AN ECONOMIC ARGUMENT TO KEEP IN MIND
From a Kerry Spot reader who knows economics:
While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20 percent of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts, while the share of income taxes paid by all other income groups fell.
The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1 percent of income earners pays 31.6 percent of all income taxes, the top 5 percent pays 51.4 percent, the top 10 percent pays 63.5%, and the top 20 percent of income earners pays 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom four-fifths of income earners pay just over one-fifth of all federal income taxes.
Some analysts cite total effective federal tax rates, as opposed to effective income tax rates, as the best measure of the effects of the tax cuts across income groups. This method can be misleading because it measures the burden of payroll taxes without accounting for the highly progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits to which payroll taxes are linked.
GAME, SET, MATCH
According to the London Daily Telegraph, the Kerry camp now concedes he didn't spend Christmas in Cambodia.
"On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border. There's no indictment of Kerry to be made, but he was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," said Douglas Brinkley, who has unique access to the candidate's wartime journals.
But Mr Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed "black" missions there at the height of the war.
More Brinkley:
Mr. Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed "black" missions there at the height of the war.
He said: "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.
"He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."
Hold it. When Kerry was telling the tale, year after year, he's been clear about the Christmas anecdote, the drunken South Vietnamese celebrating, etc. He's also talked about it being a moment that changed his life. And as for the point of his story, that his government is lying about no American forces being in Cambodia... What, was LBJ or Nixon supposed to say, "Yes, we have U.S. Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys on clandestine missions in Cambodia"? Not very clandestine then, is it?
Maybe I'm a cynic, but I expect my government to lie to me about Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys being in harm's way on secret missions in hostile territory. Tell me about it when it's unclassified, when they're home, and it's safe for the public to know.
By the way, many people keep pointing out Kerry accuses Nixon of this lie. He doesn't take office until January 20, 1969. Could one of Kerry's "three or four times" in that two month period occur in the opening 40 days of the Nixon administration? Sure.
And 50 miles away counts as "near" Cambodia? Give me a @#$%^& break
NO CONVENTION BROADCAST FOR RUDY? OR MCCAIN?
The New York Post: "Republican National Convention organizers are fuming that network TV won't broadcast former Mayor Rudy Giuliani during his prime-time speech on the gathering's opening night.
The networks are airing only three nights of prime-time coverage during the four-day convention — the same as for the Democratic convention in Boston.
Both Giuliani and Sen. John McCain are scheduled to speak on Aug. 30, the opening Monday night."
On the one hand, this is the same amount of coverage the Democrats got. They only had Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday covered, so the Tuesday night lineup of Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, and Teresa didn't get any coverage. (For the Democrats, that's a net plus, with casual viewers missing three bad speeches and one great one.)
On the other hand, skipping Teresa to show people eating worms on "Fear Factor" is one thing. Skipping Rudy talking about how 9/11 affected the country, or McCain, the Republican so popular Kerry wanted him as a running mate, is pathetic.
Could the GOP dare to try to give Arnold, Rudy, and McCain about 20 minutes each on Tuesday night?
UPDATE; ABC isn't covering Monday because of preseason football, Tennessee at Dallas, 8:00 pm.
I guess the RNC should be happy for any coverage from the networks. Remember, there is still C-SPAN.
KERRY, LIES, AND EXAGGERATIONS...
Politicians are odd sometimes. For example, few people would dispute that Al Gore was/is a technology geek. (There are those, of course, who would argue that Al Gore is actually poorly-functioning anamatronic technology itself.) When speaking about his record on this in 2000, he said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." This was widely interpreted as a boast of "inventing the Internet."
Gore could have just said, "I'm a technology geek, and have always been a nerd who can't read enough on these issues, and while I was in Congress, I worked a lot on developing the Internet and helping make it what it is today." Same gist, no exaggeration, no boast, no gaffe. Instead, he had to put it in the most dramatic wording possible, and hand his opponents a line to use against him for the rest of the race.
John Kerry has reached a similar moment. He could have just said, "I think Bush's prescription drug bill is a bad idea, and as President, I'll change it by doing X, Y, and Z." But no, like Gore, Kerry had to stretch and put things in dramatic, and innaccurate terms.
KERRY: I proudly, and I think rightly, voted against this prescription drug bill that the president has put in place that hurts seniors in this country.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
FOX NEWS' CARL CAMERON: But in fact, when the final vote occurred, Kerry skipped it. Since then, he has repeatedly pledged to undo much of the measure in order to start all over from scratch. He accused the GOP, in turn, of misrepresenting his plan.
KERRY: You know, I keep hearing the distortions of the other side, are just stunning. You know, they say I want to repeal it. No, I don't want to repeal it. I want to fix it.
CAMERON: But the truth is he did promise to repeal it.
KERRY, IN NEW HAMPSHIRE EARLIER THIS YEAR: If I am president, I pledge to you we will repeal that phony bill.
Why, senator, why? Why must you charge across a rhetorical bridge too far? Why must you boast of doing things you didn't do, and deny doing things that you did? Why not just make your case, avoid "sexing it up" as the BBC would say, and let the voters draw their own conclusions?
Are these statements Kerry "lies"? Well, they're a sign that he says what is dramatic and will resonate the best with the crowd in front of him, whether or not it is true.
More on The Kerry Spot on National Review Online
No comments:
Post a Comment