Posts Tagged ‘Bloomberg’

Former Time White House correspondent (and Carter administration appointee) Margaret Carlson really wants RNC chairman Michael Steele fired. In her Bloomberg News column on Wednesday, she badly exaggerated: "In the world of fundraising scandals, this one makes former Vice President Al Gore’s visit to a Buddhist temple look as quaint as tea at Buckingham Palace."

Earth to Margaret: the wayward RNC strip-club reimbursement is certainly embarrassing, but it isn't illegal, like the temple fundraiser. As Michelle Malkin explained

In the spring of 2000, [Gore aide Maria] Hsia was convicted by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., of five felony counts related to more than $100,000 in illegal contributions to Democratic candidates. The stash included $65,000 in straw donations, which Hsia had funneled through clueless, non-English-speaking monks and nuns the day after Vice President Al Gore's 1996 visit to the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in Southern California.

Of course, the media mostly skipped over Hsia's conviction at the time, which cannot be said for Voyeurgate. As Brent Bozell lamented, "This marks a new low for America’s so-called mainstream press. Up until now, they’ve refused to investigate criminal wrongdoing. Now they’re refusing to report the convictions."

Carlson can't seem to make up her mind about Steele. He's having a "spectacular meltdown" for a "once-rising star," but she also says the RNC's first black chairman should have stayed out of the spotlight:

A more successful chairman would have followed the advice given tennis star Billie Jean King by Bobby Riggs in their famous doubles match: stand in the alley and don’t hit anything that doesn’t hit you first. Don’t make news, don’t overshadow candidates, don’t spend money except to raise it.

Excuse me? Liberals can tell the black official to go stand in the alley and be silent? Like he's doing valet parking? If that actually happened, Carlson would be writing this story the other way, that the black man is window dressing. It's blatantly obvious that Carlson's interest is in RNC-bashing, not in offering the RNC sincere advice.

She actually writes that Republicans must be wishing for the good old days under dull white chairmen -- without being that racially explicit.

Steele's management of the RNC will be measured first by electoral results, which have been pretty good so far -- while DNC chairman Tim Kaine, whom Carlson lauds for standing in the alley, couldn't keep his own governor's seat in his party.

Republicans will eventually judge whether his approach to party spending was wise, or foolish. But Carlson's just throwing every pineapple she can at Steele's head:

He criticized President Barack Obama’s spending in a time of recession and then flew the party off to Hawaii for its annual meeting. While much of the rest of the country was freezing, press coverage of the event often featured a sparkling ocean, a sunny sky and drinks with umbrellas in the background with Steele in a Hawaiian shirt.

Party meetings in Hawaii during a recession is certainly not great PR planning -- but Carlson avoids mentioning that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also vacationed in Hawaii around that time, so if the media weren't so liberal and selectively opportunistic, this wouldn't have been as bad an idea.

Perhaps the most ridiculous and inaccurate sentence in the whole Carlson column is this one: "In 2004, Steele delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention to almost equal acclaim." If you were in a coma in 2004, you might believe that. 

In the real world, Steele was treated as, well, window dressing. ABC's Chris Bury introducing a brief, dull Steele speech snippet:

"The modern conventions are all about projecting images that will reach those undecided voters in the middle and that's why the Republicans, as they did four years ago, are striving to show a picture of diversity that the delegates themselves do not reflect."

The star of that convention night was Sen. Zell Miller for his house-rocking denunciation of John Kerry's defense votes, and the media really, really hated that.

[Hat tip: Johnny in Boston]

Imagine the audacity of wanting to dispose of your own money as you see fit? The idea is hateful to Bill Scher of the Huffington Post, who demanded in "Super Wealthy Deathly Afraid Estate Tax Would Reduce Deficit" on March 9 that the wealthy "pay their fair share."

Scher railed against the Bush tax cuts, and asserted that a 35-45 percent inheritance penalty (the estate tax or death tax) isn't punitive enough to stem the deficit crisis. 

"But those massive tax breaks to the superwealthy don't quite have the same juice they used to. Especially, the estate tax - levied on the inheritances of the wealthiest heirs in America," Scher wrote. "This year, because of the Bush tax plan from his first term to gradually phase out the estate tax altogether, the estate tax is literally wiped off the books."

But all that wealth is not lost to redistribution forever. "But in 2011, it returns! Inheritance income above the $2 million threshold would be subject to a 55% tax. And after fanning the flames of deficit hysteria to squelch progressive reforms, corporate lobbyists are terrified that the estate tax would actually help reduce the deficit."

Citing a Bloomberg report saying, "‘a revived estate tax at pre-2001 levels would collect more than $34 billion next year and about $410 billion through 2019.' The wealthiest heirs having to pay their fair share and help cut the deficit. The horror!"

As the National Taxpayers Union and Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute note, truth is the "estate tax" hampers job-creation, promotes the concentration of wealth, hits minorities particularly hard (reminiscent of "sin" taxes), and contributed just 1.14 percent to federal revenue in 2008.

And as previous reported by the Business & Media Institute, the U.S. already has one of the highest estate tax rates in the world.

But Scher could grasp neither the practical reality nor the immorality of confiscatory taxes on legal, fairly earned wealth. "What's stunning is the superwealthy's lobbyist posse and the Senate's conservative minority could just take what the House has already passed: locking in the estate tax at 45%, while exempting all inheritances below $7 million. That ain't chump change! But that's not good enough for the heirs who have no interest in paying their fair share and reducing the deficit."

But those greedy rich aren't satisfied.

"A $10 million exemption and a 35% rate above that is not very sweet at all," Scher continues, alluding to previous proposals from Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) to lower the rate. "It's a bitter windfall to the Paris Hilton set. But thanks to the combination of their greed, and their exploitation of deficit hysteria, the superwealthy may actually have to pay their fair share on their inheritances after all." 

In a world where the top-10 percent of income-earners in America regularly pay 70 percent of the nation's federal income tax, and the bottom-50 percent pay close to nothing, what exactly is it you mean by "fair share"?

Cartoon by Paul Combs, image via the National Tax-Limitation Committee