Jun
30
30
The counterattack has begun. Again.
US begins counterinsurgency war in Iraq
Gwinnett Daily Post, GA - 15 Jun 2003
US Begins Bid to Crush Iraq Insurgents
ABC News, 30 June 2003
Jun
27
27
So who else doesn’t like free speech?
We wrote earlier about Bill O’Reilly’s internet censorship rant. Thanks to the people at busy, busy, busy we can add Norah Vincent to the friends of free speech list:
“But there’s a flip side to this. As much as the blogosphere is full of brave and vital input, it’s also full of the careless, mad and sometimes vengeful ravings of half-wits who will say anything, especially about established journalists and writers, just to attract more attention to their sites. This can get ugly when content is unregulated.”
Jun
26
26
Ann Coulter Watch — Part I
Ann Coulter’s latest column published on her web site is titled “I dare call it treason” — a long book plug that provides yet more instances of her willingness to misstate facts, even when they are easy to verify. The most telling example is this one, where she states:
“The [Venona Project] cables proved the overwhelming truth of McCarthy’s charges. Naturally, therefore, the release of decrypted Soviet cables was barely mentioned by the New York Times. It might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of “McCarthyism.” They were not so innocent after all, it turns out.”
Naturally? Sadly, no. Mrs. Coulter does not tell us how she determined the Venona project cables were “barely mentioned” in the NYT. But a short visit to Lexis-Nexis might have been of some value. Since the release of the intercepted cables, the words Venona and McCarthy have appeared in 11 articles in the New York Times, compared to 13 for the Washington Times and 8 in the Washington Post.
Using Venona and Soviet as search words, we find 31 articles in the NYT for the same period, compared to 46 in the Washington Times, and 22 for the Washington Post. By a lucky coincidence, the last mention in the New York Times came last week, in a June 19 editorial that stated:
“Since then [the Rosenberg trial,] Soviet cables released as part of the Venona Project show that Communist espionage in the United States, long dismissed by the Rosenbergs’ defenders, actually occurred, and that Julius was an atomic spy.”
Quite a cover up!
Jun
25
25
Surprise — the flat tax has landed!
You may wonder if a constitutional coup has taken place, replacing Bush with Steve Forbes, and Dick Cheney with Dick Armey. Not quite. Yet the recent changes made to the tax code have not only gone a long way to producing the effects of the flat tax lauded by its supporters — in many cases they have gone even further.
Have the flat taxers noticed and organized a party to celebrate? Did the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal mark the happy occasion with a congratulatory column? Sadly, no! Flat taxers have been either oblivious to their success, or downright mad about what they’ve accomplished.
Take the case of the Wall Street Journal. Much has been written already about its recent announcements that low-income Americans are “lucky duckies” because they pay so little in income tax. This column is a perfect example of their outrage (outrage!) over current tax policies.
It mentions a single taxpayer earning $30,000 with one child. His current tax liability? $1,028. And under the flat tax? The same taxpayer would have paid $2,091. (Compared to $2,935 before the Bush tax cuts.)
What of a married couple that earns $40,000 and is raising one child? Current law tax bill: $1,503. Flat tax bill: $1,717. (It was $2,935 before Bush.)
The same couple with two children? Current law: $45. Flat tax: $782. (Before Bush: $1,978.)
A couple making $60,000 with two children? Current law: $2,850. Flat tax: $4,182. (Before Bush: $4,550.)
So where’s the party? Not only isn’t there one — the Journal is now saying the same people should be paying more in taxes! Which makes one wonder if they ever did the math before praising the flat tax.
In a 2002 editorial the Journal had argued:
“Say a person earns $12,000. After subtracting the personal exemption, the standard deduction and assuming no tax credits, then applying the 10% rate of the lowest bracket, the person ends up paying a little less than 4% of income in taxes.”
But this is still 4% ($480 more) than a flat tax would call for — yet this time the Journal believes this is far too little. Those fat cats earning $1,000/month are getting a free lunch! The Journal had praised Dick Armey’s flat tax proposal twice, once here and then again here. A case of misguided enthusiasm?
Data for 2001 released by the IRS show that for the average American making up to $200,000, the average tax rate on aggregate gross income (AGI) is already at the level of the flat tax (for those taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year,) or considerably lower (for AGI between $50,000 and $100,000 it is 12%, $30-50k, 9%, $15-30k, 5%.) Whatever progressiveness remains in the US tax code is at the very high end of the income scale. Taxpayers making between $100,000 and $200,000 accounted for 18% of total income, and 21% of total tax revenue. Surely this isn’t particularly outrageous? (In 2000 the same taxpayers accounted for 17% of total income, and 18.8% of total tax revenue.) But the Journal is busy making the case for its overtaxed readers:
“Not to put too fine a point on this income redistribution, but taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 could expect on average to pay about $99,000 in taxes under Mr. Bush’s plan.”
And here we have the latest weapon in the fight for selective information — $99,000 in taxes for an income above $200,000, this is outrageous! If the Journal had bothered looking at the IRS tables found here, it would have discovered that in 2000 Americans who made:
between $100,000 and $200,000 paid an average of $22,783 in federal taxes. (ATR: 17%)
between $200,000 and $500,000 paid an average of $68,628 in federal taxes. (ATR: 24%)
between $500,000 and $1,000,000 paid an average of $192,092 in federal taxes. (ATR: 28%)
between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000 paid an average of $353,561 in federal taxes. (ATR: 29%)
between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000 paid an average of $505,605 in federal taxes. (ATR: 29%)
between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000 paid an average of $873,054 in federal taxes. (ATR: 29%)
between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 paid an average of $1,951,599 in federal taxes. (ATR: 28%)
And those making over $10,000,000 a year? ($26,000,000 on average.) They paid 6,730,096 in federal income tax, with an average tax rate of 25%.
Don’t cry for me Jack Kemp.
PS: Average Tax Rate (ATR) the share of one’s income paid in federal income tax.
PPS: All figures for tax liability under a flat tax from the House’s flat tax calculator.
PPPS: Figures for tax liability under current law from Econopundit.
PPPPS: All other data from the IRS.
Jun
20
20
Reagan Revisionism Alert
“The government grew under Reagan, but Reagan fought it. He did not want the government to grow like it did. It was not part of his plan to stimulate the economy. He vetoed spending bills left and right.”
Left and right? As in, a lot of them? Sadly, no.
Reagan vetoed 78 bills during his term in office. 53 had nothing whatsoever to do with government spending, a list that included a bill “to prohibit loans to, other investments in, and certain other activities with respect to, South Africa” (2444 H.R. 4868,) one “to direct the Secretary of the Interior to permit access across certain Federal lands in the state or Arkansas” (2456 S. 1259,) and one to “amend section 20 of Title 18, United States Code, relating to restrictions on post-employment activities” (2469 H.R. 5043.)
[A full list of Reagan vetoes’ is available in a 33MB (PDF) Senate document that covers vetoes from 1789 to 1988 here. Vetoes in the 1980s and 1990s, also in PDF here.)
Of the other 25 bills, only four were major budget bills. Of the remaining 21, I picked four bills for which I could find data on appropriations:
To authorize an ongoing program of water resources research.
To authorize appropriations for environmental research, development, and demonstration for the fiscal year 1983.
National wilderness preservation system in Florida.
To compensate the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Belknap Indian Community for irrigation construction expenditures.
How much money was saved? The first bill had appropriated US$36 millions, the second $46 millions above Reagan’s proposal. In his veto of the third, Reagan objected to the possibility of an additional $200 millions in spending. The last bill authorized a generous [!] payment of $107,759.58 to the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes.
I wonder how much Reagan did save the US Treasury by vetoing those other bills. Does Rush have any idea? [I’ve emailed him — will post any reply here.]
PS: When he took office, federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 21.7%. In 1988 it was 21.2%. After reaching 22.2% in 1992, it went down to 18.4% in 2000. (CBO figures.)
PPS: According to the Cato Institute, government spending increased by an inflation adjusted 7% under Reagan.
