Dems Distort the CBO Report to Trash Bush and Cheat Taxpayers

Yahoo! News - CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich

Wow!! Here I was preparing to write a blog about how both sides can present "true" facts (yes, I realize the humor in that...) and still hold opposing views.

It turns out that the Democrats chose to distort the facts anyway. Why would they do that? Because the facts from the CBO report show that everyone--yes everyone benefited from the tax cuts. In fact, refer to my previous discussion about why the tax cuts were a good idea to help recover from the slowing economy that Clinton passed on to Bush.

So, let's start with the distortions. According to the Democrats, as reported in the Yahoo/Reuters news story, The CBO report shows that "the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent." While this is most likely "accurate reporting" (that is, the Democrats did say this) it's not actually to be found in the data of the CBO report. In fact, if you look at Table 3 of the report (use the link above, and read this for yourself) you will find that the share of "Total Tax Liabilities" for the top 1% of the population hits 21.2% by 2010, when the tax laws sunset (that is, revert back to the higher tax rates of 2000.)

So first, the Democrats actually understate the tax burden by 1 full percentage point. Not "even" a rounding error mistake. But what's worse, they are arguing that it is "not fair" in some measure that 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Read that again, slowly. 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Let that sink in. That's apparently too low, according to the Democrats.

Wow.

As if that isn't enough, Table 4 actually is more "telling" since it presents the differences in tax Rates and liabilities. Yes, the tax rates for the top 1% dropped by a greater percentage. Could that be due to the fact that we are taxing them at a much higher rate to begin with? Remember, the more money you earn after you hit the highest tax rate, the greater percentage of your income you pay at that rate. If today, you happen to earn one dollar over the line, pushing you into the highest tax bracket, you will pay that rate--but only on one dollar. On the other hand, if you earn 1 million dollars over the line, you pay that higher rate for that total amount. So the total effective tax rate for a person one dollar over the line is far lower (given that the vast weight of the rate is the lower tax rates) than the rate for the person one million over who, for all practical purposes, earned all their income at the higher rate.

Now, that being said, you would think that the total change in share of the tax burden, or as the CBO report puts it, the total share of the "Individual Income Tax LIabilities" would decrease by a greater rate. But we see that is not the case. According to their report, those people in the top 20% of earners (highest quintile) actually show an increase in the share of the liability for most years, and there are only three years (2006-2008) when the tax share decreases at all for those in the top 1%. On the other hand, those in the bottom 60% of earners show a decrease in the total share of income tax burden every year. EVERY year.

Please, Democrats, let's be intellectually honest here. Present the facts. The facts being simply this--The tax cuts put more money back in everyones' hands, and at the same time did maintain the progressive tax structure that you believe is so important.

The other fact is even more insidious. Most people won't go read the report, and the CBO won't engage in political debates, so they won't correct you.

But I will. And hopefully so will others.

Your homework today? Find truth. Seek truth. Live Truth.

What is the "Core?"

I have thought long and hard about what I should be putting in these blogs. My desire is to try to tackle the bigger questions, go for the "deeper" issue and philosophical underpinnings of an issue. Of course, this is predicated on the notion that logic will prevail. If presented with a cogent, factual argument, people will be persuaded, and can change.

I of course, am not convinced of this.

For instance, I struggle with trying to identify "core values or beliefs." For instance, I am frustrated by the constant repetition that the Democrats will unify, while the Republicans are divisive. Michael Medved was clear on his show Tuesday, when he pointed out the nation is divided, and that is seen in the political parties, and not the other way around.

Let me ask (yet another rhetorical) question. What makes the Democrats believe that they can "unify" the nation? The division isn't simply one group liking one person and disliking another. We have at the heart of the dispute disagreements that are fundamental. While we all want the same overt outcomes (success for people, healthcare, jobs) how we view people, and thus how we believe our nation can best achieve these goals, are vastly different.

This is made manifest in just listening to the personalities on Air America, especially their morning shows. One morning they commented that they don't disrepect, or hate, Christians, and then, literally in the next breath, they made fun of these people who "actually believe" these things. Now, how they can't see the blatant hypocrisy in that statement, I don't know. Another interesting of the division is when Janeane Garafolo commented that George Bush "actually said the verdict is still out on Evolution" and continued to deride his Christian beliefs. The true irony came when she said essentially that it is terrible that "Bush doesn't believe in Evolution." Heck, is it belief, or something else?

See, the debate is fundamental. This isn't about parties, and divisive politics. It's about vastly different world views, irreconcilable world views.

So honestly, how can EITHER party truly consider themselves uniters? Even Clinton, who sees himself as a great uniter, never was able to earn even 50% of the popular vote, in either election.

The only way I can see, is to win the election, and then pretend that no one disagrees with you, and that your mandate is complete--the very view the Democrats have accused the Bush Administration for taking.

The exam is next week--I hope you are studying.

4 Mile Creek

4 Mile Creek

Okay, I had to add this quick link.

It's not every day that I find a military officer who runs such an open opinionated blog. It's interesting, and evokes many a rant from the left.

Check him out!

Come let us be "reasonable" together

Yahoo! News - Al Qaeda Plans Include Assassination Plot -Report

Have you ever wondered if the political bickering could ever stop long enough to just "be reasonable?"

I have been hearing for weeks now criticism of the Department of Homeland Security's consideration of plans for postponing the elections for a few days in the event of a terrorist attack. The charges are usually made that this is another effort by the Bush Administration to steal an election, and that it is an effort to subvert the democratic process. Scary and heady stuff, if true. (And yes, I heard the most scathing criticisms come from the Air America gang--Al Franken, Janeane Garafalo, and that "Morning Sedition" bunch, but there was also a hue and cry from members of Congress--people we expect to be reasonable, to reason, to be "deliberative.")

A couple interesting tid-bits from history. Let's start with recent history. It wasn't that long ago, actually about 4 or 5 years ago, there was concern that we would end up with a national crisis that would require the suspension of the constitutional process, so that another President could remain in office. I, for one, always get nervous when discussions about setting aside the Constitution occur, and I had my issues with that particular President, but I did not in any way expect him, or any other President, to do such a thing.

Now, something a bit "longer" out. If you all will recall, we are Constitutionally required to have the election on the first Tuesday of November. The "electoral college" then ?The electoral college members meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December" (see: Electoral College Information). Why is there such a long delay? The inauguration is then set for later in the following January. Simply because when we first started as a nation, the vast physical distances were also vast distances in time. People did not get the "exit polling results" from around the nation tipping the electorate off to the outcome of the election before polls had even closed in the western part of the nation. Each person (then, white male) would vote their conscience, without any insight into the voting practices of the other members of the voting population, and would not find out the final outcome for months. There was no angst, no nashing of teeth, no complaint that they failed to have instant gratification.

This brings us back to today. What was the proposal that generated so much anger, and venom, towards President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security? The proposal was to, if necessary, delay the election for a few days to ensure a fair election following a terrorist attack. The election would still be held with more than enough time for the electoral college to meet, and most certainly wouldn't interfere with the Inauguration held a short 2 1/2 months following the election.

Is the plan so unreasonable? Let's think about this for just a minute. Who is most likely to benefit from an election held under the cloud of a recent terror strike? I would posit the Republican candidates would regardless of incumbency. Why would I say this? Assuming conventional wisdom from the 2000 election is still true (and there is some question about this, for Florida this fall) then the vast majority of absentee ballots are cast by conservative military members, and cast for conservative candidates--most likely the Republican candidate. If a terror strike was within a day or two of the elections, people would perhaps be afraid to go to the polls--who wants to go gather in large groups? Large groups are terror targets! This would then have the effect of reducing voter turn out, and place far greater emphasis on the absentee ballots.

Let's be reasonable. Let's all work together, as Patriots, seeking the good of the nation, to ensure that all citizens are given the opportunity to vote. Let the citizens choose to vote without fear. Let the citizens have a few extra days to go to the polls if necessary. If you vote Absentee, we give you quite a long time to make your decision--it just has to be received before election day.

Think of it as "absentee voting" on the flip side, and for those that choose to actually appear at the polls.

Oh, and your homework assignment? Read up on the electoral college, and the history of our Federal election process. Did you know that the Senate used to not be elected by popular vote? Check it out!

have spacesuit, will travel: An Officer And A Gentleman

have spacesuit, will travel: An Officer And A Gentleman

Two in one day, so I will make this one short(er).

I commend this "read" to you, and the various blogs he references. I too have my views on officership, and perhaps, someday, I will share them here.

Anyway--more fuel for the "where were you in 1972" discussion.

Sticks and Stones and Words will always Hurt me?

The Professor Brother: No Free Speech in Preaching - Christianity Today Magazine

My Brother points out the problem that Churches are facing with the new "Hate Speech" laws that are hitting the books. I of course, found it quite interesting that the Canadian law allows for "religious Hatespeech." Go figure--they liberal elements of society are willing to protect the Church, but not willing to accept that perhaps they are pushing the definition of "hate" a bit too far.

I have for many years been opposed to "enhanced" punishment for hate crimes. Why? Am I an insensitive, unfeeling person? No--actually quite the reverse. I think if an action against another person is bad enough to be labeled a crime, then the punishment should be equally severe, regardless of race, or gender, or any other bias. Who cares why you beat someone up? Who cares why you killed someone? You did it, and you should receive the severest of punishments.

Perhaps this is my personal bias, having been on the receiving end of a bully's pummelling more than once. It sure would aggravate me that "100 pound weakling" is not a protected class, unless I happened to also be a homosexual.

That being said, one would think I would want equal treatment of people who spew hate through words. Actually, I do--I want them to be treated just as anyone else, who spews any type of speech, hate speech, or loving speech. I don't buy into the liberal view that sticks, stones, AND words hurt me.

This nation was built on, among other things, the notion that the free exchange of ideas is to the benefit of all. The First Amendment protects all political speech, which unfortunately for some at times is painful. In the article my brother cites, is the following:

"Soren Andersson, president of a Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, said religious freedom is never a reason to offend people."

Are we to make it illegal to use words that, as we see above "offend people?" Who is to determine where this line is drawn? Certainly today's political discourse in the US should qualify as offending many. The "Left" has regularly announced the affront they feel whenever Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity speak. I for one have chosen listening to Janeane Garafolo as my personal Cardio-vascular exercise regimen. President Bush has been virulently attacked by Move-On dot org for many months now. These are "offensive" words to some, and in fact I would say many--but it is this discourse that makes America great!

Should we now cave in to those who wish to make it illegal to speak your mind? To share ideas, no matter how offensive?

How soon is it, until defending the offensive is in itself "indefensible?"

Place your homework on the desk, face down.

Patriotism in the Age of, well, Patriotism

Nothing has been harder for me to wrap my arms around than "Patriotism" and what makes one a "Patriot." I remember an older definition (and wish I had the attribution to give) That said a Patriot is one who fights for their country and win. Otherwise, they are a rebel/traitor/terrorist. Perhaps that is true, but I have never been comfortable with the notion that patriotism means fighting--and yes, it usually means physical interaction, not just wars of words.

Now, usually I don't spend TOO much time thinking about such things, except these days accusations are flying that people are not "Patriots." What truly strikes me as "interesting" is the radio-ical left (Al Franken, Janeane Garafalo, and the like) essentially standing indignant that "the radical right" is calling them unpatriotic. (And, alas, I have no direct citations
here either--just weak old-dude memory.) Unfortunately, I dont' remember anyone actually accusing anyone of being "unpatriotic" and the only use of "Unamerican" I remember since the McCarthy era was Theresa Kerry's use a week and a half ago, which she conveniently forgot that she had even said.

So what does it mean to be "American" and what does it mean to be "Patriotic?" Should this even matter?

Perhaps we are all missing the bigger picture. Yes, our nation was attacked, and yes we are deeply divided from the election in 2000. Unfortunately, we as a nation are so conditioned to place blame rather than fix problems, that we cannot be satisfied to put our shoulders to the grindstone, and just "fix things." What do I mean by this, by this ntion that we "need" to place blame? This is an even deeper problem.

As a nation we feel "someone must pay" when something happens. We see this in the highly litigious nature of our world, where everyone has the right to "sue" when they are offended, or affronted, or hurt. Why? Because "someone" must pay. In many instances that is perfectly fine--if I company knowingly sells a product that, when used as intended will potentially harm the careful consumer, they should pay for that act. People, and corporations, should be accountable for their decisions and their actions.

It's when this need for accountability spills over into holding people accountable for the actions of others that I have problems. The Columbine shootings are one example of the larger pathology. When the people who commit evil, such as the two boys in Columbine and the terrorists on the airplanes from 9/11/2001, kill themselves in the process, we seem to somehow feel "cheated." "We" are unable to exact revenge, to punish, and thus we start to look elsewhere for someone to "make pay" for this. Quite often I hear "someone must pay for..." and then we seek to find someone, anyone, that we can blame. Perhaps it is some deep psychological need for this elusive "closure" that people feel they need. I am not sure, but I do know it takes
time, energy, and resources away from those things which could make a difference. For instance, the 9/11 Commission has spent millions of dollars to find what we all really knew. Terrorists were directly responsible. Our government was not prepared for such an event, and the benign neglect spanned several administrations.

Wow--no wonder President Bush didn't want to have the Commission. I suspect he knew that we would all learn what we all already knew--and it would distract attention away from the things that mattered.

So how does this tie to Patriotism? Simply because people on all sides, in a frenetic effort to "assign blame" have a tendency to assign motives as well.
1. President Bush wasn't opposing the Commission because he understood that they would find nothing new, but was rather participating in a vast cover-up. This hypothesis has even been put forward in part by Michael Moore, and others, who assert Bush knew about the effort for 9/11 and passively participated in the conspiracy.
2. The War in Iraq was "obviously" all about the oil--just ask Janeane Garafalo. Forget that the supposed benefits of "having the oil" haven't been seen. Forget the fact that even the 9/11 Commission concluded that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam (although not in the planning/execution of the event.) Forget that millions of people were tortured and killed by Saddam, and that we have seen the liberation of a people who for 30 years lived under tyrannical rule. Those are just inconvenient facts. The war was certainly all about the oil.
3. Michael Moore hates America--certainly this is clear because he made a movie that attacked the President through a twisting of the facts, and resequencing or ignoring key issues. Yes, I am defending Michael Moore--in the sense that I believe he honest is acting out of love of country in making his movie.

You see, by definition, according to The American Heritage Dictionary a Patriot is "One who loves, supports, and defends one's country." We might not agree with their methods. In fact, we might not agree on what the country should be doing, or even how it looks, but we all want to see Her defended. Michael Moore's vision of what America should be disagrees with mine. I actually believe his vision is harmful, but I understand that he is acting out of a love for what America can become.

Patriotism may be lacking in America. There are probably not enough people willing to stand up, support, and make sacrifices for America. But we should, even while disagreeing strongly, acknowledge and praise those Americans who are willing to take a stand for what they believe America can be, even if that vision is at odds with our own.

Are there any questions? If not, class is dismissed.

=================

One little side note I discovered while researching this. The title "PATRIOT Act of 2001" is actually an acronym. It is "Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001." And we don't think congress is creative.