Is it just me

or do my balls itch?

Repulsive repeal of estate tax
Posted by WinterBybee in Editorials & Other Articles
Tue Jun 06th 2006, 09:29 PM
Repulsive Repeal of the Estate Tax
Reveals Real Bush Agenda, Media Bias

By Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter

The proposed repeal of the estate tax by the Bush Administration and its allies, especially at a time of record deficits and massive roll-backs in taxes already granted to wealthy citizens and large corporations, poses a major threat to American democracy.

Ridding the US of the estate tax will open the door for the consolidation of an American aristocracy based on inherited wealth, easily able to steer government policy away from the needs and interests of the vast majority.

Ironically, one of the offspring of one of America’s wealthiest families, Richard Rockefeller, has passionately warned us about the impact of this cynical move. As he points out June 1 in The Portland, “The timing of this vote couldn’t be more bizarre. Our nation is at war and faces a multi-trillion-dollar national debt for decades to come. We are rebuilding our Gulf Coast after one of the worst national disasters in modern memory. At the same time, our country is experiencing unprecedented levels of wealth inequality.”

The vote on this will come before the Senate in June. The House has already approved a permanent repeal. But the repeal is encountering resistance from Mr. Rockefeller and other unlikely allies such as Bill Gates, Sr., Warren Buffett, and Paul Volcker. They all believe that as America’s wealthiest people, it is their duty to speak out against repeal and the resulting leap in the nation’s inequity and even greater deficits. They all agree that the estate tax encourages dispersion of wealth, rather than a build-up of concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a few. They see repealing this democratizing influence as particularly threatening at a time of mega-salaries that are far in excess of those only 25 years ago.

The repeal of the estate tax has been part of a tightly woven attack on tax policy as a progressive instrument to promote social justice, instead substituting a policy of reinforcing and enlarging the wealth held by the nation’s richest families. In effect, repeal will lay the groundwork for establishing an American royalty. Along with the utter lack of evidence to make the case for repeal, it is shocking that these radical tax policies can be seriously considered when the polls show the public favoring policies to strengthen public services, health (e.g., a Business Week poll show 67% support for a single-payer health plan), and education.


Bush policies work in the opposite direction, to shrink the possibility of effective government services that earn public support. When government is under-funded, the resulting services are limited or tragically incompetent (eg. Hurricane Katrina) and earn contempt or cynicism about the government’s capacity to assist ordinary citizens.

In this particular case, the proponents of repeal have spent millions of dollars to create myths, not the least of which is the misnomer “the death tax”. They have tried to make it appear that the estate tax is an attack on the family farmer and the small-business owner. This highly effective and carefully developed multi-million dollar campaign against the estate tax has been driven by 18 of America’s wealthiest families including the owners of Wal-Mart, Gall wines, Campbell’s soup, and Mars candy bars (combined net worth: $185.5 billion). Elimination of the estate tax will save these 18 families alone about $71.6 billion.

The 18 families and their Republican allies have tried to portray the estate tax as an unfair attack on the family farmer. Yet even the right-leaning American Farm Bureau and the Bush White House have been able to produce a single case to back of their claims, as elaborated by David Cay Johnston in his valuable book Perfectly Legal.

The threat is much greater than repeal of this one tax. The sustained Republican PR campaign—waged through their wide-ranging “echo chamber” of FOX News, rightist dailies, and talk-radio shows-- and their domination of Congress has allowed them to proceed with a tax agenda that continually favors a tiny percentage of wealthy Americans to the detriment of the average citizen. Just this May, Congress extended a tax cut on unearned income that will provide a whopping $3 to families earning under $50,000, $78 to those making $50,000 to $75,000 and $60,000 to the fortunate few hauling in more that $1 million (5/18/06 Citizens for Tax Justice release.) Thus, moderate-income families will gain enough for another Big Mac and fries or maybe even a couple of tanks of gas, while millionaires and billionaires will be able to purchase another new Lexus each year.

This regressive move in tax policy has been assisted by the lack of vision on the part of most Democrats. Even at the beginning of this struggle, Democrats acquiesced to proposals that were only slightly less regressive than those posed by the Republicans. The Democrats in Congress have continually accepted the basic assumptions of much of the tax-cutting agenda. For example, they have not forcefully challenged the capital-gains cuts. How is it fair or sensible to tax unearned income at a lower rate than earned income? It is staggering that a democratic country chooses to reward wealthy people who sit around making trades, even selling stock short, over those who toil for a living.

At the same time, the major media have shamefully failed us on clarifying issues of tax policy, especially on the estate tax. This is clearly one area where the increasingly corporatized media have a deep conflict of interest in their news coverage. Policies that are favorable to media CEOs and their biggest stockholders clash directly with the interests of their reading public. The tax-justice issue probably generates more visible conflicts of interest by major media than most other arenas of public policy.

Without truly objective and probing coverage, tax policy becomes the victim of the spin aggressively marketed through the right-wing media machine. In reality, the estate tax affects a microscopic ¼ of 1% of all taxpayers, but it will add approximately $1 trillion to the federal treasury over 10 years. Clearly, stakes are momentous at a time of increasing deficits and debt for the country.

But without comprehensible reporting by the major media and a consistent, coherent message from the Democrats, the public loses its ability to focus on how the estate tax’s repeal will be ruinous both for our fiscal health and the foundations of democracy.

Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter are Milwaukee-based writers and activists. They can be reached at winterbybee@earthlink.net .

Limbaugh admitted to airing call from phony liberal-bashing Lt. Col. in Iraq but continued to hold out hope officer was real

Summary: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh admitted he had aired a phone call from a purported Air Force officer in Iraq who the military says "oes not exist." The apparently phony officer, who Limbaugh said identified himself as "Lieutenant Colonel Luke Fitzpatrick" of the "336th Tactical Air Wing," delivered what Limbaugh described as a "profound" and "mov" message. But despite acknowledging that Pentagon officials and the Air Force told him they have no record of a "Luke Fitzpatrick" or a "336th Tactical Air Wing," Limbaugh nonetheless continued to float the possibility that the caller was in fact an officer in Iraq.

On the June 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh admitted that, two days earlier, he had aired a phone call from a purported Air Force officer in Iraq who the military says "oes not exist." The apparently phony officer, who Limbaugh said identified himself as "Lieutenant Colonel Luke Fitzpatrick" of the "336th Tactical Air Wing" at "Tallil Air Force Base" in Iraq, delivered what Limbaugh described as a "profound" and "mov" message -- among other things, the caller stated that Limbaugh and fellow conservative Sean Hannity are the "only two" radio hosts who "are allowed to get broadcasts across" to the troops in his unit and declared that former President Bill Clinton "castrated" the military.

Despite acknowledging that Pentagon officials, as well as the Air Force, told him they have no record of a "Luke Fitzpatrick" or a "336th Tactical Air Wing," and that the Air Force "asked us to stop airing or put up any information about him," Limbaugh nonetheless continued to float the possibility that the caller was in fact an officer in Iraq. First, he suggested the possibility that the caller "genuinely is a member of the Air Force and was trying to hide his identity and using a fake name and giving some incorrect information just to protect" himself from retribution for speaking openly. He then appeared to question whether the military was being truthful in denying that they had any record of a "Luke Fitzgerald":

LIMBAUGH: Then, the other option we have is: Do we believe the military? The man did have some very pointed things to say. The man was very -- whatever. I mean, whoever he is, he had some very, very pointed -- like, "Let us go. Turn us loose. Let us out of the cages and do what we came here to do." So, who do we believe here? Who do we believe? Do we believe the military? Do we believe the caller?

From the June 2 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: All right, kill the music. Before we get going with the rest of the program, ladies and gentlemen, I need to inform you of something. Two days ago, we had a caller on this program, the last caller of the day, claiming to be Lieutenant Colonel Luke Fitzpatrick of the 336th Tactical Air Wing based out of Tallil Air Force Base in Baghdad. He had called in earlier and dropped off and then called back. The screener did not bother to get his phone number in an effort to possibly call him back because he claimed he was calling from Baghdad.

Nevertheless, we received a call from a public affairs officer for Seymour Johnson Air Force Base right after the program, where the 336th Tactical Air Wing was said by the caller to be based. The public affairs officer for Seymour Johnson Air Force Base said that Lieutenant Colonel Luke Fitzpatrick didn't exist. Does not exist. And asked us to stop airing or put up any information about him, because they were getting calls -- this man's call was very powerful -- and they were getting calls about his appearance and people were wanting more information on Lieutenant Colonel Luke Fitzpatrick.

After all this, we got hold of the Pentagon. We called the press office of the Air Force at the Pentagon and we -- we -- we spoke to Sergeant de Leon. Said there was no one with the name Luke Fitzpatrick, though it might be a nickname for him. However, he said there is no 336th Tactical Air Wing in theatre in Iraq. In fact, the word tactical has been dropped altogether from current vernacular. The only -- the only one he showed based at Tallil Air Force Base now was the 407th Air Expeditionary, per his latest information.

So, the caller identifying himself as Luke Fitzpatrick, Lieutenant Colonel, 336th Tactical Air Wing, cannot be identified by anybody in the United States military.

Now, there's a number of ways to play this, ladies and gentlemen. What, Mr. Snerdly? What? Now, the way to play -- we could go the Dan Rather route. We could go the Dan Rather route and say, well, nobody's proved that what he said was wrong and so, we're going to stand by what he said. Nobody can -- nobody can find fault with what the man identifying himself as Luke Fitzpatrick said, so, we're going to stick with it. Nobody's been able to challenge the veracity of his comments. They say he doesn't exist, but clearly, he was somebody.

We don't -- seriously, we don't know if he genuinely is a member of the Air Force and was trying to hide his identity and using a fake name and giving some incorrect information just to protect -- we have no clue. All we can tell you is that the Air Force says, and the military says, he doesn't -- there's nobody by that name and -- and that the 336th Tactical Air Wing based out of Tallil is not called tactical. In fact, they're not even there. It's the 407th Air Expeditionary, per the military.

Then, the other option we have is: Do we believe the military? The man did have some very pointed things to say. The man was very -- whatever. I mean, whoever he is, he had some very, very pointed -- like let us go. Turn us loose. Let us out of the cages and do what we came here to do.

So, who do we believe here? Who do we believe? Do we believe the military? Do we believe the caller? And what do we do with the message? I mean, the message that the caller had was profound. Everybody was moved by it. So, in this case, folks, we -- we -- we just passing on the information that -- that we're getting.

It's -- one of the things I've always said when I have callers on the air that I don't trust -- I think I'm being scammed one way or the other, or even if I do believe somebody -- you know, anybody can call a talk show and say anything, and despite the best screening techniques that exist in modern-era broadcasting -- and they are here on this program -- a number of people, if you want, can get through and scam. So, you have to be dubious about it and just in a normal -- well, not dubious. But you have to be constantly on alert.

But I, you know, I wanted to pass this information on to you because we did get calls from the military 'cause they were getting calls from a lot of you in this audience. So, just to repeat what they said: There is no Lieutenant Colonel Luke Fitzpatrick anywhere in the records of the United States Air Force, at the Pentagon, and the identifiers he gave do not hold up with deployments that are actually taking place in Iraq and at Tallil Air Force Base.

Now, we move on to the rest of the program.

From the May 31 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Anyway, we have a call from Iraq from Tallil Air Force Base. Lieutenant Colonel Luke Fitzpatrick somehow got through. Lieutenant Colonel, this is an honor to have you on the phone with us while you're in Iraq -- at any time, actually. Thank you for calling.

FITZPATRICK: Good afternoon, I believe it is, your time, Rush, and major dittos here from the sandbox.

LIMBAUGH: Well, thank you, sir. Appreciate that.

FITZPATRICK: I wanted to let you know that you and your cohort, Mr. Hannity, are the only two that are allowed to get broadcasts across our (inaudible) room. The rest of the liberals -- they can go listen on their Walkmans if they so choose.

LIMBAUGH: Wait, you are -- are you, are you free to say all this? That's cool.

FITZPATRICK: Yes, I am. Well, what are they going to do, Rush? Send me to Iraq?

I mean, honestly. I -- I'm here. I do want to take the time, though, to thank you and everybody else who's back behind us for the support you have given us. We -- this is, let me stress, an all-volunteer military, so, when you take that into account all the across-the-aisle bickering as to whether or not we need to be here or not be here, whether we should go home or we should stay in more force, it really is irrelevant. Every one of us -- when we signed the papers -- we knew what was going to be asked of us in the worst case scenario. We are here. We are the best-trained standing military force in the world, and I only ask one of two things: Either unlock our cage and let us do what we are trained to do better than anyone else in the world or send us home.

LIMBAUGH: You think you're being --

FITZPATRICK: I'm -- I'm -- I'm a single father, Rush. I lost my wife about 15 years ago. I have two children, and I volunteered to come back here because I -- I live and breathe our country. It is not "land of the free and home of the brave." It is "land of the free because of the brave."

LIMBAUGH: A profound --

FITZPATRICK: And I think --

LIMBAUGH: -- that is -- that is a profundicy , Luke.

FITZPATRICK: And -- and that is something that I think a majority of our listeners, whether or not you sit on the left side or the right side of the aisle -- you could pass me in the supermarket, at the gas station paying $3 a gallon and not know whom I was, the sacrifices I've made, nor do I want accolades for that, nor do any of my brethren -- brothers and sisters. And this is the first major conflict where there are women in combat fighting roles -- and you can talk all you want about Jessica Lynch and that was not a combat role -- there are women in combat here today in Baghdad, in Kut, in Mosul, in Basra, in Yusufia that hold the same responsibilities and the heavy burden on our shoulders, and -- and I -- it -- it's hard to say, Rush, but I think -- it starts to feel like Vietnamization when we can key in to our mainstream media -- I happen to be from northern Minnesota --

LIMBAUGH: Say, Lieutenant Colonel Fitzpatrick, do you -- can you hang on? I'm really late on a commercial break and I have to take --

FITZPATRICK: Absolutely, Rush. Take your time, please, sir.

LIMBAUGH: You can hang on. I'll be right back to you right after this. Don't lose your train of thought there.



LIMBAUGH: And we are back with Lieutenant Colonel Luke Fitzpatrick from Tallil Air Force Base in Iraq. You were talking about the Vietnamization when you key in to your -- the drive-by media here and watch their reports on what you're doing.

FITZPATRICK: Absolutely, sir. We just -- we're a little concerned as to the fallout, for lack of a better term, of the extended nature of the conflict here, and we hate to call it a conflict because, Rush, somebody shoots at me every night. Every night on combat air patrol, regardless, we get shot at. And you know --

LIMBAUGH: Let me tell you something, Lieutenant Colonel. We -- we know what happened when we left Mogadishu. When we left Somalia with victory in our hands and Clinton decided to pull out --

FITZPATRICK: He castrated us, Rush.

LIMBAUGH: If we quit in Iraq, we cannot imagine the -- and so, a lot of us are sensitive to your concerns of the drive-by media. We battle it every day here.

FITZPATRICK: As terms of the drive-by, Rush, I was here from -- I was here originally from Shield. I was the second unit deployed here from Shield from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, the 4th Fighter Wing. I was here from Shield through Storm through Enduring Freedom, now Operation OIF -- Iraqi Freedom. The reason I came back is because I felt that the job was not finished. And it's not finished. Yes, we have a standing government, but I get shot at every night. I come home with holes in my airplane, Rush. Granted, they're not critical, but one --

LIMBAUGH: What do you fly?

FITZPATRICK: -- one day, it may be and you will read about me on CNN and I will be that blurb and I will show up in that 2600-some-odd casualty figure that the -- the drive-by media is obsessed with of how many people have died over here because we are an all-volunteer force. And that is the main reason that we called in today. I'm calling in. I just so happened to be the mouthpiece for the squadron here, the 336th Tactical Fighter Wing from Seymour Johnson -- the Rocketeers. We're an F15E Strike Eagle Squadron. We fly by night. Our motto is "Raining fire from above for the freedom that we love."

LIMBAUGH: Wow. Wow. Wow.

FITZPATRICK: And, you know, it -- it's a little-short-of-the-death-from-above syndrome but we're here to do a job and I'm tired of being handcuffed, and the guys I command and constantly send into battle every day -- knowing that they could not come back and I'll have to write that letter to their significant others, to their moms, to their dads.

LIMBAUGH: Lieutenant Colonel, I -- I hate to have to -- I have to stop you because I'm just -- I'm out of time here but let me just --

FITZPATRICK: That's fine, Rush.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you so much. You have made the program today. You have brought tears to people's eyes. I've been reading email from them about it, and just know that everybody in this audience, and the vast majority of the American people, love you and support what you're doing and wish you the best and thank you.



LIMBAUGH: "Land of the free because of the brave." We gotta get a t-shirt made with that in honor of Lieutenant Colonel Fitzpatrick. We'll work on that. See you tomorrow, folks. Have a great day.

—B.F.

Fortunately that family member has sworn off voting.

They're all Ann Coulter
Posted by BobcatJH in General Discussion: Politics
Thu Jun 08th 2006, 02:15 PM

Unless you've been hiding in a spider hole or an otherwise undisclosed location, you've been treated to a nice display by our friend Ann Coulter. Coulter, who published her latest bird-cage liner "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" Tuesday, has set her sights on, among others, the widows of those who died in the September 11 attacks.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies," Coulter writes. "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much." While criticism of Coulter came fast and furious from the likes of the widows themselves and Keith Olbermann, there's been a noticeable silence coming from the right.

The overwhelming right-wing response has come in the form of coming to the defense of Coulter. And, by doing so, agreeing with the pundit and taking what she said several steps further into the gutter. Try as some Republicans might to halfheartedly distance themselves from Coulter, her cancer has completely overtaken their party. They're all Ann Coulter.

Think about what Coulter and her defenders are really saying. First, that if you're in some way attached to a tragedy like September 11 or the war in Iraq, it's fine that you speak your mind - if, and only if, we agree with what you say. Second, that if what you say dissents from our views, not only do you not have the right to say it, but it's unfair for you to say it because for us to personally attack you makes us look like assholes. Well, if it looks like an asshole, sounds like and asshole and smells like an asshole, it's probably an asshole. And assholes they are.

What Coulter and her Republican friends seem unable to do is disagree with someone simply on the merits of their arguments. Instead, they feel it necessary to call these widows "broads", "witches" and "harpies" and say things like, "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much." Then, when pressed on the sheer audacity of such statements, they bemoan the fact that they can't make personal attacks on the victims of tragedy - while they're making personal attacks on the victims of tragedy.

When Republican partisans aren't defending Coulter's remarks by agreeing with them and needlessly piling on, they're excusing them as the absolute eventuality of a brilliant marketer and author trying to sell books. Let's for one moment play a thought game and assume that Coulter wasn't selling a book at the moment. Given her proven track record of ridiculously vile statements, do they really expect us to believe that Coulter would otherwise not be saying these things if she weren't selling a book? I can tolerate quite a bit of bullshit, but that assertion shatters my bullshit detector.

What's more, those defending Coulter do so primarily not by distancing themselves or the Republican Party from the things she says, but by seeking out "balance". Every time public outrage over Coulter being Coulter reaches a peak, the Bill O'Reillys of the world tell us that there are far worse examples to be found on the "far left". Then, he places Coulter's remarks against those by, say, Ward Churchill or, as ABC did, Harry Belafonte. Subsequent liberal guests are forced into a trap by which Churchill or others like him are artificially given the same status as Coulter. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

Tell me, in what alternate universe is Churchill given the same prominence within the Democratic Party as Coulter is within the Republican Party? Belafonte, too. But that's how it works. Someone like me says something outrageous and, all of a sudden, I speak for the entire party. And I know, because it happened to me. I criticized Joe Lieberman last year for sharing a hug and a kiss with the president following his State of the Union address. Hardly outrageous, but that's beside the point.

No sooner had I written about Lieberman than Michelle Malkin, herself no stranger to Coulter Territory, cited my critique as as evidence Democrats were "livid about the public display of bipartisan affection between the two men." One thing: Malkin only cited me. No one else. Never mind that countless others felt the same way I did. I was the voice of the entire Democratic Party. So where's my check, Democratic National Committee? But seriously, folks, this is what they do.

Distancing themselves from Coulter won't cut it, either. The Republican Party is Ann Coulter's party. It's the party of O'Reilly calling the victims of Hurricane Katrina "drug-addicted" and "thugs". It's the party of Glenn Beck calling them "scumbags" and talking about "choking the life out" of Michael Moore. It's the party of Bill Bennett talking about "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down". It's the party of Pat Robertson calling for Hugo Chavez's assassination. Want some more? Fine.

It's the party of Michael Reagan saying Howard Dean should be "hung for treason". It's the party of Brit Hume saying his first thought upon learning about the London terror attacks was, "Hmmm, time to buy". It's the party of John Gibson wishing those attacks on France. It's the party of Neal Boortz calling Rep. Cynthia McKinney a "ghetto slut". Get the picture?

Republicans, if you want to challenge my party to a tit-for-tat battle of outrageous statements, go right ahead. To paraphrase your president, bring it on. Because I know the final outcome before we even begin. Why? Because there's a little bit of Ann Coulter in every Republican. Because every conservative that defends her or even looks the other way while she spews her garbage is forgiving her for poisoning the debate. For lowering the bar. For appealing to the lowest-common denominator. And for that, they're all Ann Coulter.
Discuss (66 comments)

That could be why the itch.

But god damn, that made me laugh.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0017651/

Just a great character actor.

because the film seemed as brilliant as a Guy Madden or John Paisz film.

But I think he's from Brooklyn via San Francisco, or vice versa.

His band the Billy Nayer Show is a brilliant thing to see live. Hard to describe the sickness of some of the songs. I think you would like them.

I've only seen one of his films (Cowards Bend The Knee) and it was brilliant.

though Madden's other films, especially his magnum opus Saddest Music in the World have much to offer.

It seems to inspire some of the folks lurking around here.

but if it's in service to inspiring DU lurkers, may my balls always itch!

"To Serve and Not to Be Served."

I don't have an itch. :shrug:

Oh, the irony of life.

powder

trust me ~ you'll feel better

I'm going to take a bath in that shit!

I cherish your presense in this thread.

Excelsior! :patriot:

edit: I fucking misspelled "thread," FFS. Clearly, it is bedtime.

eggs and bakey!

:shrug:

Or i'm outta here.

Uh...sexy bodily function?

Hmmmmmm...

I'm glad to hear that.

Mostly I just annoy people.

:7