Monday, June 30, 2003

Another example.. …of why the NY Times is not “liberal” (whatever that means nowadays).   What am I talking about? Oh, just the fact that in a story in which it is discussed that 400 families take home more than one percent of the entire income in this country the NY Times can write the following:   The top 400 reported 1.1 percent of all income earned in 2000, up from 0.5 percent in 1992. Their taxes grew at a much slower rate, from 1 percent of all taxes in 1992 to 1.6 percent in 2000, when their tax bills averaged $38.6 million each.   Those numbers can be read to show that the wealthiest, as a group, carried a disproportionate share of the overall tax burden — 1.6 percent of all taxes, versus just 1.1 percent of all income…   (For those of you math-a-phobes out there, 1% of the population equals roughly 3 million people.)   Those poor folks! Imagine – earning on average 43.5 MILLION DOLLARS and then having to pay a marginally higher rate than other Americans. A rate reduced from 22.3% to a mere 17.5% under Bush’s latest tax giveaways.   Gee, wonder who these folks vote for? And wonder whose campaign they contribute to?   Meanwhile Bush has directed the IRS to harass – oops – I mean audit anyone claiming the earned income tax credit. Sounds like a very one-sided game of class warfare….   But don’t hold your breath waiting for the “liberal” media to spell this out – as the quote above should amply demonstrate. 7:19:31 PM

Kangaroo Kourt The cops catch an organization systematically robbing people from all walks of life. When the fraudulent schemes come to light, are the stolen goods returned? Are the criminals thrown in prison? Are “protection” contracts designed to reap profits from the atmosphere of terror invalidated?   Not if you’re in the energy business while Junior squats in the white house – read this and rediscover the meaning of the term “outrage.” 7:04:33 PM

Must Read Then take a minute and think about the implications… and the fact that it’s happening now. Tony Blair is getting raked over the coals because of the lies told to lead his country into way… and nary a peep from the press here. Wonder why? This article goes a long ways towards explaining why.   Toward One-Party Rule By PAUL KRUGMAN     In principle, Mexico's 1917 Constitution established a democratic political system. In practice, until very recently Mexico was a one-party state. While the ruling party employed intimidation and electoral fraud when necessary, mainly it kept control through patronage, cronyism and corruption. All powerful interest groups, including the media, were effectively part of the party's political machine.   Such systems aren't unknown here — think of Richard J. Daley's Chicago. But can it happen to the United States as a whole? A forthcoming article in The Washington Monthly shows that the foundations for one-party rule are being laid right now.   In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws together stories usually reported in isolation — from the drive to privatize Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers General Motors and Verizon recently included with the dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to the pro-war rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations. As he points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an unprecedented national political machine, one that is well on track to establishing one-party rule in America.…   Mr. Confessore suggests that we may be heading for a replay of the McKinley era, in which the nation was governed by and for big business. I think he's actually understating his case: like Mr. DeLay, Republican leaders often talk of "revolution," and we should take them at their word.…   Whatever the reason, there's a strange disconnect between most political commentary and the reality of the 2004 election. As in 2000, pundits focus mainly on images — John Kerry's furrowed brow, Mr. Bush in a flight suit — or on supposed personality traits. But it's the nexus of money and patronage that may well make the election a foregone conclusion. 6:58:33 PM