WILLisms.com: October 2006 Archives

« September 2006 | WILLisms.com | November 2006 »

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 365 -- Media Coverage This Fall.

Tilted Toward Democrats, Of Course-

The Center for Media and Public Affairs is decidedly non-partisan. It's respected by everyone. The CMPA is such a non-shill for either side that its findings even often end up in left-leaning academic papers. I love the Media Research Center (MRC) and think they do great, objective work, but unlike the MRC, the CMPA has credibility with the establishment media.

So when the CMPA issues the results of a study on the media, it's time to pay attention.

First, from a study released a couple of weeks ago, the intensity (frequency) of coverage from September 5 through October 3 quadrupled this year, relative to 2002 (.pdf):

Bigger Than the “Revolution”: The first four weeks of this year's midterm coverage has been more than three times as heavy as in 2002 and more than three of the last four off year elections combined. The nightly network newscasts have broadcast 83 campaign stories, over four times the 20 they ran during the same time period of 2002, and eight times greater than the midterms in President Clinton’s second presidency. (10 stories) The 2006 coverage is also 38 percent greater than that given the “Republican Revolution” midterm election in 1994. (60 stories)

So, the media are covering more stories this year. That might not be such a terrible thing if the stories are honest and objective, right?

Well...

Fixated on Foley: Since the scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley 's instant messenges broke, 85 percent of election stories (23 of 27) been about the investigation and how the scandal will affect the balance in Congress.

So, yeah, the Foley obsession. Sure, it's probably news, maybe even national news, but to shut down the entire campaign issue discussion in favor of one guy's misconduct is just not proportional. Nor does it follow precedent, when a Democrat did similar but worse things than Foley in 1994.

Beyond the Foley Follies: After taking the Foley scandal coverage into account, however, the 60 remaining stories still equal the 1994 total and exceed the combined totals of 2002, 1998, and 1990.

Think about that one. Why on earth would the number of mid-term stories on the same networks jump so dramatically? Could it have something to do with an agenda.

“Macaca” Mania: Most stories paint with broad strokes, covering the nation’s political climate and the parties' overall prospects. Among individual races, Virginia’s Senate race stands out with 5 in depth stories, due to a number of highly publicized verbal gaffes by Republican incumbent George Allen. The only other contests to attract in depth coverage are the Senate races in Missouri, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania – all with one story apiece.

I think the media, with an assist from George Allen, can safely say that they created a new English word this summer. And a taboo word, at that-- an actual racial slur from thin air. How often does that happen?

ABC Leads The Pack: ABC’s 32 stories accounted for 38 percent of the network election coverage in the four weeks after Labor Day. CBS devoted 26 stories (31 percent) to the midterms, while 25 stories were broadcast on NBC (30 percent).

So, in other words, there have been more stories, across the board. ABC is the most eager network, it would seem, to push a narrative.

What narrative might the collective "MSM" be pushing this year, anyway?

Now, look at how absurdly those stories have been slanted, from September 5 through October 22 (.pdf):

Weighing the Positives and Negatives: 3 out of every 4 (77 percent) on-air evaluations of Democratic candidates and members of Congress were positive during the first seven weeks of the campaign. By contrast, only 1 out of every 8 assessments (12 percent) were favorable toward their Republican counterparts.

Yikes. Here's the visual (.pdf):

It's almost too lopsided to even be believable, but then again, this is the establishment media we're talking about here.

Mid-term Overkill? In the first seven weeks after Labor Day in 2002, network coverage of the mid-term elections totaled only 35 stories. 2006's coverage has been almost five times as heavy, with 167 stories.

What were the networks filling their airtime with back in 2002, anyway? Five times the number of stories means there was a concerted effort to push a narrative. I wonder what narrative that might be?

Three Dominant Storylines: Only three issues have received more than sporadic coverage: the Mark Foley scandal, the Iraq war, and terrorism. The Foley scandal produced nearly as much coverage as the other two combined -- 59 stories, compared to 33 on Iraq and 31 on terrorism/national security. No other issue was covered in more than six stories.

So, again with the Foley. What's so frustrating about the Foley situation is that the story broke just as President Bush and Republicans were gaining a bit of traction on the terrorism issue. No wonder Foley was such a disproportionately big deal.

Also, notice how there's been little or no coverage of the robust economy in relation to the 2006 elections. Gee, I wonder why not.

Local Candidates, National Spotlight: Due to the extensive coverage of the Mark Foley scandal, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's campaign was featured in 42 stories. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was featured in 10 stories, even though he's not seeking re-election this year. Hillary Clinton's possible presidential run in 2008 has been discussed in 9 stories. No other candidate was covered in more than five stories.

So, the media don't like Dennis Hastert and want him out, they do like Barack Obama, and they are going for ratings with the Hillary Clinton pieces. Not shocking.

The media are the Democrats' 12th, 13th, and 14th man, plus the crooked officiating crew. They are not just rooting for their team on the weekends, they are doing everything in their collective power to tip this election.

This sort of bias is just not healthy for our country.

That being said, how awesome will it be when Republicans maintain both chambers of Congress next week, in spite of all of this heavy-handed media assistance?

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: The Overall Ideological Impact Of Each State's Congressional Delegation.

Posted by Will Franklin · 31 October 2006 05:25 PM · Comments (0)

John Kerry (Inaccurately) Belittles Our Troops.

By now, you've seen John Kerry belittle our troops as uneducated:

Well, Senator Kerry is living in the Vietnam era.

Even if the facts supported his assertion, it's just tasteless to say that you have to do well in school, OR ELSE you'll end up in the military ("stuck in Iraq"). But the facts don't even support his assertion.

TRIVIA TIDBIT FLASHBACK TIME!

Two trivia tidbits from last November (#209; #213) outline some of the demographic reality in the military.

The truth: this is not merely some "poor man's war."

Posted by Will Franklin · 31 October 2006 04:12 PM · Comments (2)

I Voted.

Early voting today earned me this "I Voted" sticker:

Sweet.

Turnout was probably medium for a Monday morning. Every single other individual there was at least 2 times my age. At least.

If you live in Texas, take advantage of early voting until November 3.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 October 2006 02:47 PM · Comments (5)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 364 -- States & Their Overall Ideological Impact.

Conservatism Minus Liberalism, & Vice Versa-

You've seen how much liberalism each state delegation to the House of Representatives contributes to our political process. You've seen how much each state contributes in conservatism. Now, after left/right member ideologies from the same state cancel each other out, let's look at what each state ends up sending, ideologically-speaking, to the House of Representatives. This is the overall ideological impact each state has upon the House, at present:

Again, this is based on Mr. Right's ideological formula, which blends the ADA, ACU, and National Journal rankings into one comprehensive ideology rating. Go check it out. There's plenty of data to explore.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Conservatism In Congress.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 October 2006 08:36 AM · Comments (0)

Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Sixty-Four -- Contingencies & Solutions.

Thursdays are good days for reform, because they fall between Wednesdays and Fridays. And reform is a long-haul process, not a fleeting event. So we're going to keep plugging along with the case for reform, even as the issue goes off the political radar screen.

That's why WILLisms.com offers a chart or graph, every Thursday, pertinent to Social Security reform.

This week's topic:

Social Security Reform Solutions.

Some interesting graphs, courtesy of Social Security administrator James B. Lockhart III and the American Academy of Actuaries.

First, the meltdown target date, which could be as soon as 2030 or as far away as 2064. Likely, though, the date will be closer to 2041:

However, there's a solution. And it's not "raise taxes and raise the retirement age." The solution is a modernized Social Security system. The solution is protected personal retirement accounts:

The bottom (red) line of today's unchanged program is clearly negative and unsustainable. The two other alternatives are typical reform proposals. They both require about $500 billion (net present value) in general revenue transfers but produce strikingly different results in the long term.
A 1983-style reform of increasing payroll taxes 1 percent and increasing the retirement age over time to 70 (green line) would be less negative that today's system but still not sustainable. On the other hand, a package that indexed future benefit growth to inflation rather than wages and incorporated personal accounts (blue line) would be more negative at first but would then become positive and reach sustainable solvency.

So, intelligent reform of Social Security would yield better benefits, and bring the program into long-term solvency. It's a win-win.

The good news is that, as the National Association of Manufacturers blog points out, more than 160 candidates on both sides of the aisle are coming around to the necessity of reform and signing the non-partisan For Our Grandchildren pledge (which you can download here in .pdf format).

It's time for all 435 members of Congress, and all 100 Senators, to sign this pledge. It's time for vulnerable Republicans (electorally-speaking) to stop being so defensive/evasive about Social Security reform. It's time for Democrats to stop scaring old people and stymieing reform entirely. It's time for solutions, not kicking the can down the road.

It's time for reform.

The clock is still ticking:

Tune into WILLisms.com each Thursday for more important graphical data supporting Social Security reform.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 October 2006 05:22 PM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 363 -- Ideology Added To Congress, By State.

Conservatism Added-

Yesterday, it was "liberalism added." Today, it is "conservatism added" to the United States House of Representatives (based on Mr. Right's research):

1. TX 2177
2. CA 1873
3. FL 1648
4. PA 1089
5. OH 1071
6. NY 866
7. GA 808
8. IL 800
9. MI 799
10. VA 722
11. NC 714
12. IN 661
13. AZ 634
14. AL 523
15. MO 519
16. LA 514
17. NJ 501
18. TN 497
19. KY 475
20. OK 424
21. CO 423
22. SC 409
23. MN 386
24. WI 369
25. IA 339
26. WA 332
27. KS 299
28. NE 259
29. MS 246
30. UT 222
31. MD 215
32. AR 196
33. NV 186
34. NM 166
35. ID 161
36. CT 149
37. NH 132
38. WV 129
39. OR 127
40. WY 87
41. MT 86
42. AK 81
43. MA 66
44. DE 50
45. HI 35
46. SD 32
47. RI 31
48. ND 27
49. ME 26
50. VT 6

And here's a graphical representation of the ideology added to the House by each state (click on graph for larger version):

Again, go look at the data for yourself, at The Right Place blog.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Red & Blue Congress.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 October 2006 11:42 AM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 362 -- Our Congress, Red & Blue.

The Reddest Of The Red States, The Bluest Of The Blue States-

Ideology-wise, this is how the state Congressional delegations stack up, from conservative to liberal (with red and blue based on 2004 Bush/Kerry results):

1. Oklahoma
2. Wyoming
3. Idaho
4. Kentucky
5. Utah
6. Kansas
6. Alaska
8. Nebraska
9. Alabama
10. South Carolina
11. New Hampshire
12. Mississippi
13. Arizona
14. Louisiana
15. Texas
16. Indiana
17. Virginia
18. Georgia
19. Florida
20. Montana
21. Tennessee
22. Missouri
23. Iowa
24. Colorado
25. North Carolina
26. Ohio
27. Pennsylvania
28. Nevada
29. New Mexico
30. Michigan
31. Minnesota
32. South Dakota
33. Arkansas
34. Wisconsin
35. New Jersey
36. California
37. Illinois
38. Washington
39. West Virginia
40. Oregon
41. New York
42. Maine
43. Delaware
44. Connecticut
45. Maryland
46. North Dakota
47. Rhode Island
48. Hawaii
49. Vermont
50. Massachusetts

Those are the average scores for all members of the Senate and House, together.

Go read additional analysis (and a wealth of fantastically awesome numbers) from Mr. Right here.

But wait, there's more. We now have an answer to the age-old "Mommy, where do liberals come from?" question. Liberal ideology in Congress, at least. Not just averages, either. Big states obviously contribute more ideology to Congress than small states. In terms of "liberalism added," which states are truly responsible for liberal ideology in Congress? After crunching the numbers, here are the most liberal Senate delegations in America (with "liberalism added" scores included):.

SENATE
1. 191.5 NJ
2. 190 MA
3. 186 MD
4. 185 IL
5. 182 CA
5. 182 MI
7. 180 NY
8. 179 WI
9. 178 VT
9. 178 WA
11. 173 DE
11. 173 HI
13. 169 CT
13. 169 WV
15. 167 RI
16. 160 ND
17. 157 AR
18. 124 OR
19. 121 MN
20. 117 ME
21. 107 IA
22. 106 IN
23. 104 NM
24. 101 SD
25. 98 NV
26. 91 LA
26. 91 MT
28. 85 FL
29. 81 CO
30. 71 OH
31. 66 NE
32. 65 PA
33. 46 NH
34. 44 AK
35. 32 AZ
35. 32 MO
37. 31 SC
38. 30 ID
38. 30 VA
40. 29 TN
40. 29 TX
42. 25 KS
42. 25 WY
44. 23 NC
45. 20 UT
46. 19 AL
46. 19 MS
48. 16 GA
49. 15 KY
50. 13 OK

And here are the most liberal House delegations, with "liberalism added" scores included:

HOUSE
1. CA 3126
2. NY 2024
3. IL 1100
4. TX 1023
5. MA 934
6. FL 852
7. PA 811
8. NJ 799
9. OH 729
10. MI 701
11. NC 586
12. MD 585
13. WA 568
14. GA 492
15. WI 431
16. MN 414
17. MO 381
18. VA 378
19. OR 373
20. CT 351
21. TN 303
22. CO 275
23. AZ 266
24. IN 239
25. AR 204
26. SC 191
27. LA 186
28. AL 177
29. ME 174
30. WV 171
31. RI 169
32. HI 165
33. IA 161
34. MS 154
35. NM 134
36. KY 125
37. NV 114
38. KS 101
39. VT 94
40. ND 83
41. UT 78
42. OK 76
43. NH 68
43. SD 68
45. DE 50
46. NE 41
47. ID 39
48. AK 19
49. MT 14
50. WY 13

This is not necessarily which states are the most liberal, just which states contribute the most liberalism to the Congress. Larger states clearly contribute more than smaller states, for the most part. Even Texas is high on the chart, simply because it's so large.

However, some small states are disproportionately high on the chart, just based on their small number of very liberal members of Congress.

Tomorrow, we'll look at state-by-state "conservatism added."

And, by the way, for the House of Representatives, "conservatism added" is not just the opposite of "liberalism added," so you'll want to tune in and see which states contribute the most conservatism to the House. And in the meantime, go check out some of the numbers for yourself.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Throw The Bums Out: The Media Need To Be Fired.

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 October 2006 11:09 PM · Comments (2)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 76

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

Here is the actual caption:

Actress Miley Cyrus appears back stage with sumo wrestler Manny Yarbrough during MTV's 'Total Request Live' show at the MTV Times Square Studios, Monday, Oct. 23, 2006, in New York.

Clearly there is more going on here than AP is letting on . . . give us the real caption.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, October 31. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at mccracken.ken@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week: 1. radio free fred:

When Metamucil Just Ain't Enough.

2. Hoodlumman:

Ming panics as he realized that the test was going to be given on a Scantron form that only took a No. 2000 pencil.

3. Rodney Dill:

Training for the position of Caber Toss Catcher was brutal.

Honorable Mention #1 Zsa Zsa:

A gong shortage in China spells bad luck for Wong.

Honorable Mention #2 elliot:

Must be election year in China too. Kim Jong's staff polling another voter.

Honorable Mention #3 Cowboy Blob:

No, use the eraser end!

Captioning means never having to say you are sorry. Enter today!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 25 October 2006 12:18 PM · Comments (22)

Quote Of The Day

The prescient Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 70, on why Democrats insist on leaking sensitive intelligence data to the press:

"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love."

Culled from 'Self-Love Of The Democrats' at RealClearPolitics.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 25 October 2006 12:35 AM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 361 -- Our Partisan Media & Economic Coverage.

This Is Stunning, Yet Not Surprising-

All intellectually honest people will admit that our nation's establishment "big media" are decidedly liberal. If you meet someone who talks about the "rightwing media," you are dealing with a nut. At the same time, you'll meet otherwise smart people who honestly believe the "MSM" is doing a great job playing it right down the middle. They may even roll their eyes at the notion of a liberal media.

The empirical evidence against the big networks is piling up. We're now beyond the point of debate; there's no question that the mainstream media are neither mainstream in their politics, nor reliable sources of factual information.

Thank goodness for the Media Research Center's tireless work on this issue. Their latest study exposes the seething partisanship of major media coverage of the economy from August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006. Here's what they found (.pdf):

Reports Negatively Charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent) compared to good news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm after another, yet each time the economy continued unfazed.
Negative Stories Given More Air Time: Bad news was emphasized on all three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as often as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs. More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.

Man-on-the-Street Interviews Spin Stories: Reporters used ordinary people to underscore negative stories by roughly a 3-to-1 ratio over positive. Since these are interviews chosen entirely by the reporter, this shows particular bias. NBC was especially bad at this, featuring negative accounts six times as often as positive ones.

Worst Network: More than 80 percent of the full-length stories on the “CBS Evening News” delivered a negative view of the economy – easily the worst of the three broadcast news programs. The network hid the good news of jobs or economic growth in short items. More than 56 percent of CBS’s brief stories were positive.

Best Network: ABC was hardly the “best” anything for its economic coverage. It simply wasn’t as negative as either NBC or CBS. More than 56 percent of ABC reports were negative compared to slightly more than 36 percent positive

There's no excuse for any of this, given the strength of the American economy of the past 40+ months. These so-called journalists might be able to get away with this sort of distortion if not for the sunshine pumping they did in the 1990s. From a previous MRC study:

The American media are not objective. With 6.6 million new jobs over the past three years, a 4.6% unemployment rate, falling gas prices, historically low inflation, strong consumer confidence, and robust GDP growth, this tax-cut-fueled economy is fantastic. It's too bad the major "old media" organizations, which are struggling financially, can't see through their partisan glasses, or beyond their own dreary economic bubbles, and just report the news as it is (as it is = awesome).

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Bush Tax Cuts Versus Nuancy Pelosi-nomics.

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 October 2006 01:48 PM · Comments (3)

Quotational Therapy: Part 108 -- Kinky Friedman & Texas Early Voting.

Seriously, Conservatives, Don't Vote For This Guy-

Early voting started today in Texas. That's how I've almost always voted. The lines are shorter, the parking is ample. You can do it anywhere in your county (click here if you live in Texas and want to find out where to vote early), not just in a designated polling booth. Most of all, your vote is in, so you don't have to worry about a last minute business trip or medical emergency or vehicle breakdown on election day.

There are certain disadvantages, from a grassroots political perspective, to early voting, too, but as long as we have it in place, we might as well use it to our advantage.

That being said, let's move on to Kinky Friedman. Yes, another Kinky post. To those Republicans who just don't like Rick Perry (who happens to be America's second best governor, fiscally-speaking) and are considering casting your vote for Kinky, just remember: a vote for Kinky Friedman is a vote for an 18 billion dollar per year socialized health care boondoggle.

Yikes. KinkyCare. Kinky Friedman, the big government socialist. The Venturaite joke. How very un-Texan, all around.

Speaking of un-Texan, contrary to this Kinkyism....

"I love Texas," says Friedman. "I don't like what's happened to her. I don't like being last in all the good things and first in all the bad."

... Texas is on the rise as a great place to live, work, and play, which explains why Texas is absorbing so many folks from other states, why Texas' economy is outperforming the strong national economy, why Walker, Texas Ranger is such a good show, and so on.

To the extent that Texas lags in certain national indicators (like worst per capita this or worst per capita that), it is largely a function of demographics, namely Texas' substantial rural population plus recent immigrant population. Everyone who gets Texas, gets that. But that's for another post.

The fact of the matter is that Texans will re-elect Rick Perry on November 7, and Kinky may or may not make the next edition of Trivial Pursuit.

Despite having perhaps the best political marketing team in ages (for Texas, at least), Kinky Friedman is just a terrible candidate and would make an even worse Governor of Texas.

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

Racist Democrats

The right quote can be therapeutic, so tune in to WILLisms.com for quotational therapy on Monday and Friday.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 October 2006 11:17 PM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 360 -- Pelosi-nomics Versus Tax Cuts.

Nuancy Pelosi Cannot Become Speaker of the House-

Behold, charts, from Larry Kudlow (and he got them from Dan Clifton):

6.6 Million New Jobs:

Unemployment Rate Moves From 6.3% To 4.6%:

GDP Growth Far More Robust:

14.4 Trillion More Dollars In Household Net Worth:

Add on the DOW breaking new records just about every day, and we've got ourselves an economy that no reasonable human being can pooh pooh (click for larger version):

Of course, back in May of 2003, Nancy Pelosi declared:

“None of these tax cuts is affordable. None of them creates jobs, and they are not fair. All of them do damage to our long-term economic growth and contribute to the national deficit.” -House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); May 09, 2003

Jobs have been created, long-term economic growth has been strong, and the national deficit is now coming down rapidly.

Lower taxes-- and all the benefits America gains from them-- are at stake in two weeks. Don't sit this one out.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Bush's Tax Cuts For The Rich Were Actually Progressive.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 October 2006 07:53 PM · Comments (3)

Quote Of The Day

Via Instapundit by way of Mickey Kaus, the *adorable* Nancy Pelosi:

"The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."

Meaning, a vote for the Republicans is a vote to keep the gavel in the hands of the adults, apparently. Isn't that just what the Republicans have been saying all along?

Pelosi is saying here that the Democrats have given up the special interests - why didn't the New York Times put that on A1?

Runner up (also via Instapundit): "Gay Republicans are as bad as Nazi collaborators."

Hmm, I guess George W. Bush must have marched that six millionth gay person into the gas chambers recently to have earned this comparison.

Again, where is the New York Times on this?

Update: DANEgerus calls her 'Nuancy'. Brilliant!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 23 October 2006 01:05 PM · Comments (4)

Will There Be A Nutter Uprising If The Dems Lose?

~~Karl Rove~~, er, I mean The Corner, turned me on to this link, in which yet another completely unknown Huffington Post blogger waxes ignorantly about the state of the union, claiming to have had this conversation with Gore Vidal:

When I asked Gore Vidal at dinner why the White House seemed so serene and at ease about the vote, he replied that, this time around, the Bush-Cheney henchmen could simply call on martial law.

Lyn Davis Lear, whoever that is, goes on to say that "if for whatever reason we don't win back Congress in November the only real answer will be to take to the streets."

Take to the streets and do what, exactly? Protest? Or is this some kind of not-so-veiled threat by Lear that should November pass without the Democrats taking control of Congress, that democracy in this nation should be suspended and a violent uprising take place - and Democrats installed in Congress regardless of the election outcomes? I have enjoyed taunting leftists here and there in the blogosphere about their silly fears of a totalitarian takeover in this nation. If they really believed it, shouldn't they be taking up arms against the government to 'save' democracy? What, you guys aren't cowardly sheeple, are you? All talk and bluster, but in the end just signifying nothing? Isn't saving democracy from Bushco worth manning the barricades? Hmm, I guess you folks are all chickendoves after all. No guts.

I am highlighting this particular post because of its comments as well, which is a veritable catalog of the mental illnesses passing for political analysis among the left these days. Not nearly as plagued by profanity as a typical Kos entry, and a bit more literate than the first grade sentence fragments and smilies that pass for dialogue at the Democratic Underground, these comments are quite interesting in that they are coming from many people who, in real life, probably look and act much like normal folk. They might even have college degrees, work as accountants, or even manage retail outlets. And yet they believe this stuff - and when it doesn't happen, they are not deterred by any counterfactuals that mentally healthy people come to respect as milestones along the road of Reality. They are impervious, and they vote.

When the elections in November come and go, and Bush hasn't invoked martial law, suspended the Second Amendment, or had himself crowned king, what are the chances that Vidal and Lear, et al., will have their Emily Litella moment in public and admit they were less-than-correct? No one ever seems to call them on it - and when they do, the Vidals of the world have already lurched on to their next paranoid fixation or faux political outrage. They blog and they comment because this is a cry for help - they know deep inside that there is something wrong with their worldview, and this is why they will never take up arms to save the state from itself. There is still some small functioning part of their brain, that quietly tells them 'it is an odd fascism indeed that lets you blog, comment, own guns, assemble in peace and travel. Er, maybe it isn't fascism, after all?'

Posted by Ken McCracken · 21 October 2006 03:25 AM · Comments (16)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 359 -- Bush's Progressive Tax Cuts.

Tax Cuts For The Wha...?-

Bush tax relief = tax cuts for the rich?

Not!

Read 'em and weep, socialists:

In 2000, tax returns with an adjusted gross income over $200,000 earned 26.7 percent of all income, and they paid 47.3 percent of all income taxes. That’s a tax-to-income share ratio of 1.79. Four years later in 2004, their share of income had fallen from 26.7 to 25.5 percent, but their share of taxes had risen to 50.0 percent. That brought the ratio up from 1.79 to 1.96 in 2004.
The biggest winners were in the $25,000-to-$30,000 range. If the Bush tax cuts are the determining factor, then the logical conclusion is that the new 10-percent bracket and the doubled child credit caused dramatic reductions in tax payment. As a result, the ratio of tax share to income share was cut in half.

Tax cuts for the S.T.F.U.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Libertarians & Social Conservatives Should Get Along.

Posted by Will Franklin · 20 October 2006 05:42 PM · Comments (3)

Quotational Therapy: Part 107 -- Democrats & Their Racist Double Standards.

Michael Steele, Slavish-

Where are all the macaca-fretters now? Where are the weeks of persistent and breathless front page headlines in all the major national newspapers? When one of the top leaders of the Democratic caucus in Congress calls an African-American candidate a "token" and "slavish," and there is only marginal media attention about it, our media establishment is broken.

This week, at an event (attended by John Kerry) for Democrat Senate candidate Ben Cardin, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland declared that Michael Steele has made a "career of slavishly supportingly the Republican Party."

Oh. Okay.

Hoyer, who is now Minority Whip, would be poised to become one of the most powerful men in America, perhaps Majority Leader or even Speaker, if Democrats miraculously win the House of Representatives next month. In the past, Hoyer has had other things to say about Michael Steele:

"The problem with token candidates like Mr. Steele is that the voters see them for what they are."

Sure, Michael Steele is not running against Steny Hoyer, but Hoyer's comments are especially ironic, given the electoral hegemony his party holds over the African-American community.

What's more, Ben Cardin, whose poll numbers are profoundly weak in such an allegedly great environment for Democrats, attacked Michael Steele for being offended:

...he also said Steele was trying to change the subject. "He's looking for every excuse he can to avoid talking about the issues," Cardin said.

All of this, from the same party that brought us Simple Sambo and throwing Oreo cookies at Steele.

This from the same Democratic Party whose high ranking members have called Michael Steele an "Uncle Tom" and worse.

This, added on to the folks at Chuck Schumer's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who fraudulently and illegally obtained Michael Steele's credit report.

Time and time again, Michael Steele has been subjected to vicious race-based attacks that would each absolutely be much bigger news if his name had a 'D' next to it. Imagine if wonderful, wonderful Barack Obama had been subject to some of this sort of stuff. We would never hear the end of it.

The message from Democrats, up and down the line, is that if you are black and you know what's good for you, you had better not wander over to the Party of Lincoln.

The fact of the matter is that Michael Steele is no token. He'll be an immediate star in the Senate. Fortunately, Michael Steele is performing fantastically well. He is a better human being, and a superior candidate, than Ben Cardin. Unfortunately, though, Michael Steele is running in a state where John Kerry beat President Bush by 13%, so he's got his work cut out for him.

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

Ben Bernanke

The right quote can be therapeutic, so tune in to WILLisms.com for quotational therapy on Monday and Friday.

Posted by Will Franklin · 20 October 2006 05:09 PM · Comments (1)

Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Sixty-Three -- Lost Time, Growing Shortfall.

That's why WILLisms.com offers a chart or graph, every Thursday, pertinent to Social Security reform.

This week's topic:

$600 Billion Additional Shortfall.

Over the next 75 years, the shortfall in Social Security will be 4.6 trillion dollars, up 600 billion dollars from last year. All this, according to the 2006 Trustees Report.

Just to visualize the shortfall in graph form, witness the following, adapted from the most recent Social Security Trustees Report (.pdf):

The total "ad infinitum" (not really infinity, just the very long term) shortfall, meanwhile, is now 13.4 trillion dollars, up from 10.5 trillion dollars in the 2003 report. Most of this increase is based entirely on lost time.

All of these figures are current dollar figures.

What this proves is that we desperately need to fix Social Security, before we waste any more time letting the problem fester. Social Security currently consumes 4.3% of America's GDP; in 2030, it will consume 6.2%. That's substantial, and this proves that failing to reform Social Security until the "last minute" is not an option without negative externalities. Secondly, we can-- at present-- fix Social Security without terrible economic pain; indeed, protected personal Social Security accounts in a modernized system would provide returns far greater than workers receive today, all while making the system self-sustaining and solvent.

It's time for reform.

The clock is still ticking:

Tune into WILLisms.com each Thursday for more important graphical data supporting Social Security reform.

Posted by Will Franklin · 19 October 2006 06:58 PM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 358 -- Religion & Civic Engagement.

The GOP Coalition: A Great Team-

In recent years, there's been quite a bit of discussion about the allegedly growing rift between libertarians and social conservatives within the Republican electoral coalition. Pundits and authors, often times libertarians themselves, argue that the two groups are incompatible. Indeed, Ryan Sager's The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party, which argues that libertarian (Western) flavored conservatives need to begin rejecting social (Southern) flavored conservativism, has received quite a bit of attention over the past few months.

That's nice and all, but where is all the discussion-- and where are all the books-- about the sloppily cobbled together Democratic Party electoral coalition, which is far more tenuous and incompatible?

The Republican electoral coalition is a great fit; libertarians and social conservatives can and do complement each other nicely. Ultimately, any discussion of religious conservative "fascist" Ayatollahism within the Republican Party is far overblown.

The fact of the matter is that religious Americans are walking the walk when it comes to the sort of civic engagement necessary for small government. Indeed, religious folks are more likely than secular folks to donate to charity (91% versus 66%), and more likely to volunteer (67% versus 44%):

Religious individuals are also more likely than secular individuals to perform informal charitable acts, give to poverty-relief organizations, and volunteer for social service.

Many social conservatives just want the government to leave them alone (which is why libertarians and social conservatives usually get along so nicely), and they are providing the prerequisites for chopping away at the size of government. Many social conservatives want the government to let them homeschool their kids, or send their kids to private school. Many social conservatives just want their hunting rifles left alone. Social conservatives, on dozens of individual issues, have more in common with "pure" libertarians than many religiophobic people are willing to admit. The result of the libertarian-social conservative marriage is that the two sides moderate the Republican Party away from unelectable dogmatism, in any direction.

Ultimately, though, I'd be willing to bet that there is a lot more overlap between the two categories than many people are willing to admit. Americans are pragmatic like that. I, for one, identify with both "factions" and don't see a whole lot of philosophical or ideological incoherence between the two allegedly feuding sides.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Debunking Economic Pessimism.

Posted by Will Franklin · 19 October 2006 06:25 PM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 357 -- The Underrated American Economy.

America Remains A Nation Of Upward Mobility-

Over the past ten or so years, our economy has experienced immense productivity gains. While some people fret about productivity increases leading to machines taking away human American jobs, the reality is that our productivity gains tend to boost our national standard of living. Indeed, productivity and compensation track remarkably closely together:

Sometimes the positive consequences of productivity growth do not manifest themselves in the immediate short term, but give it a little time and compensation will catch up.

That's where we are now. The catch up phase. Productivity has exploded in recent years, and worker pay/benefits are now rising to match that growth.

This good news phenomenon is putting to bed one of the last remaining arguments the nay-sayers have been able to use to pooh pooh the American economy.

Even better, America's growing prosperity is benefiting everyone, not merely the wealthy. In fact, America's economic prosperity is changing the very definition of wealthy:

Between 1979 and 2004, the proportion of American households with inflation-adjusted incomes below $75,000 fell by 10.1 percentage points, with the largest drop coming in the number of households earning less than $35,000. The proportion of those earning more than $75,000 rose by the same amount, with most of the gain coming from an increase in the proportion of households earning more than $100,000 per year. Far from benefiting only a fortunate few, America’s economic engine has raised standards of living for tens of millions of Americans.

In other words, the very concept of "the rich" is becoming obsolete, as more average, every day Americans now find themselves in that category.

For more great news about our underrated economy, complete with many more charts and graphs, see the research found here: "Shared Prosperity: Debunking Pessimistic Claims About Wages, Profits, and Wealth."

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: State Tax Revenues Are Up.

Posted by Will Franklin · 18 October 2006 05:14 PM · Comments (1)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 75

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

Here is the actual caption:

Participants perform during the second World Traditional Wushu Festival in Zhengzhou, central China's Henan province October 17, 2006. 1913 contenders from 66 countries and regions were to compete in four traditional Wushu events during the five-day festival starting on Octorber 14, local media reported.

Sounds innocent enough . . . but I think it's not the complete story. Give us the full caption.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, October 24. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at mccracken.ken@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

lil'kim.jpg

** Sorry about all the SPAM that showed up in last week's contest - I blame Kim Jong-Il and his regime. I will try to be more diligent in fighting the forces of evil in the future, dear entrants.

Winners from last week: 1. Rodney Dill:

The laugh track always went wild whenever Beloved Leader said Nucrear Proriferation.

2. DANEgerus:

Reporting for duty!

3. Sgt.Fluffy:

Great Leader Pokemon is a big hit with all the North Korean Kids.

Honorable Mention #1 Zsa Zsa:

Hello, Mr Bond. Enjoying your stay?...

Honorable Mention #2 Terry_Jim:

Word up, South Korea!
High five me, Seoul brothers!

Honorable Mention #3 elliot:

Ha Ha, I swear it wasn't a real bomb. You all have just been 'Punk'd'

Captioning is better than a stick in the eye. Enter today!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 18 October 2006 01:26 PM · Comments (22)

Iran Puts Brakes On Female Racing Champ

One hopes that the babe theory of political movements is still kicking, and that Laleh Seddigh will be in pole position when the revolution hits Iran.

Is she gorgeous or what?

She became Iran's car rally champ, but has now been barred from racing because the idea of a female actually being able to beat men at something as testosterone-driven as auto racing apparently endangers Iranian masculinity. Islam is not the problem here according to Seddigh, because a cleric issued a fatwa stating that there is nothing in Islam preventing a woman from racing against men if Islamic dress code is observed. Well, she looks very well covered up to me.

My advice? Come to America, baby! I don't think we can expect the same state of undress from her as Danica Patrick, but she sure could be a hit.

Thanks to Gateway Pundit, who has a talent for digging up these kinds of stories.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 17 October 2006 11:08 PM · Comments (4)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 356 -- State Tax Revenues Are Up.

More Evidence Of Economic Strength-

State tax revenues are up again. The Rockefeller Institute, a few weeks ago, reported "broad strength" in tax revenue growth (.pdf):

*State tax revenue totaled $183.7 billion in the April-June 2006 quarter, up 9.9 percent from the same period in 2005.
* After adjusting for inflation and legislated tax changes, growth was 4.1 percent, the fastest real adjusted growth since the second quarter of 2005.

*Nominal revenue growth among the regions generally followed a familiar pattern: strongest in the Rocky Mountain states (21.9 percent) and Southwest (16.1 percent), and weakest in the Great Lakes (4.3 percent).

* National employment growth was 1.4 percent this quarter versus one
year ago, with the strongest growth continuing to be in the western regions and the weakest in the Great Lakes and New England states.

Taking the ten best and worst state tax climates, the revenue growth comparison looks like this:

1. Wyoming: 1.5%
2. South Dakota 8.1%
3. Alaska: 24%
4. Nevada 6.2%
5. Florida 2.2%
6. Texas 13.7%
7. New Hampshire 8.5%
8. Montana 43.9%
9. Delaware 9.7%
10. Oregon 21.2%

Average: 13.9% revenue growth, April-June 2005 to April-June 2006.

41. Minnesota 10%
42. Maine 15.4%
43. Iowa 7.5%
44. Nebraska 11.9%
45. California 14.1%
46. Vermont 14.1%
47. New York 11.6%
48. New Jersey 5.8%
49. Ohio -0.8%
50. Rhode Island 7.7%

Average: 8.99% revenue growth, April-June 2005 to April-June 2006.

Shouldn't the high tax states, the ones with income taxes and the rest, be destroying the low tax states (often without any income taxes whatsoever) in tax revenue growth during this period?

And what about employment growth?

1. Wyoming: 3.6%
2. South Dakota 2.4%
3. Alaska: 1.5%
4. Nevada 5.1%
5. Florida 3.2%
6. Texas 2.6%
7. New Hampshire 1.1%
8. Montana 2.1%
9. Delaware 1.6%
10. Oregon 3.6%

Average: 2.68% employment growth.

41. Minnesota 1.9%
42. Maine 0.2%
43. Iowa 1.7%
44. Nebraska 1.7%
45. California 1.5%
46. Vermont 0.6%
47. New York 0.8%
48. New Jersey 0.9%
49. Ohio 0.6%
50. Rhode Island 0.5%

Average: 1.04% employment growth.

Policies matter. High taxes harm economies, all without raising much additional revenue for governments. Low taxes benefit economies.

So here's what we can learn from this information:

A. The national economy is strong. Strong state tax revenue growth is yet another indicator of that strength.

B. Some state economies are stronger than others. States with lower taxes are adding more jobs, faster, than states with higher taxes.

C. States with higher taxes did not really see their government coffers fill any faster than states with lower taxes.

To break it down into even more basic terms, high taxes = bad; low taxes = good. The evidence, already overwhelming and obvious, continues to accumulate.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Tax Policy Matters.

Posted by Will Franklin · 17 October 2006 07:34 PM · Comments (0)

Twilight Zone Economics.

Forty-six years ago, almost to the day, an episode of The Twilight Zone, "The Man in the Bottle," aired on television. This past week, it aired again on the SciFi network and was captured by my TiVo.

The episode is a basic "genie in a bottle" premise, where an indebted pawnbroker-- out of pity-- buys a worthless wine bottle from a desperate old lady for a dollar, then discovers a wish-granting genie within. Somewhat predictably, the wishes make him worse rather than better off, and he ends up having to use his fourth and final wish to make it all go back to normal.

The second wish was a wish for a million dollars. Cash. On the floor of the shop.

Granted.

The pawnbroker then eagerly gives away nearly 60,000 dollars to individuals, one after another, including neighbors, a priest, friends, and such, before planning to travel extensively with his wife.

Suddenly, an IRS agent enters his shop, calculates the tax burden on the million dollars, and bursts the pawnbroker's gleeful bubble. The tax bill was somewhere around $910,000, plus 30 thousand more for state and local taxes.

The pawnbroker counts his remaining cash. Having already given away tens of thousands, the remaining money is barely enough to cover the $940K tax bill, with just five dollars left over.

This episode aired in early October of 1960, just under a month before John Fitzgerald Kennedy-- a Democrat, no less-- was elected.

Shortly after taking office, JFK cut the top marginal tax rate down from more than 90% to 70%. On cutting taxes, Kennedy noted:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Jack Kennedy cut taxes, and tax revenues did not fall. Oh, no. The economy flourished and tax revenues climbed 62% over the course of the following seven years, from $94 billion to $153 billion.

In a recent conversation with a politically confused 20-something, I brought up the fact that Ronald Reagan cut the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to around 50%. And that thanks to Republicans in more recent years, the top marginal rate is half of what it was when Reagan took office. If Democrats had their way, I asserted, we'd see rates for "the rich" up in that range in a hurry.

She was incredulous.

She just plain didn't believe that the top marginal income tax rate was ever 70%. So I told her that not only was there a 70% tax rate, there was actually a 90+ percent tax rate at one point in our nation's history. In our parents' lifetimes, even, not that long ago. She thought I was just exaggerating to prove a point.

Wrong.

It really happened. It was a nightmarish, Twilight Zone-worthy part of our economic history, but it definitely happened. And although it's somewhat cliche to say this, those who fail to understand the lessons of history-- even recent history, for Pete's sake-- are destined to repeat some of history's worst mistakes.

Listen up, folks.

Democrats can't win either chamber of Congress this year, because they would most certainly allow President Bush's remarkably successful tax cuts to expire. Bush simply can't veto an expiration of tax relief. If Democrats control the House and let tax relief expire, it expires. Period.

Meanwhile, if we forget or reject the wisdom of John F. Kennedy on taxes, we're missing out on an opportunity to enhance prosperity for all, improving standards of living across the board, boosting national security, and delaying for a bit some of the demographic timebombs (like Social Security) headed our way.

Make no mistake, if Democrats were to hypothetically wind up controlling the legislative and executive branches, they would drastically raise taxes. If Democrats somehow wind up with even one camera of our bicameral Congress, every single American-- especially the middle class-- can expect a higher tax burden.

Imagine that it's April of 2007. Just hypothetically. Look down at your tax statement. Do you really want it to be substantially higher-- maybe to the tune of thousands of dollars higher-- than it was in April of 2006?

Of course not. This election is about taxes and terrorism. On both issues, Democrats want to take us "into another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey into a not-so-wonderous land of imagination. Next stop, The Twilight Zone."

Posted by Will Franklin · 17 October 2006 12:30 AM · Comments (12)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 355 -- Best & Worst States For Taxes.

Policies Matter-

If there's one thing you should take from reading this blog, it's that ideas matter. In domestic public policy, the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is found on the issue of taxes. Democrats almost unanimously want higher taxes. Republicans, by and large, want lower taxes. These are idea differences that manifest themselves in public policy, and these manifestations can then be observed at the state-by-state level.

Indeed, state tax policy is not arbitrary, and it's not created equal.

The ten best states in the Tax Foundation’s 2007 State Business Tax Climate Index are as follows:

1. Wyoming
2. South Dakota
3. Alaska
4. Nevada
5. Florida
6. Texas
7. New Hampshire
8. Montana
9. Delaware
10. Oregon

The ten worst states in the Tax Foundation’s 2007 State Business Tax Climate Index are:

41. Minnesota
42. Maine
43. Iowa
44. Nebraska
45. California
46. Vermont
47. New York
48. New Jersey
49. Ohio
50. Rhode Island

The red/blue dichotomy (based on 2004 Bush/Kerry) is pretty clear, without a lot of explanation. To quibble with the color system, New Hampshire and Iowa are more purple than anything (NH went for Bush in 2000; Iowa went for Gore in 2000), while Nebraska's legislature is non-partisan and unicameral. One could probably examine state legislatures and governorships to create a better red/blue/purple dynamic, but that's for another post.

Ultimately, though, it's the ideas and policies-- and the differences between and among the states-- that matter.

These differences have produced very real outcomes:

...between 2000 and 2005, income in the top 10 states in the 2007 Index grew 44 percent faster than in the bottom 10 states. Employment in the top 10 states grew 115 percent faster, output 52 percent faster and population 164 percent faster.

Think about that. States with lower taxes performed better than states with higher taxes. People and businesses wanted to move to low tax states from high tax states. More jobs-- and more higher paying ones-- were created in the low tax states than in the high tax states. How "duh" is all of that?

What we're seeing here is fifty economic laboratories competing against one another. Policies, not surprisingly for those of us who favor good policies, make a difference in economic outcomes.

Good polices = good outcomes. Poor policies = poor outcomes.

Tax competition is good. Low taxes are the way to "win" that competition. Why more states-- especially struggling ones-- don't already grasp this, given the growing profusion of empirical evidence, is increasingly mindboggling.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: School Choice Is Worth A Try.

Posted by Will Franklin · 16 October 2006 03:53 PM · Comments (1)

Quotational Therapy: Part 106 -- The Fed Chair Wants Social Security Reform.

Bernanke, On Entitlement Reform-

Ben Bernanke explains the urgent necessity of entitlement reform in this country:

...the coming demographic transition will have a major impact on the federal budget, beginning not so very far in the future and continuing for many decades. Although demographic change will affect many aspects of the government’s budget, the most dramatic effects will be seen in the Social Security