Subject: Social Security

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?

MY FAVORITE :

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!

...appears to have admitted...

...was described in leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet...

...addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said...

Fifty years from now, the Republican Party of this era will be judged by how we provided for the nation's future on three core issues: how we led the world on the environment, how we minded the business of running our country in such a way that we didn't go bankrupt, and whether we gracefully accepted our place on the world's stage as its only superpower.

Enough is enough. I quit.

We're poisoning our planet through gluttony and ignorance.
We're teetering on the brink of self-inflicted insolvency.
We're selfishly and needlessly sacrificing the best of a generation.
And we're lying about it.

George W. Bush has a forthright speaking style which convinces many people that he's telling the truth even when he's lying.

The confidently expressed, but currently undisprovable assertion. In his State of the Union address last January, the president claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and a robust nuclear weapons program,

The crew and passengers quickly subdued the man, who had been trained by al Qaeda and was armed with explosives.

Such pointless quotations. What is the argumentative function?

"The disconnect between last Tuesday’s monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’ but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word ‘cowardly’ is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday’s slaughter, they were not cowards."

"I couldn’t feel stronger, David, that this is a time for us, and I’m not preaching about it, George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions, and, you know, it’s just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he’ll make the call."
-- Rather on CBS’s Late Show, September 17.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

I am also confused with the mixed message of "not enough planning so we're in deep shit" and "too early planning so he's a lying bastard." There's not enough room on the same stage for those charges dudes. I'm starting to think that if GWB shit gold bars you'd want him impeached because they weren't pure enough.

One leaked document was a Cabinet Office briefing paper for a crucial Downing Street meeting held on the day in question. It said the prime minister had promised Bush at the Crawford summit that he would “back military action to bring about regime change”. It added that ministers had no choice but to “create the conditions” that would make military action legal.

Put simply, U.S. Aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs...But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate...So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war...Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq...The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news. The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. To provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.

I am also confused with the mixed message of "not enough planning so we're in deep shit" and "too early planning so he's a lying bastard."

The Veterans Administration assumed it would have to take care of 23,553 patients who are veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but that number had been revised upward to 103,000, Nicholson told a House of Representatives panel.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Dishonoring the Fallen
By Oliver North
July 1, 2005

"Our son was killed in Iraq. Though we miss him terribly, we're grateful that FOX News was there to tell the story. Thank you for your coverage. We now know more about the heroism of all the U.S. And Iraqi troops and the positive changes they are bringing about."

That excerpt, from a letter sent by bereaved parents grieving the loss of a son in Iraq, is typical of the mail I receive each time I return from Iraq and Afghanistan. After eight trips to where the Global War on Terrorism is being fought every day by soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines, I now have scores of such missives. They have come from parents, spouses, siblings and the children of the fallen. Their letters are always full of pain, often eloquent, and invariably hopeful that the sacrifice made by their loved ones will not have been in vain.

On Tuesday evening, less than a week before we celebrate the 229th anniversary of American independence, President Bush spoke to the world about the war in which these young Americans fell. Standing before soldiers and their families at Fort Bragg, N.C. -- an audience of those who serve in mortal danger -- the president made an articulate and persuasive presentation on why winning this war is a moral imperative for this nation and what it will take to do so. Sadly, the so-called "loyal opposition" and much of our mainstream media seem not to have heard. In their efforts to disparage the commander in chief, they denigrate those who serve in harm's way, and dishonor the fallen.

The applause at the home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces had barely stopped before the left-leaning leadership of the Democrat Party launched a vicious partisan riposte aimed at gaining political advantage at the expense of our troops. The remarkable similarity of their hollow critique offers evidence of their desperation.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of Sept. 11, knowing that there is no connection between Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently forgetting that he voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom, offered a parallel response: "The president's numerous references to Sept. 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq. They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and Al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm." He then added, "'Staying the course,' as the president advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek."

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., rushed to the microphones and listed the various countries from which the Sept. 11 attackers had originated. He then observed breathlessly, "There were no Iraqis."

Former presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry accused the president of creating a "third rationale" for the war: "The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now, tonight, it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism."

"No connection between Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq." "No way forward." "A third rationale." All of these statements from the leaders of the radical political left were not only echoed throughout the Islamic world by Al Jazeera, they also deny the reality of what Bush has been saying ever since this war began.

Nine days after the Sept. 11 attack that murdered nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children on American soil, President Bush said: "Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.. The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it grows."

Four months later, in his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush told the world: "Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch."

On Tuesday evening, President Bush once again enumerated the threats we face, articulated a strategy for victory so that our troops can come home and reaffirmed his resolve: "After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in that war. Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."

The leaders of the Democrat Party disagree with the president's assessment. It would have been interesting had any of the "reporters" covering these critics asked the question of Pelosi or Reid, Reed and Kerry: If you don't want to hunt down terrorists in Mosul, Ramadi or Al Qa'im, Iraq, would you rather we hunted for them in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Providence or Boston?

The president has consistently presented facts that the liberal leaders of the Democrat Party don't like, but that doesn't change the facts. Though they offer no alternative, they say that we cannot "stay the course." Such rhetoric not only encourages our adversaries, it dishonors those who have fallen.

------------

COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

HOW THE LEFT DOESN'T GET RED STATE AMERICA [Andy McCarthy]
Regarding Iraq and the war on terror, I got this email from a patriot who describes herself as "a military wife":
... I like to see facts presented in a simple, straightforward manner. I have long been baffled as to why some people still do not understand why we are in Iraq. I am "just" a homemaker, most of my time being spent taking care of my husband and my home. But I read, and I listen, and even I have been aware of many of the Iraqi terrorist connections mentioned in your article. So it has been puzzling to me that self-sharpened pointy-headed liberals, like Reid and Gergen and those at the New York Times, so stridently deny any connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. What is the motive? Is it that ignoring or denying the connections frees them from the responsibility of taking or supporting action? Could it be that simple?

Things are pretty simple in my world.

You recognize the connections, you support the action (or take it, if you are able). You don't recognize the connections, you don't support the action.

Men and women rotate in and out of Iraq. We call it "The Sandbox." When they leave, we cry. When they get home, we cry some more. They go off to fight, we hold the fort. Everybody does their job.

The terrorists are bent on attacking Americans. The Americans are going to be either highly trained, heavily armed professionals over there, or happily oblivious, defenseless civilians over here. You choose.

Some say the above is only valid until we are attacked on U.S. Soil again. Oh, I don't know. I've kind of enjoyed the last four years of being able to go to Wal-Mart without fear of being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber.

The media lament the influx of "insurgents" into Iraq. So…the terrorists flooding into the waiting arms of the most lethal military around is a bad thing?

Many want a "timetable" for the end of the war. Me too. As soon as the terrorists announce their timetable for implementing a "Be Sweet to Infidels" policy, we should reciprocate by announcing our timetable for ending the war.

Too many troops killed, they say. Now if the troops are the ones fighting and dying in the war (and they are), and the President enjoys overwhelming support among the troops (and he does), then there must be something the media are missing. Hmmmm…

Too much money spent, they say. There is always a price to be paid. You pay in taxes, the troops pay in blood. You choose. (Also, see above.)

So what is my point? Simply this: The politicians, the pundits and the media need to get out of the military's way and let them do their job. Reid and Gergen and their ilk don't have to worry that they'll be asked to do anything scary if they acknowledge the obvious connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. Lots of people have already recognized them and have volunteered for the scary stuff. It's 9/11, stupid.

[Name withheld]

Rolling Rockefeller
The vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee once saw "a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda." Not any more.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/30/2005 12:00:00 AM

FEW PEOPLE have been more critical of the Iraq war than Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia.

He has over the past two years repeatedly accused the Bush administration of deliberately deceiving the American public to take the nation to war. It's hard to imagine a more serious charge. And Rockefeller makes it perhaps more credibly than most Iraq War critics--as the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It's no surprise then that reporters sought out Rockefeller for his reaction to George W. Bush's address to the nation Tuesday night. The junior senator from West Virginia minced no words. Iraq, he said, "had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al-Qaida, it had nothing to do with September 11, which he managed to mention three or four times and infer three or four more times."

This, Rockefeller seems to find outrageous. "It's sort of amazing that a president could stand up before hundreds of millions of Americans and say that and come back to 9/11--somehow figuring that it clicks a button, that everybody grows more patriotic and more patient. Well, maybe that's good p.r. Work, which it isn't, but it's not the way that a commander in chief executes a war. And that's his responsibility in this case."

It is an attack on President Bush that echoes those we've heard from Democrats--both those on the fringe left and those at the top of the party--for the past 27 months. And it is nonsense.

This is what Jay Rockefeller said on the floor of the U.S. Senate on October 10, 2002. His speech announced his support for the resolution authorizing the Iraq war.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

By my count, that's four references to September 11 in just three paragraphs, as rendered by Rockefeller's own Senate website. And there, in the final paragraph of that passage, Rockefeller says something the Bush administration managed to avoid saying: that Iraq posed an imminent threat. (It's worth noting, further, that the resolution that Rockefeller supported made specific mention of al Qaeda's presence in Iraq: "Members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks that occurred on September 11, are known to be in Iraq.")

What of Rockefeller's comments yesterday that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda? Rockefeller didn't mention Osama bin Laden's global terror network in his floor speech that day. Here's what he did say:

"Saddam's government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States."

And: "He could make those weapons [WMD] available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. And unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

He added:

Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.

If he thought, as he got older and looked around an impoverished and isolated Iraq, that his principal legacy to the Arab world would be a brutal attack on the United States, he might not think it so irrational. And if he thought the U.S. Would be too paralyzed with fear to respond, he might not think it so irrational.

I called Rockefeller's office Wednesday in an attempt to learn the names of the "many terrorist groups" whose contacts with the former Iraqi regime helped create an "imminent threat." And which of those "international terrorist organizations likely have cells here in the United States" that threaten us here at home.

Wendy Morigi, Rockefeller's communications director, returned the call. "He was talking about the Palestinian groups that had established relationships with Saddam," she said. "Abu Nidal was living in Baghdad before the war."

Maybe. But one week before his floor speech, Rockefeller gave an interview to the Charleston Gazette. The senator hypothesized about Saddam "getting older" and using not Palestinian groups but al Qaeda to do his dirty work.

"If you go pre-emptive, do you cause Hussein to strike where he might not have? He is not a martyr, not a Wahabbi, not a Muslim radical. He does not seek martyrdom. But he is getting older," Rockefeller told the paper. "Maybe he is seeking a legacy by attacking Israel or using al-Qaeda cells around the world."

I asked Morigi if Senator Rockefeller believed before the war that Iraq had a relationship with al Qaeda. "No."

Odd then that Senator Rockefeller would have spoken of a "substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda" just one month before the Iraq War began. In some interviews Rockefeller did say that he hadn't seen evidence of close ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. But asked about an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on February 5, 2003, Rockefeller agreed with Republican Senator Pat Roberts that Abu Musab al Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war and his links to a poison camp in northern Iraq were troubling. Rockefeller continued: "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. Aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."

Is this really the same person who now says Iraq "had nothing to do with al Qaeda" and who finds it somehow improper to mention the Iraq war and 9/11 in the same speech?

Since Rockefeller's recent critique deals specifically with Iraq and terrorism, I will resist the temptation to dwell here on other aspects of Rockefeller's 2002 speech. It's worth noting, however, that the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told his colleagues that "there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years." And: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now." And: "We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability."

Unmistakable evidence. Existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities. We do know Saddam has the capability. Remember these things the next time you hear Rockefeller and his colleagues accuse the Bush Administration of exaggerating or fabricating the threat from Iraq.

Rockefeller ended his 2002 floor speech with yet another direct reference to September 11--his fifth.

"September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans' lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it."

Good point.

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. He is author of The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America, published by Harper Collins

© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

June 30, 2005, 9:42 a.m.
Chuck Hagel MovesOn
Meet the antiwar group’s new spokesman on Iraq.

The Left-wing antiwar group MoveOn, a key Democratic support, has found a new spokesman in Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R., France).

Last week, the Nebraska senator made headlines when he criticized the administration’s Iraq policy saying, “The White House is completely disconnected from reality... It's like they're just making it up as they go along.” Hagel also warned that Iraq was on the verge of becoming another Vietnam.

While Hagel’s comments faded from media attention, MoveOn went into action. The same day as this week’s speech by President Bush on Iraq the MoveOn PAC began a new advertising campaign calling for a withdrawal of U.S. Forces. They took Hagel’s words and placed them alongside claims that President Bush, “is trying to change the subject from Iraq to terrorism and September 11-implying that Iraq attacked us in 2001.”

On Wednesday, MoveOn sent out a fundraising letter to supporters asking for $500,000 dollars to “expand the advertising into the hometowns of Republican members of Congress who will have tough elections in 2006. That will help send a signal that Congress will pay a price at the ballot box because of the Iraq failures.” The letter explains that 84 percent of MoveOn’s 3.3 million registered members support a withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq.

The ad itself is titled “Hagel” and reads in part: “It’s time to come home. We went in the wrong way, let’s come home the right way.”

Hagel’s office was not pleased when they received word of the new ad. Hagel claims MoveOn used his words out of context and asked for the ad to be taken down immediately. Hagel's official statement on the ad reads in part:

This ad is dishonest. I have never supported immediate removal of American troops from Iraq. I have said that to withdraw from Iraq now would have catastrophic consequences that would ripple across a generation of Americans, Iraqis, and the entire Middle East. I have said I believe we can succeed in Iraq. MoveOn neglects to mention that in their ad.

I have differences with the Administration over the execution of our war policy …War is deadly serious and the debate over our policy should match the seriousness of the situation. Americans are entitled to an honest public debate about our policy in Iraq. Cheap, misleading 30-second partisan political attack ads debase our debate.

In the statement addressed to MoveOn Hagel demands that the ad be pulled down."

Needless to say, MoveOn and the MoveOn PAC aren't taking orders from the senator. When I called their offices asking for a response to Hagel’s statement, a spokesman was at first confused, blurting into the phone, “But you guys hate us!” MoveOnPAC eventually forwarded their official statement to Hagel’s response:

Unfortunately, he is mistaken when he says our TV ad calls for "immediate withdrawal." We have never held this position. What we want is a date to begin a responsible, phased exit of our troops from Iraq. We support a new and growing bi-partisan effort to set such a date led by Representatives Walter Jones and Neil Abercrombie in the US House of Representatives.

We make this call for a responsible exit strategy because we understand that it is the American military occupation of Iraq that is fueling the insurgency there. As long as we fail to announce a timely withdrawal plan, the number of insurgents and the intensity of their attacks will grow. The President's failed policy betrays our troops, prolongs the agony of the Iraqi people, motivates terrorists worldwide and does little to enhance our national security. We stand by our ad.

So, who is at fault? On one hand, MoveOn has created another offensive advertisement that insults U.S. Soldiers fighting the insurgency and assisting in Iraq’s reconstruction. It’s another slap in the face from a group that got its start defending former President Clinton’s infidelity and who called for “restraint” after the attacks of 9/11.

On the other hand, MoveOn does not put words in Hagel’s mouth. The words they cite are in fact his. Hagel’s rhetoric has been so strong, that even his self-described “good friend” John McCain was critical when asked to respond to Hagel’s comments while appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live. McCain told guest host Bob Costas: “I completely disagree. There are signs of progress. Yes, it's tough, and it's hard, and we've made mistakes and we paid a heavy price for those mistakes. Unfortunately, in wars, serious mistakes are made … And there is a legitimacy to the Iraqi government that, frankly, the government of South Vietnam never had.”

MoveOn is not going to take orders from a Republican senator, even if it’s Chuck Hagel. And while their new ad is not likely to make new converts against the war on terror, it’s never helpful to have a Republican senator criticizing a Republican president’s foreign policy in areas where Republican candidates are fighting for reelection. As he ponders a 2008 presidential campaign, Hagel should be aware that '08 watchers are paying attention. Hagel would better serve his own interests and those of his party by keeping his criticisms fair and reiterating the support he claims to have for U.S. Forces and the push for democracy in Iraq.

— Eric Pfeiffer writes the daily political "Buzz" column on NRO.

Only The Rich Pay Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

October 10, 2003

There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security


This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

WELCOME TO THE LOST LIBERTY HOTEL

"A Los Angeles-based company called Freestar Media is needling the High Court for its Kelo decision last week, which held that local governments may seize private land and transfer it to another private party to spur economic development.

"Freestar's puckish president, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request Monday to the town of Weare, New Hampshire, stating that he was leading a group of investors who want to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road. Currently, that address is the home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, one of the five justices who ruled against property rights last week.

"Mr. Clements said he is serious, and noted that Weare 'will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.' His proposal is that the new property be called 'The Lost Liberty Hotel,' and that it include a museum dedicated to the loss of freedom in America.

"On the basis of last week's ruling, said Mr. Clements, there's nothing to stop Weare's board of selectmen from voting to use eminent domain to take Mr. Souter's house for whatever they consider 'just compensation.' Mr. Clements said nothing can compensate Americans for the decision by Mr. Souter and his colleagues to rule that private property rights deserve a lower level of protection than other rights."

- John Fund of Political Diary, 6/30/05

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war. The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.
In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

To date, the tax cuts have been funded with increased borrowing.  This postpones but does not eliminate the required payments. It can also create the misleading impression that tax cuts make almost everyone better off because the direct tax-cut benefits are immediate and quantifiable but the ultimate costs are delayed and disguised and thus often ignored.

The central goal of this analysis is to correct this misleading impression by showing not only who benefits directly from the recent tax cuts but also who benefits and who loses once the financing of the tax cuts is considered.  Specifically, we examine the distribution of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (once they are fully in effect and reflecting the President’s proposal to make most of these tax cuts permanent) combined with the costs of paying for those tax cuts.  We therefore examine the “net effects” of the tax cuts, accounting for both the direct benefits and the costs associated with financing those benefits.

Because there is uncertainty about how the tax cuts will ultimately be financed, we examine two hypothetical scenarios.  In both scenarios, the burdens are set so that the annual cost of the tax cuts (when fully phased in) would be paid for fully — so that the net effect of the tax cuts that year on the budget thus would be zero.

The first scenario assumes that each household pays an equal dollar amount each year to finance the tax cuts.  Under this scenario, each household receives a direct tax cut based on the 2001 and 2003 legislation, but it also “pays” $1,520 per year in some combination of reductions in benefits from government spending or increases in other taxes to finance the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  Something close to this scenario could occur if the tax cuts were financed largely or entirely through spending cuts.  We refer to this as the “equal dollar burden” scenario.

The second scenario assumes that each household pays the same percentage of income to finance the tax cuts.  Under this scenario, each household receives a direct tax cut based on the 2001 and 2003 legislation, but it also pays 2.6 percent of its income each year.  Something close to this scenario could occur if the tax cuts were financed through a combination of spending cuts and progressive tax increases.  We refer to this as the “proportional burden” scenario.

We estimate the effects of these two scenarios on households at different income levels, using the Tax Policy Center microsimulation model.

Table 1?Average Change in Incomes Under the Tax Cuts with Cost of ?Financing Included, Two Hypothetical Scenarios?(annual effects, in 2004 dollars)

Income Class Average tax cut
Bottom 20 percent $19
Middle 20 percnet 652
Over $1 million 136,398

Average net effect, financing with equal dollar burden per household

Bottom 20 percent $-1,502
Middle 20 percnet -869
Over $1 million 134,877

Average net effect, financing with payments proportional to income
Bottom 20 percent $-177
Middle 20 percnet -228
Over $1 million 59,637