Friday, February 04, 2005


Check out the following post about elephants.
Also, my rant from before Christmas.

Well, hello, there -- before the sun went down, somebody else also mentioned it. At least the Social Security part.
In this morning's New York Times, Edward L. Andrews writing...

Some Republicans have even gone so far as to suggest the one approach Mr. Bush did not mention in his speech, raising the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes, which is now about $90,000 a year. The idea appeals to some politicians because only about 6 percent of Americans earn more than $90,000 a year. Imposing Social Security taxes on incomes of up to $200,000 would come close to eliminating the entire deficit.

That isn't even close to eliminating the cap altogether. That is raising the cap to $200,000.
The last line in the article, of course, is Mr. Bush has adamantly opposed any increase in payroll taxes. At least for the moment, that idea is off the table.

Let's see...
The difference between $90,000 and $200,000 is $110,000. What's the tax for Social Security? Before combining the corporate matching amount it's about seven or eight percent, if I remember. (It's not worth the time to look up the exact amount since the whole idea is "off the table.")
It would cost that wage earner another four or five thousand in taxes.
That's a real hard pill to swallow for most people, but when you're pulling down a quarter million a year, it may mean cutting back a couple or three days of travel and staying home part of the vacation to make up the difference.
But that wasn't what it would be used for.
It would probably be saved to build another factory and create more jobs for people.

The Daily Howler is on the ball. Even if no one else seems to notice, they are putting it all out there for anyone to see.

...modern media rarely provide any real information, even about the day’s leading issue. But how could that deficit be addressed without resorting to private accounts? If you’re rational, you’ll see that this is an obvious question—and you might even think that our major papers would have explored it in detail by now. But alas! Our major papers stare into air, failing to provide even basic information about a topic Bush has discussed for five years. How might that deficit be addressed without resort to private accounts? Yes, you’re right, it’s an obvious questions. And our hapless newspapers—inert, lazy, shiftless—stare into air and ignore it.


How inept are major Dems when it comes to critiquing Bush’s proposal? For a study in sheer incompetence, check Blanche Lambert Lincoln’s performance on last evening’s Hardball.

Heck. It's too long and I'm running out of patience thinking about the insanity of it all.
Go read it for yourself.

No comments: