jeffpilot's Blog

My Blog

Blogs > jeffpilot > I Am Not The Barber Of Seville

I Am Not The Barber Of Seville

If Liberals really hated America, we'd all vote Republican.

I don't promise to know what I'm talking about.

Your indulgence is requested & appreciated.

Rightwingers, please burn no crosses on my lawn Sundays.

Title View |

What Would God Get Tired Of?

Jan 14, 2008 1:13 pm
1582 Views

39 Comments, 42 votes

Unspinning the FairTax	Jan 12, 2008 10:23 am 646 Views
With the FairTax, people pay a 23-percent saled tax on everythong they buy! Some people say the FairTax sounds like the perfect answer to the IRS!!! "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is." --Unknown sage who seems to be right Go on the web and see just who is promoting "the FairTax." Among them you'll find Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. You probably know Huckabee is a religious nut who questions evolution. Recently he insisted he'll "never believe that humans came from primates." Somehow, Mr. Huckabee didn't know that humans are primates. No word on whether being confronted with that fact has changed his mind. I don't know about you. But I won't take any tax advice from Mr. Huckabee. Taking tax advice from dumbbell Republicans like Huckabee and George W. Bush is how the U.S. got in this mess to begin with. It's just not very likely that now they'll be who tells us how to get out of it. When it comes to misguided Republican tax policy, here's what real experts had to say: "There's a sucker born every minute." --P. T. Barnum, circus entrepreneur who noticed there were lots of suckers in the world "Only the little people pay taxes." --Leona Helmsley, crazy old dowager whose hubby Harry owned the Empire State Building and who left her dog Trouble 12 million dollars ($12,000,000.00) Far as I'm concerned, Huckabee can keep the "FairTax." Simple solutions rarely ever solve complex problems; pretending they do is a form of lying. Fortunately, Huckabee has about as much chance to be president as Mrs. Helmsley's dog. -------------------------------------------------- Unspinning the FairTax sourced: the FactCheck website May 31, 2007 We look at the numbers behind the numbers. Summary In our recent article on the second GOP debate, we called out Gov. Mike Huckabee as well as Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their support of the FairTax. We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax. But unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them. Update June 14: In a letter, Americans for Fair Taxation wrote to say that it disagrees “very strongly” with FactCheck’s analysis of the FairTax. For their objections and our response, see the end of the “Analysis” section. Analysis How to Make 30 percent Look Like 23 percent Americans for Fair Taxation offers the following plain-language interpretation of H.R. 25: Americans for Fair Taxation: A 23-percent (of the tax-inclusive sales price) sales tax is imposed on all retail sales for personal consumption of new goods and services. It is the parenthetical that is important, for it hides the real truth of the tax rate. First consider the way in which sales tax is normally figured. A consumer good that carries a $100 price tag might be subject to a 5 percent sales tax. That means that the final bill for the item is $105. The 5 percent figure is the amount of tax that is charged on the original purchase price. But now suppose that instead of pricing the item at $100, the shop owner simply priced the item at $105, then sent $5 directly to the state. The $105 price would be a tax-inclusive sales price. But $5 is just 4.8 percent of $105. That 4.8 percent number, however, is relatively meaningless. You are still paying exactly the same 5 percent tax on the item. The 23 percent number in H.R. 25 is the equivalent of the 4.8 percent in the previous example. To calculate the real rate of the sales tax, we have to determine the original purchase price of an item. We can begin with the same $100 item, keeping in mind that a price tag that reads $100 has sales tax already built in. If our tax rate is 23 percent of the tax-inclusive sales price, then of the $100 final price, $23 of those dollars will be for taxes, meaning that the original pre-tax price of the item is $77. To get $23 in taxes on a $77 item, one must impose a 30 percent tax. In other words, a 23 percent sales tax on the tax-inclusive sales price is equivalent to a 30 percent tax on the actual price of the item. FairTax proponents object to the 30 percent number, claiming that critics use the larger number to frighten people. Americans for Fair Taxation claims that it uses the tax-inclusive number to make it easier to compare the FairTax to the income tax that it will replace (since most of us think of income tax rates on an inclusive basis). But we are not accustomed to thinking of sales taxes inclusively. The result is that many FairTax supporters (about 15 percent of those who wrote to us, for example) do not understand that the 23 percent figure is tax inclusive. Our analysis of the FairTax used a figure of 34 percent as the basic exclusive tax rate. One e-mailer complained that our number was at least 10 percentage points “higher than [the FairTax] is” because we calculated it as an addition to retail prices. But our 34 percent number is not 10 percentage points higher than the legislation. A 34 percent exclusive number is equivalent to a 25 percent tax inclusive rate – only 2 percentage points higher than the FairTax bill. We think that, intentional or not, the use of the tax-inclusive 23 percent rate has misled a lot of FairTax proponents. But 30 Is Not 34 Either Americans for Fair Taxation, however, has complained that H.R. 25 calls for a 23 percent inclusive (or 30 percent exclusive) rate, not a 34 percent rate. Our number came from the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, which calculated that a 34 percent rate on the actual price of consumer goods would be necessary to make the program revenue-neutral. Americans for Fair Taxation has said that the Advisory Panel did not use the FairTax as detailed in the legislation but instead made up its own plan. This complaint is disingenuous. The Advisory Panel did in fact begin with the 30 percent figure that proponents of the FairTax submitted. But the panel rejected those figures, claiming that they were based, at least in part, on the unrealistic assumption that there would be full compliance with the FairTax. In other words, proponents assume that no one will cheat on taxes. However, the Treasury Department estimates that the evasion rate for the entire U.S. tax system under current law is approximately 15 percent. The Advisory Panel accordingly assumed a 15 percent evasion rate for the FairTax. More significantly, however, the panel found that FairTax supporters were employing questionable accounting. In calculating federal revenue, proponents assumed that purchases made by the federal government would be taxed at the full 30 percent rate. But when calculating federal expenditures, FairTax proponents did not factor in the additional costs of the 30 percent sales tax. The Advisory Panel thus threw out the revenue from federal purchases, noting (correctly) that increased revenue from taxing federal purchases is exactly canceled by increased costs in the federal budget. Unfortunately, the Advisory Panel has thus far refused to release its methodology, making it difficult to reconcile its projections with those of Americans for Fair Taxation. Using a formula that corrects for the faulty assumption about government spending, William Gale, director of the economic studies program at the Brookings Institute, calculates that a 39.3 percent exclusive rate would be necessary for revenue neutrality. (We used the lower Advisory Panel number). A more recent study by FairTax supporter and Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff – working from Gale’s formula and adopting the same basic assumptions – determines that a 31.2 percent exclusive (or 23.8 percent tax-inclusive) rate would be sufficient. Even if Kotlikoff is correct that a 31.2 percent rate is revenue-neutral, there remains some reason to doubt that the rate actually would be that low. The FairTax proposal assumes a 100 percent tax base on consumption. By way of contrast, most states that have sales taxes have roughly a 50 percent tax base. With the FairTax’s 100 percent base, consumers would pay taxes on a great many things that may not intuitively seem like consumption. The list would include: Purchases of new homes Rent Interest on credit cards, mortgages and car loans Doctor bills Utilities Gasoline (30 percent in addition to current taxes, which would not be repealed) Legal fees At today’s prices, gasoline would cost almost $1 per gallon more. A $150,000 new home would run $195,000 – plus the 30 percent tax that the buyer would pay on the interest on the mortgage. In short, the FairTax taxes everything that one buys, with the one notable exception of education. Any exceptions to the tax base (for instance, eliminating rent or credit card interest from the tax base) would require an offsetting increase in the rate. But the FairTax Will Lower Prices Proponents of the FairTax point out that prices on consumer goods contain what are called “hidden taxes.” Under current law, corporations have to pay taxes on their earnings. Moreover, businesses have to pay social security taxes for each employee. The money to pay these taxes has to come from somewhere, and FairTax supporters argue that the cost is passed on to the consumer. In fact, the best-known proponent of the FairTax, talk-show host Neal Boortz, argues that 22 percent of the price of a consumer good is really a “hidden tax.” Get rid of corporate and social security taxes, Boortz argues, and consumer good prices would drop by 22 percent. Even with the 23 percent FairTax, prices stay the same, and with the elimination of income taxes, paychecks will get bigger. Everyone gets a raise and the federal government still gets its revenue. About 10 percent of the e-mail messages we received from FairTax proponents trumpeted this kind of magic act. It is easy to understand the confusion on the issue, as Boortz himself made similar assertions in the hardcover edition of his book. (He later issued a corrected version in paperback.) A bit of critical analysis shows that this cannot be right. The FairTax is revenue-neutral. That means that for every tax dollar collected under the current system, the FairTax has to collect a dollar. If the FairTax exactly equaled embedded taxes, then it could not possibly be revenue-neutral, since embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes. The FairTax rate would have to be high enough to replace embedded taxes plus income and estate taxes. Chris Edwards, the Cato Institute's director of tax policy studies, points out that prices do not really matter; corporate, payroll, income and estate taxes currently generate approximately $2.4 trillion, and a revenue-neutral FairTax would still require that taxpayers pony up $2.4 trillion. Nor is it clear that the 22 percent embedded tax figure is particularly meaningful. David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation, calls it "simplistic" to think that the entire cost of corporate taxes is borne by consumers. Cato's Edwards suggests that while consumers do pay at least part of the costs, producers also bear some of the burden. That is, employees pay part of the costs of hidden taxes (in the form of lower wages), and corporate shareholders pay another portion (in the form of lower returns on their investments). The FairTax: Is It Regressive? Sometimes sales taxes are called regressive, meaning that the poorest pay higher rates than the wealthy. Strictly speaking, sales taxes are flat, since everyone pays the same rate. But because the poor tend to spend a high percentage of their income on basic consumer goods such as food and clothing, sales taxes do require the poor to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The FairTax plan, however, helps to alleviate this difficulty by exempting sales taxes on all income up to the poverty level. Taxpayers would receive a "prebate," which Edwards calculates to be about $5,600 annually. The Treasury Department estimates that the prebate program would cost between $600 billion and $700 billion annually, making it the largest category of federal spending. Americans for Fair Taxation disputes the Treasury Department numbers, claiming that the actual cost would be closer to $485 billion per year. The Treasury Department has so far refused to release its methodology, making it difficult to determine whose estimate is correct. Who Really Pays? With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. The chart below compares the share of the federal tax burden for different income groups under the current system and under the FairTax. Those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase. Americans for Fair Taxation rejects the Treasury Department analysis, objecting that Treasury considers only the income tax. By leaving out payroll taxes (which are actually regressive) Treasury’s chart makes the FairTax look worse by comparison. We found that including all the taxes that the FairTax would replace (income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes), those earning less than $24,156 per year would benefit. AFT’s Burton agreed that those earning more than $200,000 would see their share of the overall tax burden decrease, admitting that “probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000” would see their percentage of the tax burden rise. Why Be Progressive? It is easy to look at charts like the one above and dismiss the FairTax as simply another way to help the rich get richer. But there is an economic argument for a less progressive tax system, though that argument is extremely technical. Kotlikoff has asserted that the FairTax will lower the marginal tax rate for all earners. (The marginal rate is the tax rate paid on the last dollar earned.) Because marginal rates are lower, each extra dollar of income will result in greater purchasing power. The decrease in marginal rates is progressive – that is, marginal rate reductions are greater for the working- and middle-classes than for the wealthy. Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent. Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden. Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden. The size of any such gains is disputed, however; Americans for Fair Taxation consistently chooses from among the most optimistic growth projections. Upon Further Review We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair. - by Joe Miller Correction, May 31: In the Analysis portion of our original story we stated that "Taxpayers with very low incomes would receive a 'prebate'." In fact, all taxpayers would receive the prebate for sales taxes on purchases up to the poverty level. Update June 14: Americans for Fair Taxation wrote us to say that the organization disagrees “very strongly” with FactCheck’s analysis and that we have “uncritically accepted many misleading arguments” made by FairTax critics. As a courtesy to AFT, and as a service to our readers, we are posting the letter in our “Supporting Documents” section. We stand by our article, and our comments on AFT’s letter are below. Our mission at FactCheck is not to rule on issues of public policy but rather to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We found that, whatever Americans for Fair Taxation’s intentions, there remains much confusion about the FairTax. AFT disputes our conclusion that the 23 percent number is misleading. We stand behind it. Sales taxes, as AFT notes, “are almost always expressed in an ‘exclusive’ manner,” which in our view makes 30 percent the logical figure to use when describing the FairTax. We don’t actually call the FairTax “regressive,” as AFT implies that we do. We reiterate, however, that those earning between $15,000 (or perhaps as much as about $24,000 – see our addition to the “Who Really Pays” portion of our article above) and $200,000 per year – virtually all middle-class Americans – would pay a higher share of the tax burden under this proposal. Those earning more would see their share drop, as even AFT economists admit. We did not ignore Americans for Fair Taxation’s research. Much of that research is publicly available and is listed among our sources. We do, however, approach all evidence with a healthy skepticism – including research that is funded by the very group whose claims we are investigating. Where possible we rely upon neutral sources, such as the bipartisan President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, and on opinions from third-party scholars from think tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Cato Institute.
	13 Comments

Claims that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is BS.	Jan 11, 2008 2:45 pm 626 Views
This'll probably make the Repugs poop in their pants. I wonder if any of them ever read any of these things past the headline before leaving their customarily pissed-off comments...guess I'll never know. Hi, 60minman! Have a nice weekend! Remember we love y'all! ------------------------------------------------- CLAIM THAT TAX CUTS “PAY FOR THEMSELVES” IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE: Data Show No “Free Lunch” Here by Richard Kogan and Aviva Aron-Dine In recent statements, the President, the Vice President, and key Congressional leaders have asserted that the increase in revenues in 2005 and the increase now projected for 2006 prove that tax cuts “pay for themselves.” In other words, the economy expands so much as a result of tax cuts that it produces the same level of revenue as it would have without the tax cuts. President Bush, for example, commented on July 11, “Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit…. that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.”[1] Earlier, in a February speech the President stated, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.”[2] Similarly, Vice President Cheney has claimed, “it’s time for everyone to admit that sensible tax cuts increase economic growth and add to the federal treasury.” [3] And Majority Leader Frist has written that recent experience demonstrates, “when done right, [tax cuts] actually result in more money for government.”[4] In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax cuts have not paid for themselves, and economic growth and revenue growth over the course of the recovery have not been particularly strong. Even taking into account the stronger revenue growth now projected for fiscal year 2006, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level they reached more than five years ago, when the current business cycle began in March 2001. (March 2001 was the peak and thus the end of the previous business cycle, and hence also the start of the current business cycle.) In contrast, in previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues have grown an average of about 10 percent over the five and a half years following the previous business-cycle peak.[5] By this stage in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues had increased by 11 percent. Overall, this economic recovery has been slightly weaker than the average post-World War II recovery. In particular, GDP growth and investment growth have been below the historical average, despite recent tax cuts specifically targeted at increasing investment. Those who clAIM that tax cuts pay for themselves might argue that stronger revenue growth in 2005 and 2006 represents the beginning of a new trend, and that the tax cuts could pay for themselves over the longer term. Neither the historical record nor current revenue projections support this argument. In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. (See Figure 1.) Even the Administration does not project that revenues will continue to grow at their recent rates or that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Under the revenue assumptions in the Office of Management and Budget’s Mid-Session Review, real per-person revenues will grow at an annual average rate of just 0.8 percent between 2000 and 2011, only about half the growth rate during the 1980s and less than one-fourth the growth rate during the 1990s. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less. Moreover, in its recent “dynamic analysis” of the impact of making the President’s tax cuts permanent, the Treasury Department reported that even under favorable assumptions, extending the tax cuts would have only a small effect on economic output. That small positive economic impact would offset no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts’ cost. (See box on page four.) In addition, economists from across the political spectrum — including economists who have held top positions in the current Administration — reject the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves (see the discussion of this issue on page five). In tax policy, as in other aspects of policymaking, there is no “free lunch.” Have the Tax Cuts Increased Revenues? After adjusting for inflation and population growth, this year and last year’s strong growth in revenues have barely made up for the deep revenue losses in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Measured since the current business cycle began in March 2001, total per-capita revenue growth, adjusted for inflation, has been near zero. Based on OMB’s latest revenue estimates, real per-capita revenues in 2006 will be only 0.2 percent above the level they attained more than five years ago at the start of the business cycle. In other words, the current revenue “surge” is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago. By contrast, five and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 10 percent. And at this point in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues were 11 percent higher than their level at the end of the previous business cycle.[6] Furthermore, the performance of the economy during the current business cycle has been slightly weaker overall than the economy’s average performance over the comparable period of other business cycles since the end of World War II. Investment growth during the current business cycle has been below the historical average, even though some of the Bush administration’s tax cuts have been specifically targeted at investment. Employment and wage and salary growth have been especially weak during the current business cycle.[7] If tax cuts are crucial to economic growth, then the current business cycle — with its large tax cuts — should strongly outperform previous business cycles. Instead, it has performed more poorly than average. Treasury Department Study Finds the Bush Tax Cuts Will Pay For Less Than 10 Percent of Their Cost According to CBO’s official cost estimate, the Administration’s proposal to make the tax cuts enacted since 2001 permanent would cost 1.4 percent of GDP annually. (This does not include the AMT relief that the Administration proposes on an annual basis, which would bring the total cost to 2 percent of GDP.) According to the Mid-Session Review, the tax cuts would have positive long-term economic effects that would raise national income by “as much as” 0.7 percent over the long term. With tax receipts projected to be about 18 percent of national income, this translates into an increase in revenues of as much as 0.13 percent of GDP.a In this scenario, which assumes that the tax cuts are financed by future cuts in government spending, the tax cuts would cost about 1.27 percent of GDP annually — or more than 90 percent of the conventional cost estimate. (Under Treasury’s alternative financing scenario, the tax cuts would actually reduce national income over the long run.) Could the Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves Over Time? Proponents of the tax cuts might argue that the stronger revenue growth in 2005 represents the beginning of a trend and that the tax cuts will pay for themselves over time. This clAIM is contradicted by the historical record, as well as by the Administration’s own projections. Tax Cuts Have Not Paid for Themselves in the Past Senator Charles Grassley (R- IA) recently stated, “There is a mindset in both branches of government that if you reduce taxes you have a net loss, if you increase taxes you have a net gain, and history does not show that relationship.”[8] A look at the past two decades, however, shows exactly that relationship. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. When the 1981 tax cuts were being debated, some supporters contended the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Similarly, opponents of the 1990 and 1993 tax increases claimed they would damage the economy and cause tax receipts to grow more slowly in the 1990s than in the 1980s. In fact, the economy grew at about the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s, while tax revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s as in the 1980s: 3.5 percent (after adjustment for inflation and the increase in the size of the population), compared to 1.7 percent in the 1980s. The Administration Itself Does Not Project that the Tax Cuts Will Pay for Themselves The revenue estimates in OMB’s Mid-Session Review show that even the Administration does not expect the tax cuts to produce revenue growth that would make up for their costs. Based on the Mid-Session Review projections for revenues in 2006-2011, real per-person revenues will grow at an annual average rate of 0.8 percent between 2000 and 2011, only about half the growth rate during the 1980s and less than one-fourth the growth rate during the 1990s. Table 1: Economic and Revenue Growth Rates in the 1980s and 1990s Average Economic Growth[9] Average Revenue Growth 1980s[10] 2.0% 1.7% 1990s 2.0% 3.5% 2000-2011, (Based on OMB’s Mid-Session Review Estimates) 2.1% 0.8% These results are especially striking given that the Administration’s revenue estimates are highly inflated in one key respect — they assume that relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will not be extended beyond 2006, with the result that 30 million households will pay the AMT by 2010. Virtually all observers expect AMT relief to be continued. If the Administration’s revenue estimates are adjusted by using CBO’s estimates of the cost of continuing AMT relief, the estimates then show real per-capita revenue growth over the 2000-2011 period averaging only 0.5 percent per year. In addition, the Treasury Department’s own recent “dynamic analysis” of the effects of making the President’s tax cuts permanent shows that the tax cuts would not come anywhere close to paying for themselves. In the Treasury study's more optimistic scenario, extending the tax cuts could eventually increase long-run economic output by a total of 0.7 percent of GDP, which is enough to pay for, at most, 10 percent of the tax cuts’ cost.[11] Economists Across the Political Spectrum Reject Claims that Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves While serious economists are divided on the question of whether and under what circumstances tax cuts are good for the economy, there is no such debate on the question of whether tax cuts pay for themselves. Economists from across the political spectrum reject the latter assertion. In recent testimony before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee, Edward Lazear, current chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, stated, “I certainly would not clAIM that tax cuts pay for themselves.”[12] Are Capital Gains Tax Cuts Different? In its most recent Budget and Economic Outlook report issued in late January, 2006, CBO revised upward its estimates of capital-gains revenues over the 2003-2005 period. Some have cited this CBO reestimate as evidence that capital-gains tax cuts, if not other tax cuts, pay for themselves. More careful scrutiny shows, however, that this narrower clAIM is seriously flawed as well. CBO noted that it has raised its estimate of capital-gains revenues based on information showing higher-than-expected capital-gains realizations. Describing this reestimate as a “technical revision,” CBO explained that capital-gains realizations have been above historical levels (relative to GDP and the capital-gains tax rate) over the past few years, but that it does not expect this trend to continue. The effect of the lower capital gains tax rates on CBO’s reestimates of capital-gains realizations was minor. The higher capital-gains revenues could not have resulted from higher-than projected economic growth, because actual growth in 2004 and 2005 was slightly lower than CBO had projected in January 2004. The higher capital-gains realizations do reflect, in part, the rise in the stock market in 2003, which rebounded after three consecutive down years. Capital-gains realizations and revenues tend to go up and down with the market. But a recent study by three Federal Reserve economists demonstrates that the capital-gains and dividend tax cuts of 2003 were not the reason that the market went up that year. N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”[13] Commenting on President Bush’s clAIM that tax cuts pay for themselves, the Economist magazine recently wrote, “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.”[14] The President’s own Council of Economic Advisors concluded in its Economic Report of the President, 2003, that, “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”[15] The CEA chair at the time was conservative economist Glenn Hubbard. Deficit-Financed Tax Cuts May Cost Even More than Official Estimates A recent CBO study of the economic effects of tax cuts found that how tax cuts are financed significantly impacts how they affect the economy. In the short run, deficit-financed tax cuts may help stimulate an economy in recession and thus temporarily improve growth (although the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were poorly structured as stimulus). But in the long run, the deficits that result from unpaid-for tax cuts constitute a drag on the economy because they lower national savings.[16] For this reason, deficit-financed tax cuts may actually weaken long-run economic growth. A study and literature review by Brookings Institution economists William Gale and Peter Orszag, for instance, concluded that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were “likely to reduce, not increase, national income in the long term” because of their effect in swelling the deficit.[17] Studies by economists at the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have found that, even in models that predict that deficit-financed tax cuts can have a positive economic impact over the ten-year budget window, their longer-run impact is negative.[18] If deficit-financed tax cuts weaken economic growth, their long-run cost could be greater than conventional revenue estimates suggest, because they will reduce revenues not only directly (by lowering people’s tax bills) but also indirectly (by slowing the economy). A recent CBO study of the economic effects of a hypothetical 10 percent across-the-board cut in income tax rates found that under certain assumptions, the increased deficits resulting from the tax cut would be enough of a drag on the economy that the tax cut actually would lose more revenue than if one assumed it had no effect on the economy. In other words, deficit-financed tax cuts could be even more expensive than officially “scored,” rather than less expensive or costless. In the final analysis, the idea that tax cuts can spur sufficient economic growth to pay for themselves sounds too good to be true because it is too good to be true. In tax policy, as in other aspects of policymaking, there is no “free lunch.”
	6 Comments

9/11 and the incompetence excuse	Jan 10, 2008 10:51 am 795 Views
9/11 and the incompetence excuse: Could a bunch of sociopathic screw-ups really pull off the crime of the century? by Warren Pease Many who deny government complicity in 9/11/01 maintain that some of the best evidence against official involvement in the crime of the century lies in the Bush administration's unbroken record of sheer incompetence. This is an argument bolstered by the perception that key members of the administration, notably The Commander Guy, spent that entire day running around like headless chickens. On the contrary, they did no such thing. Rather, the administration was highly competent and enormously successful that day. They just had different criteria for success than would sane people. And they've been highly competent ever since. You just have to adjust your standards for evaluating success, then view the past six years through the PNAC/neocon lens. Let's review some of their primary accomplishments, on 9/11 and in the six eternal years since: They got the entire world to believe that a ragtag organization called Al Qaeda, fronted by a seriously ill guy in a cave armed with only a laptop and a phone, managed to orchestrate an unbelievably complex plan that had involved years of planning and training, much money, split-second timing and ridiculously good luck. They got the entire world to believe that four hijackers who couldn't fly single-engine Cessnas well enough to graduate from flight school suddenly became the Blue Angels when at the controls of large, twin-engine Boeing jetliners, and this during the most stressful moments of their short lives. They got the entire world to believe that the crime of the century was pulled off by 19 guys with box-cutters whose names (or any other Arabic names) don't appear on any passenger manifests and at least four of whom have been seen alive and well in the Middle East since 9/11/01, (this one even interviewed by the BBC). Better yet, they got the entire world to believe their evidence linking these 19 guys to the hijackings, using for proof a few cell phone calls that couldn't have happened with 2001 technology. Then there's the famous carry-on bag supposedly left behind by alleged ringleader Mohammed Atta containing, among other things, a copy of the Koran, a Boeing flight manual and his will (and that's surely something you'd take with you on a flight you knew was going to be vaporized). And then the kicker, a passport allegedly belonging to Atta that miraculously survived a massive explosion and temperatures we're told were high enough to soften steel and fluttered unsullied to the ground, where it was eventually found among the debris a couple of blocks away from what used to be the World Trade Center. They got the entire world to believe that the seriously ill guy in the cave had such vast control over US armed forces that he ordered four exercise scenarios -- Vigilant Warrior, Vigilant Guardian, Northern Guardian and Northern Vigilance -- which diverted to northern Canada or Alaska many of the NORAD fighter jets that would have been scrambled per standard operating procedure in the event of a suspected hijacking in the northeast corridor. They got the entire world to believe that this same guy in the cave was able to insert at least 11 and as many as 21 false radar blips (according to FAA administrator Jane Garvey) onto air traffic controller screens throughout the northeast corridor. As a result, controllers had no idea which blips represented planes that had been hijacked, which ones represented non-hijacked flights still in the air and which blips were phantoms. They were thus incapable of following the actual moves of the four hijacked jets and/or coordinating with the FAA to relay warnings to NORAD interceptors (most of which, again, were screwing around over the arctic wastes). They got the entire world to believe that the remaining NORAD forces -- which had been a perfect 67 for 67 in 2001 prior to 9/11 -- managed to fail completely in their missions four separate times that morning. They got the entire world to believe that it was only a coincidence that a fifth exercise was taking place at the same time, this one designed to test emergency response capabilities at the National Reconnaissance Office in the event that an off-course plane from nearby Dulles airport crashed into one of the NRO's four office towers. They got the entire world to believe that two planes took down three skyscrapers, WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7, and that for the first and only time in history, fire brought down reinforced steel and concrete structures and caused them to collapse vertically rather than keel over sideways and take out a few blocks of the New York City financial district. They got the entire world to absolve them of any complicity in "the events of 9/11," even though the above list of "coincidences" is inexplicable without the knowledge, involvement, approval and direction of people high up in the federal food chain. And that was only the beginning . . . Literally overnight, they and their mass media cheerleaders turned Bush, a semi-literate simpleton who was already tanking in the polls into an heroic "war president" who enjoyed the approval of more than 90 percent of the American public and the support of just about the entire world community. Suggesting the presence of a script, the administration immediately used this new-found popularity to get the public to buy insane increases in Pentagon spending; invented a war on terror to further justify enriching cronies at banks, arms merchants and fossil fuels companies; and attacked Afghanistan, murdering tens of thousands of civilians but failing to find that omnipotent guy in the cave. They got the entire world to believe Condi Rice when she perjured herself at the 9/11 Commission hearings by saying, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." They got the entire world to forget that at least 11 countries had issued warnings of an imminent attack against the US: Afghanistan, Argentina, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Russia and the UK. They got the entire world to forget that Bush slept on a US Navy ship in Genoa Harbor during the July 2001 G8 meeting because Italian intelligence services had intercepted communications indicating terrorists might try to use a hijacked plane to assassinate him by ramming it into his hotel. They got the whole world to forget about Operation Bojinka, a plot to hijack and blow up 11 flights from Asia to North America, which the CIA had rolled up back in the mid-'90s and which should have provided some hints of future activities. And ever since, it's been the express train to hell for the US and the rest of the world. Anything's fair in the phony war on terror that 9/11 launched and sanctified. It justifies preemptive civilian slaughter branded as "shock and awe;" blatantly looting the national historical treasures of a sovereign nation; commandeering its oil reserves for the exclusive profit of US and UK petrochemical companies; building forward bases from which to rule the Middle East militarily; privatizing everything that isn't nailed down; threatening or ridiculing any national leader who dares to differ with US hegemony; threatening Iran with nuclear weapons; the use of illegal torture to compel confessions (which are, of course, useless since they're obtained under duress) . . . all this and more cementing the US's richly deserved place as the world's most feared and despised rogue state. And that's just the foreign policy side. Meanwhile, back at home . . . Domestically, the official 9/11 story has justified an ever-expanding list of repressive legislation, executive orders and presidential directives; massive federal invasions of privacy regarding medical and financial records; monitoring US citizens' electronic communications; re-targeting spy satellites for domestic surveillance; the TSA cavity search specialists (for attractive young women only; the rest are presumed to pose no threat to the state); no-fly lists and terrorist watch lists; RFIDs in all new passports and in new national ID cards scheduled to be issued this year; new TSA "behavior detection officers" to spot those who don't "look quite right;" all this wonderful new stuff from the DHS; private armies featuring mercenaries from companies like Blackwater and SAIC springing up like mushrooms after a spring rain . . . All that and rendition and torture, too. Thanks to "the events of 9/11," we no longer live in a democratic republic based on constitutional law and 220 years of legal precedent. There is no due process; there is no habeas corpus; there is no right to counsel; there is no right to privacy; there is no right to speak one's mind; there is no prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; there is no right to a speedy trial by jury. This is the reality of America v2.0 post-9/11. Just because they're not wearing black uniforms decorated with swastikas and lightening bolts and goose-stepping down the Unter den Linden; just because Leni Reifenstahl isn't filming the sequel to "Triumph of the Will" and the boxcars are still carrying freight; just because oppression is still partly concealed under an eroding veneer of liberty while most people flatly refuse to pay any attention . . . Just because the jackboot has yet to kick in the door, we're not naive enough to believe that it can't happen here. We look at stuff like this and can only draw one conclusion: All the pieces are in place to lock down this country like a time vault. They simply haven't gone fully operational yet. There are dozens -- probably hundreds -- of additional outrages that have been justified by "the events of 9/11." The official 9/11 story is the lynchpin, the keystone, the catalyst for every single act of international aggression and domestic repression this administration has been able to get away with. Absent 9/11, or at least the official Bush administration version, they don't have a leg to stand on. Demolish the official coincidence theory and their entire rationale crumbles. A united front That's why attacking, discrediting and ultimately disproving the 9/11 myth is so critical to the continued survival of the republic. Even Ms. Nancy might find grounds to allow impeachment back on that infamous table once the 9/11 armor rusts away. Ironically, instead of presenting a unified front to expose this preposterous lie and condemn the complicit US mass media echo chamber that has hard-wired it into the American psyche, the left/liberal end of the political spectrum is predictably fragmented on this issue and includes some of the more steadfast and adamant defenders of the official coincidence theory. So when we see otherwise intelligent and perceptive people doing the administration's PR work for them, defending the official story with the tenacity of the religious zealot, we have to wonder at the level of internal conflict these people must experience in accepting this ridiculous official story at face value. But fear is a powerful thing and shilling for the official 9/11 cover story -- while staunchly ignoring the most basic unanswered questions and obvious inconsistencies -- provides insulation against the cognitive dissonance and bottomless cynicism that would result from admitting that this administration is so utterly malevolent that it would plan and execute mass murder against its own citizens for purely political reasons. There's always Operation Northwoods to provide a bit of historical perspective on governmental malevolence. Even US mass media managed to pick up on that one. Read it before it gets scrubbed.
	12 Comments

Do you come here often?	Jan 9, 2008 12:44 pm 775 Views
This probably means the honeymoon is over. ------------------------------------------------- Polish Man Spots Wife in Brothel WARSAW, Poland - A Polish man got the shock of his life when he visited a brothel and spotted his wife among the establishment's employees. Polish tabloid Super Express said the woman had been making some extra money on the side while telling her husband she worked at a store in a nearby town. "I was dumbfounded. I thought I was dreaming," the husband told the newspaper on Wednesday. The couple, married for 14 years, are now divorcing, the newspaper reported.
	18 Comments

The the cat that stuttered	Jan 9, 2008 12:01 pm 574 Views
A teacher is explaining biology to her 1st grade students. "Human beings are the only animals that stutter", she says. A little girl raises her hand. "I had a kitty-cat who stuttered", she volunteered. The teacher, knowing how precious some of these stories could be, asked the girl to describe the incident. "Well", she began, "I was in the back yard with my kitty, and the Rottweiler that lives next door got a running start and before we knew it, he jumped over the fence into our yard!" "That must've been scary", said the teacher. "It sure was", said the little girl. "My kitty raised his back. He went 'Fffff, Fffff, Fffff '...And before my kitty could say 'F**k', that Rottweiler ate him!"
	6 Comments

The the cat that stuttered	Jan 9, 2008 11:59 am 501 Views
A teacher is explaining biology to her 1st grade students. "Human beings are the only animals that stutter", she says. A little girl raises her hand. "I had a kitty-cat who stuttered", she volunteered. The teacher, knowing how precious some of these stories could be, asked the girl to describe the incident. "Well", she began, "I was in the back yard with my kitty, and the Rottweiler that lives next door got a running start and before we knew it, he jumped over the fence into our yard!" "That must've been scary", said the teacher. "It sure was", said the little girl. "My kitty raised his back. He went 'Fffff, Fffff, Fffff '...And before my kitty could say 'F**k', that Rottweiler ate him!"
	4 Comments

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Barack?	Jan 7, 2008 11:46 am 859 Views
In politics, it's important who someone scares, who his enemies and detractors are. Despite my misgivings about some of Barack Obama's contributors, for the most part I think so far he scares lots of the right people. Since I usually side with the Democrats, I'll concentrate on them. Maybe one of my SFF Republican friends here will do the same for his party. Obama scares hell out of the corporatist Democrats. This is great! Corporatist Democrats are jerks. And they may finally be losing control of the Democratic Party. The corporatist Democrats are the Bill & Hillary Clinton/Bob Shrum/Terry McAuliffe/Ann Lewis/Rahm Emanuel Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) Democrats. They're the go-along-to-get-by-and-screw-the-public wing of the Democratic Party. They vote to let Bush invade countries for no good reason. They vote to give more tax cuts and subsidies to Exxon/Mobil, an oil company that made fifty billion dollars ($50,000,000,000) in profits in 2005. They vote to give immunity to telecom companies that helped Bush tap our phones and read our e-mails. In policy and in action, they work against people and for corporations. Like Hillary Clinton does, they take money from and vote with scum like FOX News founder Rupert Murdoch. Like Hillary, they take money from and vote with Big Oil, Big Drugs, Big Finance and Big Weapons. And holy mama mia, do corporatist Democrats screw up election campaigns! Remember John F. Kerry reporting for duty? You know Kerry. That Lurch-looking guy with the stupid salute and the horse face. The same guy who ignored evidence that Ohio's vote had been corrupted and meekly handed Bush the 2004 election. "Please don't hit us, Mr. Dubya. You can keep the country," Kerry and his DLC people told Bush. So Bush's domestic spying and his Eyerack war (which is really an ocupation, and not a war) went on another four years. So did his phoney, very expensive "War on Terror." The corporatist Democrats are the Democrats who helped dig Bush's Big Hole. Then they helped him shove this country into it. Enough already. We've had enough. As Clinton and Gore said in 1992 about Old Man Bush, "It's time for them to go." In 2008, It's time for them to go applies at least as well to Bill and Hillary Clinton and the DLC Democrats as it did to Old Man Bush in 1992. Who knows if Barack Obama can pull it off. Maybe he can. Maybe he can't. Check out all the Iowa college kids and New Hampshire old people who say they can't wait to vote for him. The lines to get in Obama appearances look like lines to get in Stones concerts. Remember the last time something like that happened? When people acted inspired? We're so burned out, the idea almost sounds stupid. We've had seven years of Bush and seven years of the Democrats helping him wreck the country. I'm at least that burned out. But look. After just the Iowa caucuses, Obama may be closer to that than anyone else has gotten in 50 years. Since JFK. Maybe. I think just the possibility of that has to scare the hell out of most of the right people.
	25 Comments

Hillary repackages herself as a black man	Jan 4, 2008 11:06 am 755 Views
This is from Andy Borowitz' Borowitz Report site. I thought it was worth passing along. He's often very funny. It's on the web at borowitzreport with the "c" ending. ------------------------------------------------- Hillary Repackages Herself as a Black Man Bold Strategy to Win New Hampshire In what some party insiders are calling a Hail Mary bid to win Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today attempted to repackage herself as a black man. In the wake of her disappointing third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, there was consensus among Mrs. Clinton’s campaign aides that her presidential bid needed to be rebooted, but few party professionals expected her to change her race and sex with only five days to go until New Hampshire. According to Clinton strategist Mark Penn, however, Mrs. Clinton’s decision to become an African-American man was thoroughly consistent with her history as a “change agent.” “Hillary is all about change, and changing her race and sex is just the most recent example of that,” he said. Speaking at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton thanked her supporters for “keeping it real” and promoted her just-released autobiography, “The Bodacicty of Hope.” “This election is about whether or not America is ready to elect a black man President of the United States,” she said. “I believe I am that black man.” Meanwhile, former President Bill Clinton was dismissive of rival John Edwards’ comparison of himself to Seabiscuit, remarking that “in addition to being a black man, Hillary has for many years been a world-class horse.” Mr. Clinton made his comments in an interview on PBS’ “Charlie Rose Show,” in which the former president, looking bleary-eyed and unshaven, touted Mrs. Clinton’s victory in last year’s Belmont Stakes. Elsewhere, embattled G.O.P. presidential candidate Mitt Romney unveiled a new campaign slogan, “What the Huck?!”
	13 Comments

2007 P.U.-litzer Prizes awarded	Jan 4, 2008 9:55 am 512 Views
Blow up your TV, throw away your paper, Go to the country, build you a home. Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches, Try and find Jesus on your own --John Prine, "Spanish Pipedream" ------------------------------------------------- Announcing the P.U.-litzer Prizes for 2007 by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon Many journalists qualified for the sixteenth annual P.U.-litzer Prizes, but only a few were able to win recognition for turning in one of the truly stinkiest media performances of the year. As the judges for this un-coveted award, we have done our best to confer this honor on the most deserving. And now, the winners of the P.U.-litzers for 2007: SPINNING FOR ANOTHER WAR AWARD — Michael Gordon of The New York Times Continuing where he left off before the Iraq invasion, when he used unnamed official sources to produce wildly inaccurate page-one articles on Iraq’s alleged weapons threat, Gordon in February wrote a front-page story with the stunning claim that Iran’s Supreme Leader had approved sending lethal explosives into Iraq to attack U.S. soldiers. (Even President Bush soon backed away from the claim.) Readers might have had trouble assessing Gordon’s charges — which were, as usual, almost entirely based on anonymous sources: “United States intelligence asserts … Administration officials said … Some American intelligence experts believe …” After analyzing the article, blogger Jonathan Schwarz speculated that “Gordon is not an actual person, but rather a voice-activated tape recorder.” “SOMETHING ABOUT A RETRO MACHO MAN” AWARD — Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” With a worshipful media wind pushing actor and former senator Fred Thompson toward the presidential race in June, Matthews lauded Thompson’s “sex appeal” and “star quality.” The hardballer was nearly rapturous as he said: “Can you smell the English Leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man`s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of — a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.” Four years earlier, when George Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier to celebrate “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq, Matthews had gushed at length about the president’s looks and how Americans love “a guy who has a little swagger. We like having a hero as president. We’re not like the Brits.” “AMERICANS DON’T WANT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE” AWARD — Jeff Greenfield of CBS, et al. Reflecting what became mainstream media’s conventional wisdom in the wake of Michael Moore’s “SiCKO” documentary, CBS correspondent Greenfield explained that the U.S. lacks a universal healthcare system not because of the powerful insurance lobby — but because “Americans are just different.” He quoted an academic who said Americans, unlike Canadians and Europeans, don’t want government involvement in healthcare: “It’s a cultural difference.” Actually, CBS’s own poll of Americans had found 64 percent supporting the view that the federal government should “guarantee health insurance for all” — with 60 percent approving of higher taxes to pay for it. A CNN poll found 64 percent American support for the idea that “government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes.” “3-H CLUB” PRIZE — Too Many to Name At the same time they’re imposing their own fixations on candidates, elite political reporters like to pretend that they have absolutely no idea why the candidates are struggling to overcome those fixations. A Dec. 11 Washington Post article deadpanned: “[John] Edwards has faced challenges of his own, namely ‘the three H’s’ — his expensive haircut, his hedge fund work after the 2004 election, and his sprawling homestead.” Dozens of news reports in major outlets have deployed the “three H’s” shorthand, many implying that Edwards — unlike the wealthy candidates who never mention the poor — is a hypocrite when he discusses poverty. In July, the Post’s John Solomon devoted an entire investigative article to Edwards’ pricey haircuts: “It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that as Edwards has campaigned,” mused the reporter, “his hair seems to have attracted as much attention, as say, his position on healthcare.” Gee, how did that happen? RISKY DEMOCRATS AWARD — L.A. Times, Washington Post If you believe certain political pundits and reporters, Democrats are continuously pushing “risky” proposals that are off-putting to the American public. In November, a Los Angeles Times report — headlined “Democrats Calculate Risk on Tax Hikes” — called proposed Democratic tax hikes on wealthier Americans “a major political gamble.” (Unmentioned was the fact that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and was re-elected, or that a Gallup poll shows 66 percent of Americans think “upper income people” don’t currently pay enough taxes.) Days later, a Washington Post report was headlined “Climate is a Risky Issue for Democrats; Candidates Back Costly Proposals.” (Unmentioned was the Post’s own poll showing that 70 percent of Americans think the federal government “should do more” on global warming; only 7 percent said “it should do less.”) Listening to press corps cautions may heighten Democratic timidity — but it hasn’t won many national elections. SPINNING HAWKS INTO DOVES AWARD — ABC, CNN, Fox, CBS and others There’d be little news value in Iraq war boosters returning from a brief trip to Iraq and endorsing troop escalation. But by presenting two self-acknowledged Iraq war supporters — Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon — as doves, national outlets created a fictitious story line and major media push this summer in support of the war. Few media “experts” had argued more relentlessly for war in 2002 than Pollack, author of “The Case for Invading Iraq.” Yet here was ABC anchor Charles Gibson this July: “A bit of a surprise today on Iraq. Two long and persistent critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the war today wrote a column in The New York Times saying that after a recent eight-day visit to Iraq, they find significant changes taking place.” CNN called them “two fierce critics.” A Fox reporter claimed the duo had “changed their views after seeing some of the military successes first-hand.” CBS spoke of how O’Hanlon “now believes [the troop surge] should be continued” — even though he’d written a national column seven months earlier: “A Skeptic’s Case for the Surge.” PUTTING CLOTHES ON THE EMPEROR PRIZE — New York Times After numerous inside accounts of the Iraq invasion and other policies had exposed Vice President Cheney as a true believer who often put ideology ahead of data and facts, readers may have thought The New York Times was joking when it reported in February on the impact that the perjury trial of Cheney’s chief of staff would have on the vice president. According to the newspaper of record: “The trial has chipped away at the public image of Mr. Cheney as a sober-minded policy architect.” “IT’S TRUE BECAUSE WE SAID IT” AWARD — CNN’s Lou Dobbs To prove his claim that illegal immigrants were bringing “once eradicated diseases” into our country, Dobbs featured a CNN reporter in 2005 who claimed that the U.S. had seen only 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years — but that “there have been 7,000 in the past three years.” This year, in May, Dobbs was challenged on the shocking statistic by Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes,” who cited a federal report saying there were 7,000 leprosy cases over the last 30 years. Dobbs response: “If we reported it, it’s a fact.” Stahl: “How can you guarantee that to me?” Dobbs: “Because I’m the managing editor, and that’s the way we do business. We don’t make up numbers, Lesley. Do we?” You do, Lou. The Centers for Disease Control report that new leprosy cases in the U.S. have been on the decline for close to 20 years (with 166 cases in 2005). THE LOU DOBBS US-vs.-THEM AWARD — Bill O’Reilly of Fox News Talking to Sen. John McCain in May, O’Reilly said: “But do you understand what The New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part of, and so am I. And they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right.” “WHO’S AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD WOLFOWITZ” AWARD — Newsweek As he was being forced out of his job as World Bank president in May, Paul Wolfowitz was described by Newsweek as “a man whose managerial talents do not appear to rise to the level of his analytical prowess. By most accounts, Wolfowitz is a genteel, brilliant figure …” The Newsweek piece — headlined “With the Best of Intentions” — didn’t mention how the brilliant and analytical former Deputy Defense Secretary had insisted just before invading Iraq that the country had no history of ethnic strife, that the U.S. would not need to deploy more than 100,000 troops, or that the war might cost as little as $10 billion. (So far it has cost about $500 billion.) Jeff Cohen is author of “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media” and the founder of the media watch group FAIR, which provided research for this article. Norman Solomon’s latest book is “Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State.”
	0 Comments

1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 23 24 25

To link to this blog (jeffpilot) use [blog jeffpilot] in your messages.

jeffpilot

58 M

Guidelines

November 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

141

191

211

Recent Visitors

Visitor	Age	Sex	Date
Chicka2006	60	F	12/3
arabella59	59	F	12/2
SunSet222	62	F	12/1
LiberalArts	63	F	11/30
Poetdancer_	49	F	11/28
mtman4u	69	M	11/25
RickySpin01	58	M	11/24
bigmig52	56	M	11/22
DrsVandB	76/76	C	11/20
Roxy1946	62	F	11/20

Most Recent Comments by Others

Post	Poster	Post Date
GOP faithful like Palin, Romney, Huckabee for 2012	Poetdancer_	Nov 28 6:58 am
Texas grand jury indicts V.P. Cheney and ex A.G. Alberto Gonzales	Poetdancer_	Nov 20 9:49 pm
Stuff George W. Bush should regret but probably doesn't	Poetdancer_	Nov 20 9:33 pm
Finally, an elected president...how	jeffpilot	Nov 14 6:49 am
Breaking news: Palin once greeted McCain staffers dressed only in a towel	bigmig52	Nov 7 5:55 pm
McCain headed to defeat that marks the end of the Republican era	jeffpilot	Nov 5 12:34 pm
Palin a "Whack Job," top McCain advisor says	jeffpilot	Nov 4 11:47 am
Banks hoarding bailout money, buying smaller banks	Catlady1943	Oct 30 10:49 am
Republicans: please read here what General Powell said about Barack Obama	chomsky88	Oct 26 2:15 pm
Breaking news: Will the next Joe the Plumber be YOU?	ThunderBirdWoman	Oct 23 11:17 pm
R. F. Kennedy Jr. & Greg Palast: the GOP has already stolen the 2008 election	jeffpilot	Oct 22 11:22 am