Wake Up |
 |
Monday, December 16, 2002
Screwing those who aren't rich "As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers. Economists at the Treasury Department are drafting new ways to calculate the distribution of tax burdens among different income classes, which are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor." Yes, you read that right. The Bush administration has apparently decided that when they say they're for cutting taxes (which, in case you haven't noticed, they've said a lot) what they mean is that they want to cut taxes for the rich and shift more of the burden onto the poor. One of they ways they're trying to justify this idea is by contending that the Social Security taxes (which poorer people do pay) aren't, well, really taxes at all, because in theory you get the money back after you retire. As one economist points out though, if you want to go down that road then pretty much everyone gets some sort of value back from the taxes they pay, whether it's better roads or an education for their kids, so does that mean the money they pay isn't really a tax. What this really is, of course, is the Republican party deciding it is in a position to shamelessly pander to the rich, and it's disgusting. Read the whole article here [registration required].
It's just a joke! Okay, I saw this over on another weblog, and, since I think it's funny, I'm reposting it here: ---BEGIN JOKE--- President George Bush visited the 4th grade of an elementary school yesterday. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the class in the discussion of the word “tragedy.” So our leader asked the class for an example of a “tragedy.” One little boy stood up and offered, “If my best friend, who lives next door is playing in the street, and a car comes along and runs him over, that would be a tragedy.” “No,” says Bush, “that would be an accident.” A little girl raised her hand: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove off a cliff, killing everyone involved, that would be a tragedy.” “I'm afraid not,” explains the President. “That's what we would call great loss.” The room goes silent. No other children volunteer. President Bush searches the room. “Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?” Finally, way in the back of the room, Johnny raised his hand. In his own style, Johnny says, “If Air Force One, carrying Mr. & Mrs. Bush, was struck by a missile and blown up to smithereens, that would be a tragedy.” “Fantastic,” exclaimed Bush, “that's right, and can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?” “Well,” Johnny said, “because it wouldn't be an accident, and it sure wouldn't be any great loss.” ---END JOKE--- For the record, I do not, repeat NOT, advocate shooting Mr. Bush, Mrs. Bush, or any aircraft with a missile. Hopefully that's enough of a disclaimer for any member of the FBI or Secret Service who might happen to wander by.
Witch trial "Could anyone have a more useless job than those weapons inspectors in Iraq? Does anyone honestly believe there is any vague chance that George Bush might say 'Well, fair enough, we couldn't find anything so it's nice to know that he's mended his ways.'" So begins a very cutting column from The Independent's Mark Steel, in which he makes several on-target observations about the whole UN inspection process being somewhat of a farce, since both the UK and US have already made up their minds about attacking Iraq. Read the whole thing here.
Thimerosal and Homeland Security "The Senate approved legislation to establish a Department of Homeland Security and it will soon be signed into law by the president. Buried in this massive bill, snuck into it in the dark of night by persons unknown (actually, it's fair to say by Republican persons unknown), was a provision that — incredibly — will protect Eli Lilly and a few other big pharmaceutical outfits from lawsuits by parents who believe their children were harmed by thimerosal. Now this has nothing to do with homeland security. Nothing. This is not a provision that will in any way protect us from the ferocious evil of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So why is it there? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the major drug companies have become a gigantic collective cash machine for politicians, and that the vast majority of that cash goes to Republicans." Bob Herbert wrote this excellent column just before Thanksgiving, and shortly after the Homeland Security bill was passed, taking a look at one of the major boondogles in the legislation. In case you still weren't sure that the U.S. government was bought and paid for, read what he has to say about how Congress put the profits of Eli Lilly ahead of the interests of children who may have been harmed by thimerosal. You can find the whole column here [registration required].
Turnabout is fair play "The head of the government's Total Information Awareness project, which aims to root out potential terrorists by aggregating credit-card, travel, medical, school and other records of everyone in the United States, has himself become a target of personal data profiling." In an amusing twist on the TIA story, after a column in SF Weekly included publicly available details about John Poindexter, others have taken it upon themselves to find out all they can about him and then make the information available on the web. As one person commented, "If they're making him as uncomfortable as we are, good." Read more about it here.
Interfering in Venezuela "It's 10 p.m. -- do you know what your government is up to? It seems that Iraq is not the only 'regime change' that the Bush Administration is working on. The US government has apparently decided that President Chavez of Venezuela must go, one way or another. True, Saddam Hussein is a brutal tyrant who has invaded and threatened neighboring countries -- whereas Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, has shown no ill will toward any of his neighbors, and tolerates a steady barrage of virulent, hate-filled propaganda against his presidency from the major Venezuelan media. But these distinctions can be blurred, because both have offended the US government, and both are sitting on a lot of oil. So most Americans can be forgiven for having similar impressions of the two leaders, given what they hear from the US media. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post referred to the Chavez government as a 'dictatorship.'" It seems the US government can't resist interfering in the politics of our neighbors to the south when they're ruled by leftist politicians. Not that President Hugo Chavez is doing a wonderful job or anything, but it's not our place to tell him or his people how to resolve their current problems, especially after our involvement in an attempted coup in Venezuela earlier this year. Read more from this article here, and more on the situation in Venezuela here and here.
|
