Other investors believe Kerry would be bad for growth because of the likelihood of higher taxes and more regulation. "We have grave concerns about the negative impact on the economy and the markets of a Kerry victory," wrote Donald Luskin...

"Just what are the fundamental (valid) insights of Marxism? I ask as someone who is, I think, more inclined toward 'Marxism' than anybody else on the Berkeley campus."

For years we have said as we’ve watched and read,
That the Media is liberally left leaning.
When news only we sought, what we usually got
Was some coiffed commentator’s “true” meaning.
Just seeking the news, we instead got their views
And too much Peter Jennings-like preening.

We are fair they declare and your charge is unfair
Everything we put out is uncanted.
Then they snidely deride any charges they’ve lied
Though it’s clear where their left feet are planted.
They deny overmuch liberal leanings and such
While it’s plain they’re all Rather slanted.

What they call reporting we see as distorting
So obvious that it does appall us.
But they think we’re all sheep, unthinking, asleep,
And care less if their bias does gall us.
As Sunday eves dreadful they feed us a headful
Of that oh so impartial Mike Wallace.

And as for the press, what a self-righteous mess,
Intoning our right to know all.
While the grand New York Times, dismisses and slimes
Those, who for the truth, loudly call.
And the Washington Post sets it columnist host
To impugning these men, one and all.

So election year’s here and it’s crystalline clear
That John Kerry’s the media’s hero.
They praise him in war and completely ignore
Those brave men who rate him a zero.
With utter disdain for truth in the main
This Media’s fiddling like Nero.

At some future date, when it’s far, far too late,
To ever atone for their bias,
Finally faced with their fate that they carry no weight,
All those talking heads will be so pious,
As without any shame they will loudly declaim
How on earth did that phony get by us?

The WC ghost, a £6 voice-alarm, reprimands men for standing at the lavatory pan. It is triggered when the seat is lifted. The battery-operated devices are attached to the seats and deliver stern warnings to those who attempt to stand and urinate (known as "Stehpinkeln").

"Hey, stand-peeing is not allowed here and will be punished with fines, so if you don't want any trouble, you'd best sit down," one of the devices orders in a voice impersonating the German leader, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder. So far 1.8 million WC ghosts have been sold in German supermarkets.

But Klaus Schwerma, author of Standing Urinators: The Last Bastion of Masculinity? doubts whether it will ever be possible to convert all men...In German, the phrase for someone who sits and urinates, a "Sitzpinkler", is equivalent to "wimp".

On March 9, 2004 Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer won reelection with 12,422 votes out of the 24,375 ballots cast. However, to avoid a runoff Dyer needed to break the 50%, which he did in the end by only 234 votes, and with the help of a good number of absentee ballots.

As it turns out, 264 of those absentee ballots were witnessed by Ezzie Thomas, President of the Orlando League of Voters. This is, of course, the same Ezzie Thomas that Bob Herbert describes in his column by saying, "with his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat."

Herbert fails to mention that, as reported in the Orlando Sentinel on July 25, 2004, Mr. Thomas was paid $10,000 by Mayor Dyer to collect absentee ballots for the election and that his handling of absentee ballots has been under scrutiny in the past (including as recently as 2002) though charges have never been filed.

This time, they were. Right after the election in March, second place finisher Ken Mulvaney filed a civil suit to try and get the absentee ballots witnessed by Thomas thrown out and get himself into a runoff with Dyer. Mulvaney interviewed a number of absentee ballot voters and eventually produced 42 signed affidavits alleging mishandling of ballots.

On April 8 a circuit judge in Orlando decided there was enough evidence to proceed with the suit. Additionally, Mulvaney's complaint sparked the FDLE criminal investigation which Herbert decries as a concerted effort to suppress the black vote.

While I have neither the time nor the sufficient mathematical skills to pore over the CBO report to buttress my beliefs, I would argue from my own personal experience that I am a middle class American who has benefited from the tax cuts, particularly the reduction of the tax rate on stock dividends to 15%.

For quick background info, I am a married father of two on Long Island, NY, and my wife and I have a combined gross income of about $110 - 120K per year. While that might put us on the upper level of what one might consider to be middle class, when you factor in our local tax levels and the cost of living on Long Island, our $1,500 per month mortgage payments etc., I don't think one could claim that we are wealthy.

Anyway, what few people seem to point out, particularly those who hail from the left of center on the political spectrum, is how the 15% tax rate on stock dividends is such a gift for middle class Americans who invest in companies that have dividend reinvestment plans. I have been steadily accumulating shares in two prominent local companies, North Fork Bank, with a 3% dividend yield, and Keyspan Energy, with about a 5% dividend yield. These yields are better than anything I will get from a money market fund, and these are not companies whose share prices will wildly fluctuate, so I consider my investments to be fairly safe.

My goal over the next few years is to amass an investment portolio worth about $500K. If that sum is invested in stocks that pay a dividend of around 4%, that's about $20K a year in dividend income that can go towards paying the mortgage and then college tuition for my children, or whatever else I deem appropriate. Plus, since we would no longer have to pay the mortgage from our salaries, my wife and I could afford private school tuition for our kids. But my impression of the Krugmanites of this world is that it is that they consider it to be far more virtuous that I not accumulate such wealth, but instead pay higher taxes so that the government can provide me with taxpayer funded goodies so the Krugmanites (maybe that's a term you can use! Sounds like some alien species from Star Trek) can demonstrate how benevolent the government is. They also seem to think that a paycheck is the only legitimate source of income for working and middle class folks and cannot conceive of the idea that people who are not wealthy might want to try to become wealthy. I suppose this is part of what you mean by the conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid.

Part of it also is that so many people want to be wealthy, but have no clear idea about how to do it other than buying those scratch-off lottery tickets. Four years ago, I read 'The Millionaire Next Door', and while it is not a how-to book about becoming wealthy, it stressed that the first generation wealthy are frugal, and I took that gospel to heart. Luckily, my wife has supported me, though occasionally I have to yield to her desire to buy stuff. After all, compromise is an important part of a happy and successful marriage.

Tom Kearney

Florida was practically a tie in 2000, but Bush won. Close state races are not that uncommon, either for the Presidential ballot, or Senate or Governors races. In 2000, Gore lost Florida very narrowly, but won New Mexico, Iowa, Oregon and Wisconsin by less than 0.3% of the vote overall, taking all 29 Electoral votes from those 4 states. Florida, on the other hand, only gave 25 electoral votes to Bush. In three of these four states which Gore won (all but Iowa), there were suspicious voting or tallying issues that might have thrown the results into some question.

But neither Bush nor Republicans ever made an issue of the results in any of the four states. They accepted their very narrow defeats, as the GOP did in the Senate races in South Dakota in 2002, and in Nevada in 1998, and in Washington State in 2000, three races the GOP lost by a total of 3,000 votes out of over 3 million cast (0.1% margin). Had the GOP won these three Senate seats, and Jim Jeffords not done his Benedict Arnold imitation (there would have been no reason for him to switch parties if his move would not have given the Democrats Senate control), the GOP today would hold 55 Senate seats, and a lot more federal judges would have been confirmed.

I am amazed that the CBO was willing to attribute a corporate tax cut to individuals. I don't have the stats in front of me, but my understanding is that pension funds are a major owner of corporate shares which are obviously not owned only by the highest income earners. Wouldn't that decrease the percentage of corporate taxes paid by this group, and thus decrease the size of the tax cut they get this year because of the temporary cut in corporate taxes?

Bottom line -- once again, a Bush tax cut benefits all Americans -- and lower-earning Americans most of all. Yet -- once again -- that tax cut is falsely portrayed as most helping the wealthy. In this case it's not just the media. Here the CBO's own methodology is just plain wrong.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:25 AM | link    

Wednesday, August 18, 2004