Even excepting the NY Times reputation of late for strictly partisan editorial staff and its reporters habit of making up stories out of thin air,
this article is so full of half truths, inuendo and outright misleading conclusions that even reasonable liberals should be embarassed by the obvious
lack of journalistic objectivity presented. The article really should have a disclaimer added saying its an unpaid political advertisment.
NY Times = DU dressed as mainstream.
First off the article quotes four RINO's that constantly use the 60 vote super-majority rule to get back door pork deals and other advantages for
their states at the expense of the country - thats all this is, just another "whats in it for me ploy" by some senators that realize the advantage
of using the polarized politics of the senate for their own political advancement, you'll see the fix go in after public scutiny go away.
Qouting from the article,
"On Wednesday, two liberal policy research groups released a study estimating that the ultimate cost of the tax cuts would fall overwhelmingly on
middle- and lower-income families"
"According to the study, by the Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than three-quarters of all households would
end up net losers if the government actually paid for the tax cuts by either spending cuts or other tax increases"
Well of course LIBERAL policy research groups are going to get results that are favorable to their agenda, thats not exactly intellectually honest
reporting by the NY Times now is it - why could they not have resaerched results from a non-partisan think tank? - because it does'nt fit their
editorial agenda thats why!
The second paragraph is fiction based on something that is unlikely to occur unless of course Kerry is actually elected as president, heres why I say
"Latest data from the Internal Revenue Service demonstrate that the wealthy are bearing an increasingly disproportionate share of the tax burden.
Moreover, it doesn't take a fabulous income for Americans to land in the upper reaches of the tax brackets:
* All one had to earn to qualify among the top 25 percent of filers in 1999 was a modest $52,965.
* Persons in that heady income class paid 83.5 percent of all taxes.
* To be among the top 50 percent, a person had to earn only $26,415 a year.
The 27 percent marginal tax rate kicks in for single taxpayers at only $27,050 of income.
Source: Editorial, "A Rich Tax Debate," Wall Street Journal, January 22, 2002."
A Dose of Reality Concerning Taxes
is all it takes to be near or in the group that is called "big winners" Now when I go to the convenience store that has a big
poster saying "New Managers Needed" we pay starting salary of $53,700, I'll now have to look upon the store manager as one of those evil rich
bastards thats not paying his fair share. Does that sound as crazy to you as it does to me?
The liberal tax policy groups are just using the worn out old class warfare propaganda put out by democrats that never has held any water, again you
will get no truth here from NY Times.
What are the alternatives then that could have been reported on by the Times? - Theres this solution from Cato a libertarian think tank affiliated
with neither the democratic party nor the republican party.
"In recent years, mismanagement scandals have occurred in many federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Even the National Zoo in
Washington has recently been shaken by scandal. The $2.3 trillion federal government has simply become too big for Congress to oversee."
"The good news is that Americans do not need such a big government. Most federal programs are unconstitutional, unnecessary, actively damaging, or
properly the responsibility of state governments or the private sector. This study analyzes programs that could be cut to create annual budget savings
of $300 billion. If these cuts were phased in over five years, the budget would be balanced by fiscal year 2009 with all of President Bush's tax cuts
"Some reform ideas should be applied throughout the government. Business subsidies should be terminated, and commercial activities should be
privatized. Also, federal grants to the states should be scaled back. Currently, a complex array of 716 grant programs disgorges more than $400
billion annually to state and local governments, which become strangled in federal regulations."
Cato Institute on Downsizing Federal Government
I dont see anything in that analysis that indicates downsizing is going to force the government to steal candy out of your babies hands, its a very
reasonable explanation of the problem facing Americans today in regards to government and taxes.
Some of you will invariably allude to the horrors that will occur when the states will have to fund their own programs, yes the horror is paying high
federal and state taxes combined . Let me point out that local control of taxation, regulation and budgeting ultimately provides much more empowerment
of the taxpayer to control government abuse of tax funds.
Basically the truth of the matter is we have a two party system where politicians on both sides introduce new spending initiatives in the guise of
helping helping people out, but what they are really doing is gaining more power through the use of your money - it amounts to a giant vote buying
Back to the tax issue for a moment, you may have noticed that the income figure of $26,415 puts someone in the top 50% of income earners, the NCPA
study said that people earning less than $26,415 paid 4% of the tax revenue collected in 1999 according to IRS records (less now under the Bush tax
On the other hand the top 50% of income earners (remember this starts at $26,415) paid 96% of tax revenues collected. All one had to earn to qualify
among the top 25 percent of filers in 1999 was a modest $52,965, persons in that heady income class paid 83.5 percent of all taxes. That means that
persons earning from $26,415 up to $52,965 paid a relatively small 12.5% of total tax revenue. Whats the point of all these figures that you've
probably heard before you might ask?
The point is that with clear minds and eyes wide open one of our national political parties has a goal to give so called but finely targeted tax cuts
to the middle class while at the same time increasing revenues from the so called rich in a planned attempt to usurp democracy by ensuring that more
than 50% of the voting public receives largesse from a minority of income earners no longer having the voting power to effect change.
Democrats are saying whats wrong with that, sounds good to me?
May people remind themselves to look back and read some history concerning countries that fell under the power of one monolithic political authority
when asking that question, there is example after example of aristocracy's and dictatorships born of supposedly benign one party systems - is that
what you want? - would you put your welfare in the hands of a government that has no natural checks and balances? - even if it started out benign how
long would that really last once the politicians got a taste of REAL power?
I ask again is this what you really want?
When you see a narrowly divided senate that bickers over such things as tax and budget policy its a good thing for all of us in the long run. My fear
is that due to tinkering of the tax system as desired by democrats this system will become unbalanced and out of control forever.
Changing the tax system in order to gain votes is very risky and things may not turn out to be the utopia that some might hope for, reminds me of the
old saying when one receives an unexpected gift after asking to many times,
"Ask and ye shall receive"