forsyth: (Politics Icon)
The following is the text of an email I sent to NPR's Marketplace show today, after they had a hack from the WSJ editorial page spouting nonsense straight out of the "Fairtax" book. Here's the article in question.

And my letter:
This morning, on the Marketplace Morning Report, you had Stephen Moore on, praising the benefits of a national sales tax.  His ideas and numbers come entirely from the book "FairTax" by Neal Boortz and John Linder.  And unfortunately, most of what he quoted is inaccurate or false.  A 23% sales tax would not replace all of the government income, the percentage was picked as near the maximum amount people would tolerate as a sales tax.  A national sales tax, despite his claim, would be extremely regressive and complex.  Most families who are out of the top 1% spend most of their income each year, which would make their net tax rate at LEAST 23%, plus the increases in cost that would come from this kind of tax.  Whereas the richest few don't spend all their money, which would make their net tax rate far below the 23% the rest of us would pay.  That hardly qualifies as "fair" by any stretch of the imagination.  And his idea of a $20,000 rebate for the sales tax spent?  That would be at least as complicated as the current income tax.  The rest of the work of tax collection would then be pushed on to the companies who sell products.  It would require just as much work, and we would still require the IRS to investigate cheats and other things.

His entire presentation was misleading at best, and outright false at worst.  The entire idea of a "fair" national sales tax is snake oil, designed to cover up for a gigantic tax cut for the rich and a tax hike for the rest of us, not any kind of serious policy suggestion.
forsyth: (Politics Icon)
Alberto Gonzales manages continuously to make hi predecessor look like a staunch defender of civil liberties and the rule of law. Considering John Ashcroft was arguably crazy, perfectly happy to spy on peace groups, and offended by a statue's tit, that's saying a LOT.

The latest bit? A story, which responsible journalists would have brought out years ago. At one point, John Ashcroft was sick and in the hospital, so his #2 guy was acting AG. He told the White House they couldn't re-authorize a program the Bush administration wanted because they couldn't justify it's legality. Bush's own hand-picked DOJ folks couldn't justify it. So then the #2 got word from Ashcroft's wife that two guys from the Bush administration were coming over to Ashcroft's hospital room, to try and get him to authorize it. Those two men were Mr. Card and Mr. Alberto Gonzales. For more detail, let me quote from the words of Mr. Comey, who was Ashcroft's #2 in the DOJ. A sick man, midnight rides, and manipulative thugs )

John Ashcroft said no, and was willing to resign because of it, along with half the high ranking people in the DoJ, and Bush's head of the FBI. That's astonishing. Not just that there was a line that no, these cronies wouldn't cross. Think about it. The Bush administration was willing to pressure a sick man in a hospital, to keep doing something even their own cronies couldn't justify by any tortured logic. We don't know specifically what the something is, but the indications seem to be it had to do with warrantless wiretapping. And one of the thugs sent to try and pressure the sick man in the hospital is now the Attorney General.

Doesn't that just make you feel safer already?

Impeach Alberto Gonzales. Impeach Dick Cheney. Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach them now.

(hilzoy has more and more.)
forsyth: (Politics Icon)
This is a term I first saw back in the election, on Matt Yglesias's blog. (here, here, and here.)

Basically, how it goes is the Republicans have more partisan hacks who are willing to get up and quote the party line, defend their guys, and attack the other side, regardless of the actual events. And because of this, the Republicans act more unified, more aggressive, and the Democratic defenders look weaker and/or incompetent, because they will go "yes, you're sort of right, except for all the things you got wrong" which takes too long and gets sound-bited to "SPOKESPERSON ADMITS DEMOCRATS ARE PANSIES!"

Noted Republican hack, Andrew Sullivan gives a sterling example today. You can argue his hacktactisty, since he endorsed Kerry and attacks Bush, but those were triggered by a) The Republicans using gays as a scapegoat for, well, everything and b) the fact the Bush Administration has been allowing and condoning torture. One of those is an attack on him, and the other proves he has at least SOME level of basic human dignity. But he also says things like this:

The civil rights movement was indeed a fundamentally religious phenomenon, and you cannot understand it without understanding that. It was also multi-denominational and included Democrats and Republicans. Its core religious principle was non-violence, and it drew enormous inspiration from Gandhi. It included Jews and Muslims, Catholics and Protestants, atheists and agnostics. And it never, in King's time, became a vehicle for one political party to win elections. Never. And in so far as it subsequently did, in so far as people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton used religion to buttress a partisan machine, what was left of the civil rights movement lost moral authority. And deserved to.

See what he does there? He attacks the civil rights movement for "deserving" to lose moral authority, because it was used "to buttress a partisan machine." "But," I hear somebody complaining, "All the civil rights leaders are Democrats!" Yes, they are. And you know why? It wasn't some conspiratorial decision to lead blacks into being a "buttress" for a "partisan machine". You know why blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic? It's not just because lots of them live in big cities. Back in 1968, Richard Nixon decided on a Southern Strategy, using "states rights" to play up to the southern white racists who had before been "Dixiecrats". Civil Rights leaders being Democrats is an effect of the Republicans pandering to racists, rather than a cause of "losing moral authority."

And that, my friends, is how you be a good hack, you leave out the inconvenient parts of the truth, confuse causes and effects, and insinuate things to make the other guy seem to be worse than he is. Even after seeing what monsters the modern leadership of the Republican Party are, .Andrew Sullivan's hack instincts are still too strong. Though this is a lot less than his infamous "The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts...may well mount...a fifth column." blogging after 9/11 and rabid support of the war. Why does Time feature this hack?

Profile

forsyth: (Default)
Forsyth

May 2018

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
202122 23242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 19th, 2026 10:34 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios