Friday, July 31, 2009

Tax Cuts For The Rich!

(and other assorted fiction).
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Taxes For Thee, But Not For Me

Or, as my grandfather always puts it, "Never a problem to order steak for everyone when you're not paying the bill".

Friday, July 24, 2009

Wait For It....Wait For It....

and there it is!
The intraparty dispute had racial overtones. One African-American Democrat, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia, pointed out that the seven Blue Dog Democrats holding up the health care bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee were “a nondiverse group” of white men.

Question to all liberals: what, exactly, is the amount of minorities that you need to have in a group for it to be "diverse"?

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

So Right, Yet So Wrong

You know the whole healthcare dog-and-pony show is in trouble when even Pravda DC is saying it's a bad idea.

But what I thought particularly hilarious was the equivocating paragraph used to at least preserve some shred of leftist cred.
THERE IS a serious case to be made that the U.S. income tax system should become more progressive. The average rate paid by the top 1 percent of households shrank from 33 percent in 1986 to about 23 percent in 2006. At the same time, the share of adjusted gross income claimed by that highest-earning sliver of American society doubled, from 11 percent to 22 percent. So, in principle, higher taxes for the well-heeled could make sense -- as part of a broader rationalization of the unduly complex tax code.

However, what the non-mathematicians leave out is the fact that, while their share of income doubled (increased by 100%), their taxes only fell by 30% (23% divided by 33% = 70%). In other words, if you were making $100 before and paying $33 in taxes, you're making $200 now and paying $46 in taxes.

That explains why a) the total share of Federal taxes paid by the top 1% has gone steadily UP since 2001 and b) the Treasury was collecting record revenues prior to the crash.

Question: What, exactly, SHOULD the top 1% be paying, then?

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

What Newspapers Does Pelosi Read?

Because evidently one of them isn't the New York Times.]
The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said.

The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said. The names of about two dozen terrorist leaders have recently been on the lethal-force list, officials said. "It's the worst of the worst," an official said.

President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. Some officials said the terrorist list was known as the "high-value target list."

But of course, the Obama Party insists they never knew anything about it.

What Founding Father Am I?

It's the ginger thing, I guess.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

New Truisms for Our Society

If you even consider airing an advertisement critical of socialized medicine, Obama will shut you down.

If your legal case that you won threatens the confirmation of an Obama nominee, Obama will have you publicly smeared.

Hope and change!

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Who Knew?

For those of you who don't go around reading the DSM-IV, here's a bit about what one of the larger Internet exams says about me.

Advanced Global Personality Test Results
Extraversion |||||||||||||||||| 78%
Stability |||||||||||||||| 62%
Orderliness |||||||||||| 46%
Accommodation |||||||||||||||||| 74%
Interdependence |||||||||||| 50%
Intellectual |||||||||||||||| 70%
Mystical |||||||||||||||| 70%
Artistic |||||||||||||| 56%
Religious |||||||||||||||||||| 90%
Hedonism || 10%
Materialism |||||| 30%
Narcissism |||||||||||| 50%
Adventurousness |||||| 30%
Work ethic |||||||||||||||||||| 83%
Humanitarian |||||||||||||||||| 76%
Conflict seeking |||||||||||||||| 63%
Need to dominate |||||||||||||| 56%
Romantic |||||||||||| 43%
Avoidant || 10%
Anti-authority |||||| 23%
Wealth |||||||||| 36%
Dependency |||| 16%
Change averse |||||||||||| 50%
Cautiousness |||||||||||||| 56%
Individuality |||||||||||| 50%
Sexuality |||||||||||||||| 70%
Peter pan complex |||||||||||| 43%
Family drive |||| 16%
Physical Fitness |||||||||||||||||||| %
Histrionic |||||| 30%
Paranoia |||||| 23%
Vanity |||||||||||| 43%
Honor |||||||||||||||| 63%
Thriftiness |||||||||||||||||||| 90%
Take Free Advanced Global Personality Test
personality test by

And, more specifically:
Stability results were moderately high which suggests you are relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.

Orderliness results were medium which suggests you are moderately organized, hard working, and reliable while still remaining flexible, efficient, and fun.

Extraversion results were high which suggests you are overly talkative, outgoing, sociable and interacting at the expense too often of developing your own individual interests and internally based identity.

Friday, July 03, 2009

F'ing Brilliant

She just changed the paradigm.
Gov. Sarah Palin announced Friday that she will step down as Alaska's chief executive by the end of the month. She will not seek election to a second gubernatorial term in 2010.

Ace and Allah seem pretty convinced that this is the end for her.
Says Ace, “It’s over. You can’t resign from a governorship and then run for higher office.” I agree. Placing your ambition over your commitment to the state looks shady, especially for someone who won’t have a single full term as governor under her belt for the primaries.

Love you, guys, but that analysis and those objections are based on 11/3 tactics -- or, more precisely, the maxims of politics that were in place prior to November 4th, 2008.

Let's go over them in more detail, shall we?

Substance always trumps style. Palin should concentrate on serving her term in Alaska so she has a record of accomplishments there, and then she can run.

There are two phrases that ruin that one completely: "President Barack Obama" and "Senator Al Franken".

Seriously, fellas. If substance were what mattered, we'd be back in the good old days where every word out of the President's mouth was a lie, every misstep was a scandal, and Helen Thomas's diatribes about controlled press conferences would have been six months earlier.

Palin has a tremendous record already of fiscal conservativism, fighting corruption, doing what's right, and sticking up for principles of good government. No one cared. They were all too busy dancing along to "HopeyChange, The Musical" and vague promises to be even looking at Obama's dismal record, much less hers.

Substance is indeed important. But what Palin has recognized is that substance is irrelevant unless it is heard, which brings us to:

You can overcome blatant and obvious media bias by having great, perfectly-timed interviews and speechmaking opportunities.

Um, no. There are enough times when TelePrompTer Jesus has fallen into the Pit of "Uhhhhhhs" and Land of 57 States to demonstrate that foulups in message don't really matter -- unless those are the only clips that the Main$tream Media has to run.

As a former point guard, Sarah knows the gospel of the run-and-gun: it doesn't matter if you only make half your shots if you're taking twice as many of them. The only way to prevent yourself from being pigeonholed by the media is to flood the zone with bigger and better material, and dilute the impact of anything negative.

With that in mind, we come to the last maxim:

Staying put is better than being branded a quitter.

Problem with that one is this: it assumes that the people who are most likely to attack Palin would be cowed by her staying in office.

Doubtful at best.

This is simple political calculus. To win against Obama, Palin needs to do only one thing: get her face and story out in the media on her terms.

That simply cannot be done while she is governor of Alaska. Her job precludes it. She is hamstrung both by her official duties, which she cannot neglect, and the fact that, as governor, she is subject to abuse of good-government laws by Obama's flying monkeys. It's the worst Catch-22; if she fulfills her duties and responsibilities, people can take constant potshots at her without her being able to fight back, and if she fights back, they'll claim she's putting her interests ahead of her constituency.

Palin has come to one of the most empowering realizations in politics: if you are going to be criticized regardless of what you do, then there's no reason you shouldn't do the right thing. By resigning her position, she has the capability now to take the initiative and attack. When David Letterman makes rape jokes about her daughter, she can pound the bejesus out of him on all three morning shows instead of having to do it by remote before the throwing out of the ceremonial first salmon. The only scheduling conflicts she'll have to worry about are the ones she chooses. She can wear what she wants, spend what she needs, and go where she pleases without worrying about frivolous "ethics complaints". Most of all, she can be out there telling her story and connecting with the people who will ultimately put her in the White House.

Most of all, she has Obama in exactly the box she was. If he stays put, she owns the media field. If he starts campaigning, she nails him for not doing his job and unleashes her own bevy of people to file ethics complaints. Sweet, ironic, and perfect.

And the obvious question? I can hear the response already: "All politicians quit their jobs to go campaigning. My constituents deserved me being honest about it. Some politicians don't care that their voters are paying them for full-time work while they're not working; I do."

I could certainly be wrong on this. But hoping to God that I'm right.