portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts

We Can't Lose With Lott

Lott derails republican victory. Conservatives Plan on imposing large tax increase on the poor.
A month ago the Republicans had plans to take over the world and now thanks to the ignorant mutterings of good ol'boy redneck Senator Lott they are firmly on the defensive. This is a situation the Democrats can't lose at. If Lott stays on as majority leader democrats will be able to link every conservative legislation to his racist background. Keeping the Republicans true colors in full vivid display for the whole country to see.

But now it looks like the jackals are closing in on the old bull. They've been circling looking for signs of weakness and this weekend they started their attack. Senator Don Nichols has called for a new leadership vote and the others are moving into help with the kill. In all likely hood Nichols will get the vote as majority leader. Another win for the Democrats. Nichols is a true firing breathing conservative who thinks congress is there for the benifit of rich white hetrosexuals. Let him bring their programs of hate and intolerance front and center. It will only turn off the moderates who have only been supporting the Republicans because of the so called war on terror.

Check out the WashingtonPost online article about the compassionate conservatives plans to make the poor pay higher taxes. Apparently the social securtity tax we pay so much of isn't a real tax and shouldn't be counted in calculating the tax burden. 2004 just keeps looking better and better.

Tax The Poor!!
It's too bad... 16.Dec.2002 00:30


It is entirely too bad that Strom Thurmond's birthday is not earlier in the year, say around the middle of October!

Help 16.Dec.2002 01:24


Can someone cut and paste the Washington Post article as a comment here? I keep seeing the link on different sites, but for some unknown reason, my web browser WILL NOT EVER open Washington Post web pages!

If someone could paste the entire article here, I would be indebted...

Thanks in advance!

Lott's KKKristmas Kard 16.Dec.2002 01:29


Lott's KKKristmas Kard
Lott's KKKristmas Kard

what on earth are you talking about ? 16.Dec.2002 01:41

some libertarian

Are you seriously trying to say that poor people should not have to pay any taxes ? They don't, you know. Ever heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit ? I have. When I made less then about 8500 dollars a year, I paid NOT ONE DIME of taxes. Nor does anyone under the "Poverty Level." When you begin to make a little more money, you begin paying taxes. As you develop your skills, and command a little more on the market for your wage, the percentage climbs. If you are so bold as to try to operate a small business, the tax rate doubles. The top percentile of high income earners in the U.S. pay a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden. All of this is true, all very well documented, and I speak from personal experience.

For the record, I firmly believe that the abolition of the Income Tax Amendment, the elimination of about 85 percent of Corporate and other Welfare, and the instituting of steep Sales taxes would be great. But the Democrats who very well know that our Republic has passed that infamous line where the Elites buy the votes of the ignorant majority, who pay no taxes, with the seized wealth of the few who are forced to pay, will NEVER WILLINGLY ALLOW THIS, as it threatens their power base. For that matter, the two-faced hypocrites who call themselves "Conservatives" won't either, for the same reasons.

And the fact that you drag absurd histrionic allegations of homophobia, etc., into the debate shows us how totally out of touch you truly are. So behind the times. Just go read your Chomsky pamphlets, put on that hideously bad Crass or Billy Bragg CD, and leave politics to the grownups. Call your parents and ask when the check is coming, OK ?

Look, Lott has to go. This is the second time he has spouted off some racist garbage in public. The more astute Republicans probably realize this, and they also realize that any chance of their appeal to Black people, who actually stand to gain from a conservative economic agenda, rather then yet more Welfare Serfdom from the Democrat Poverty Pimps, will be forever tainted by his presence.

And he will get that boot in the ass out the door. Believe it. So did the Democrats. And, eventually, the Republicans
will too, once the public catches up to the fact that the phony War on Drugs is a total failure, and that Christianity really is fading away, and that the Republicans are just playing that same old Big Government Socialist Song.

Have a nice night.

CopyPaste of the article 16.Dec.2002 05:35


Here goes..

Just one comment from me before the article body: there are times like this article, when I think Michael Moores' "Stupid white men" should be a mandatory reading for the world over :-)

As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers.

Economists at the Treasury Department are drafting new ways to calculate the distribution of tax burdens among different income classes, which are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor.

The efforts would thrust the administration into a debate that until now has lingered on the fringes of economic policy: Are too few wealthy Americans paying too much in taxes for too many, and should the working poor and middle class be shouldering more of the tax burden?

"The increasing reliance on taxing higher-income households and targeted social preferences at lower incomes stands in the way of moving to a simpler, flatter tax system," R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned at a tax forum at the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday.

The Council of Economic Advisers' "Economic Report to the President," scheduled for release late next month or in early February, is to include a section arguing for new methods to calculate the distribution of tax burdens on various income groups.

The Treasury Department is working up more sophisticated distribution tables that are expected to make the poor appear to be paying less in taxes and the rich to be paying more.

Answering critics who say the working poor do face high taxes because they pay high Social Security payroll taxes, outgoing White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey told the AEI tax forum that the 12.4 percent Social Security levy should not be considered when tax burdens are calculated. Lindsey said the Social Security tax is ultimately returned to the taxpayer as a benefit.

Lindsey compared the Social Security tax to a deposit in a neighborhood bank's Christmas Club. In such clubs, periodic deposits are returned in a lump sum during the holiday season, and Lindsey said no one would consider such deposits a tax.

Early this month, J.T. Young, the deputy assistant treasury secretary for legislative affairs, lamented in a Washington Times opinion article: "[Higher] earners cannot produce the level of revenues needed to sustain the liberals' increasingly costly spending programs over the long-term. . . . If federal government spending is not controlled, then the tax burden will have to begin extending backward down the income ladder."

The tenor of the administration's policy discussions marks a dramatic shift from early in 2001, when Bush sold his 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut as a tool to "take down the tollgate on the road to the middle class," emphasizing its beneficial impact on workers "on the outskirts of poverty." At that time, the administration fretted over the tax burden on the working poor, which the White House calculated to include federal income taxes, state taxes and the Social Security tax.

When administration officials pushed the need to create private investment accounts to supplement Social Security, they specifically warned that taxes paid into Social Security would not necessarily be returned unless the system was reformed.

William W. Beach, an economist at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said he was sympathetic to Lindsey's argument that the Social Security tax is not really a tax. But, he said, it was a dangerous argument for a Republican to make.

"Do I allow defense spending to offset my income taxes since I like to be defended? Do I allow road taxes to offset my profits taxes because I use the roads?" he asked. "If you do start down that road, it's hard to see anything as taxes."

But for the purposes of a tax reform debate, removing Social Security taxes from consideration could have a sizable impact. The top 5 percent of the nation's taxpayers paid 41 percent of all federal taxes, a hefty share, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. But that same group paid from 56 to 59 percent of all income taxes, an even more impressive burden.

"If we take out Social Security, the poor will look very lightly taxed," said Robert S. McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice, a tax research group backed by organized labor.

Democrats say the shift could prove ominous for lower-income Americans. And they appear eager for the fight.

"These people are setting the tone in saying the poor really are not being taxed enough and that the burden is too high on the rich," said New York Rep. Charles B. Rangel, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "We're going back some 70 years."

Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif.), a member of the committee, said: "I don't think there's any question you have a number of extremists in the Republican ranks that would like to see the wealthy do very well. They're going to try to make the case that the average American is overtaxed and subsidizing the poor."

But to some conservatives, the shift is long overdue. Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has argued for two years that the nation is entering a dangerous period in which the burden of financing government is falling on too few people. In such an environment, the masses will always vote for politicians promising ever-more-generous social programs, knowing they will not have to pay for such programs, DeMint warned.

"This issue is coming to a head," DeMint said earlier this month, just minutes after making his pitch to outgoing Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill. "You can't maintain a democracy if the people who are voting don't care what their government costs."

DeMint and his allies have called for a national sales tax to replace the income tax. For those below the federal poverty line, sales taxes paid would be refunded, but under the system, at least they will have seen the cost of government, he said. The working poor would accept a higher tax burden because they would be relieved of the need to file a tax return.

DeMint called his ideas "the duck's feet under the water," propelling his proposals forward invisibly. Conservative thinkers at the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks have begun expressing similar opinions. Last month, the Wall Street Journal editorial page made waves with an article titled, "The Non-Taxpaying Class."

"Workers who pay little or no taxes can hardly be expected to care about tax relief for everybody else," the editorial stated. "They are also that much more detached from recognizing the costs of government."

But advocates of this new line can expect a furious backlash. Liberal commentators have already reduced the argument to an appeal to tax the poor, and even conservatives worry that the label will stick.

"It's hard to conclude it's anything else," said the Heritage Foundation's Beach.

Michael J. Graetz, a Yale University law professor and tax reform expert, said he could not figure out where the administration's arguments are supposed to lead.

"I would be very surprised if the agenda is to put more people on the tax rolls," he said. "That doesn't seem like a good political agenda."

But Democrats say that is exactly where the administration is heading. Matsui said he sees the seeds of a disastrous Republican overreach.

"The president is making the case that people who earn between $50 [thousand] and $75,000 a year should be paying a third more taxes," Matsui said. "I'd love to debate him on that."

But McIntyre worried that in the marketplace of ideas, the new argument could carry the day.

"I would hope the public would find it repugnant," he said, "but I suppose you never know."

one more thing 16.Dec.2002 14:53

some libertarian

I have read all of Moore's stuff, and seen his simplistic documentaries. Socialism will always appeal to people who feel disadvantaged, and see an opportunity to redress this by using the force of Government to seize the assets of others who have or earn more then they do. The problem with this kind of theft is that the government will not simply wither away once the wealth is supposedly redistributed, but will grow and grow into a totally unaccountable monster. Thus Marx's utopian pre-industrial pipe dreams turned into a mountian of 120,000,000 corpses, and were for the most part completely discredited.

The above article only highlights the logic that I am using.

Check out Bastiat's "The Law" for historical context.

I would like to add that if a private business tried to operate like the Social Security Administration does, it's proprieters would go straight to jail. Whoops, ENRON ! Many Libertarians such as myself would absolutely LOVE to see some of these pirates dragged off in chains, and for the phony "Conservatives" who run the show to actually walk the walk of the "Values" that they supposedly live by
and quit shipping our jobs to Third World hellholes that are little better then Communism was. I'm not exactly holding my breath.

You see, people have been so dumbed down by 70 years of the Banking Elite's propoganda, that the very definitions of "Capitalism", "Socialism", "Democracy", and "Republic"
have been distorted beyond all meaning, and used as tools to suck up the wealth of the world into the hands of these corrupt European dynasties.

I feel so bad for the over taxed rich 17.Dec.2002 00:21


I do feel really bad that so much of the tax burden is placed on the top 5% of wealthy Americans. I don't know what the solution is but I have a suggestion. Why don't the top 5% share the wealth in an equitable distribution. Then they won't have to pay so much in taxes and the poorest Americans won't need so many social programs.
Seems like a win win situation to me.

To Some Libertarian 19.Dec.2002 00:46

Your Name Here

We 'dumbed down' folks that like to lurk around PDX IMC would probably agree that the words "Capitalism", "Socialism", "Democracy" and "Republic" have been distorted beyond all meaning, as you suggest. But you left out "Liberal" and "Freedom".

BTW, I have looked for Bastiat's work but I can't find any because it's all been out of print for about 70 years. (This is not sarcasm...)

The so-called "Far Left" and the so-called "Libertarians" have more in common with each other than you realize. If we are truly going to change our world, rather than take a wild ride into an American dictatorship with George and Dick, we are going to have to recognize our commonalities rather than our differences.