemingly going to let the fact slide that Harwood had already corrected himself in the past, when Harwood went at him with venom. Now this guy not only looks like a disingenuous bold faced liar with an agenda who was called out on live television, but Rubio looks like a much better man and subsequently presidential candidate.


Even though I’m not a Rubio fan, he did well in the debate. Jeb must be really desperate to attack him.

Didn’t you Canadians just elect an idiot liberal as PM? You must have as many freeloaders looking for freebies as we do over here at the US.




Rubio did very well in the debate. He didn’t lose his cool and his points where sharp. He threw back EVERY challenge.


Jeb is not himself these days. He doesn’t really want this. And he’s having to go out there and spew a bunch of talking points that were crafted for him by his donors. In that exchange with Rubio, he definitely opened the door on his face.


This particular Liberal party had been referred to as “Conservative Light” for many of their positions, especially economically in regards to their support for free trade and their support of Bill C-51, a controversial security bill (though he wants to tweak it to ensure accountability). His father created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the most important Constitutional document in Canada. He has really pushed a belief that the government will be more transparent and accountable, this in itself gives him some leeway in regards to “wait and see” before I and others on the right make a judgement on him. I wasn’t very fond of him 5 years ago, but if he can accomplish half of what he promised I believe he will have earned his stay.

Quite frankly with the leadership of the Conservative Party in Stephen Harper becoming more mean spirited and controlling than any in my lifetime, including pushing for an RCMP “snitch line” to have neighbours rat out each other if they suspected “barbaric cultural practices” going on, it was obvious the Conservatives were going to lose. As it were, not only did Harper end his reign on a very low note due to allowing these ideological positions to make the headlines, but many of his most loyal foot soldiers lost in their ridings too. I say good riddance as they happened to be the same so-called Conservatives I didn’t respect as being such.

Being Conservative or Republican for that matter, doesn’t mean that one should be fear mongering and hateful. In fact, it is this very brand of Conservative that I despise as I think it unfairly demonizes what traits Conservatives should adhere to. Lincoln was maybe the most popular president in American history and maybe his most famous actions outside his Gettysburg speech was to abolish slavery, bringing dignity and liberty to all, what I refer to as “real” Conservative values. As much as I supported the Canadian Conservative economic stance and position against ISIS for example, it was becoming increasingly difficult to support their domestic social policies.


It wasn’t Lincoln who “abolished slavery.” What the Emancipation Proclamation did was say that the slaves in the Confederacy were henceforth “free”–a declaration that he was in no position at the time to ENFORCE. What abolished slavery in the U.S. were the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution–all passed a few years after this “most popular president in American history” had been assassinated. In point of fact, Lincoln’s decision to go to war to prevent the South from seceding was PROBABLY unconstitutional in and of itself, though we can likely agree in hindsight that keeping the union intact was a good thing over the long run. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that abolishing slavery was the primary impetus for the “Civil War”…or even for secession in the first place. It was A factor, but not even the most important one which was actually political in nature and concerned the economic suppression of the South by the more populous (and therefore more Congressionally powerful) North. Laws had been passed, just for example, that prohibited the South from selling its cotton, sugar and tobacco directly to Europe and limited their markets to the textile mills and distilleries of the industrial North.