ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

400 richest Americans’ incomes doubled under Bush.

Bloomberg reports that, according to recently released IRS data, “the average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million.” Much of their income came from capital gains resulting from the Bush tax cuts:

The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to ex-President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.

Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans’ adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data.

The Wonk Room has noted how “the conservative approach of putting big corporations and the very wealthy ahead of the middle class has failed to create prosperity that can be shared by all Americans.”

Media

Glenn Beck’s HLN Replacement Allready Beating Him in the Ratings

It’s almost as if the public’s appetite for right-wing sociopaths has limits:

Jane Velez-Mitchell, the HLN host who replaced Glenn Beck when he jumped ship for Fox News, is already topping Beck’s ratings from when he held the time slot.

In its third full month on the air, “Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell” posted HLN’s largest 7PM audience since it launched its primetime block in February 2005. For January 2009, “Issues” averaged 531,000 total viewers and 221,000 Adults 25-54, a 50% increase in total viewers and a 46% increase in the demo over Beck’s January 2008 ratings.

I have this crazy idea that if liberals were allowed on television outside of a two-hour block on MSNBC that some people might watch it.

Yglesias

Policy Solipsism: Broadband Policy Edition

john_culberson_1.jpg

If you ask me, one of the most disturbing trends in American public discourse is the incredibly provincialism and solipsism of a lot of our policy debate. The idea that other countries are doing better than we are in various ways is totally off the radar. Instead, when foreign countries are mentioned at all you get stuff like this:

“We have fundamental philosophical differences. We’re in an era of unfunded liabilities,” said John Culberson , R-Texas. “This stimulus is really a Trojan horse. It’s part of a plan that would turn the United States into France.”

France! A country so impoverished that its citizens are fleeing in droves, washing up on our shores desperate to experience the good life as it’s lived in suburban Houston.

I was reminded of that by this post from Tim Lee pointing out that broadband internet access in the United States is a lot better and cheaper than it was nine years ago so he “can’t get too upset about the possibility that in 2018 Americans might be limping along with 2 gbps broadband connections while the average Japanese family has a 20 gbps connection.” I, for one, am pretty upset about that possibility. The United States isn’t a poor country dealing with some objective shortfall of national resources. And yet across a whole variety of dimensions—from broadband speed to train quality to the cleanliness of streets to life expectancy to the crime rate—we fall far short of standards that are reached elsewhere. What we do have, on the other hand, is the richest multi-millionaires in the world. And an awful lot of people’s first instinct is to try to explain these things away or explain why it would be impossible to bring some of these quality of life features to the United States.

It seems to me people would do better to get more upset.

Politics

Senate Republicans Gearing Up To Filibuster Recovery Package Despite Promises To The Contrary

Last night on NPR’s All Things Considered, host Robert Siegel asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) about the prospects of a Republican filibuster of the Senate’s version of the economic recovery package. Grassley responded that Republicans would indeed filibuster the package, requiring the bill to garner a 60-vote majority for passage:

SIEGEL: By the way, Senator, we always just assume that anything in the Senate requires 60 votes because there will be a filibuster threat. Is that right? Does this bill need 60 votes to pass?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

SIEGAL: It does?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

Listen here:

Grassley’s promise of a filibuster is surprising given the fact that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly said that Republicans “would not filibuster against the stimulus package.” He remarked earlier this month, “I don’t think this measure’s going to have any problem getting over 60 votes.”

But now, as Grassley indicated last night, McConnell may not be able to keep his word as conservative opposition to the package grows.

Despite the fact that the Senate version of the recovery package is already loaded up with a significant number of provisions sought by conservative Republicans and the pro-business lobby, a number of senators are working with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to coordinate opposition to the package, and as CNS News reports today, “a filibuster is a possible part of that plan“:

“I think its going to take 60 votes to pass the bill,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told CNSNews.com, indicating the likelihood of a filibuster.

“Whatever we can do, whether offering amendments, whether voting against the bill because it could not be amended, or whatever parliamentary possibilities are in front of us we will explore because this isn’t about playing the game,” Sen. Kyl told CNSNews.com when asked whether he would filibuster the bill or encourage his colleagues to do so. [...]

“I would be a part of it,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said when CNSNews.com asked him if he personally would participate in a filibuster.

Security

Livni Promises To ‘Maintain Maximum Settlers’

tzipi-bibi.jpgTzipi Livni and Binyamin Netanyahu, partners for peace:

Likud Party Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said he would not be bound by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s commitments to evacuate West Bank settlements and withdraw from the territories.

I will not keep Olmert’s commitments to withdraw and I won’t evacuate settlements. Those understandings are invalid and unimportant,” Netanyahu said.[...]

After Netanyahu and senior Likud officials blasted Olmert and Livni’s “promises” and accused Livni of agreeing to divide Jerusalem, she was forced to disassociate herself from the understandings.

“I will advance only an agreement that represents our interests. Maintaining maximum settlers and places that we hold dear such as Jerusalem — not a single refugee will enter,” Livni said. [...]

[Netanyahu] said he would invite Kadima and all the Zionist parties to join his coalition providing they agree to his guidelines — no division of Jerusalem, no return to 1967 borders.

When leaders of competing Palestinian factions make maximalist claims to appeal to hardline constituencies, it’s extremism. But when Israeli leaders do it, it’s politics. If the goal of the U.S. and Israel is to strengthen Palestinian moderates like Abu Mazen against Hamas — and people keep telling me that’s the goal — it’s hard to see how this helps.

Politics

Wallace: It’s ‘pretty funny’ that ‘feminists are very angry’ about Armey’s sexist comments.

wallace.jpgEarlier this week, former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey set off a firestorm when he responded to an argument by Salon.com editor Joan Walsh with the sexist comment, “I’m so damn glad that you can never be my wife.” Appearing on Mike Gallagher’s radio show today, Fox News host Chris Wallace said that it’s “pretty funny” that “feminists” are now “very angry” over what Armey said. “It’s hysterical,” replied Gallagher:

GALLAGHER: Now, now, feminists are very angry that he said, “I’m glad you couldn’t be my wife.” I mean…

WALLACE: It’s pretty funny actually.

GALLAGHER: It’s hysterical. Do you know how many times a week I say, “thank God I don’t have to wake up next to her.” I mean some of these callers, these shrews that call.

Listen here:

Yglesias

Do Critics of Israeli Policy Whine Too Much?

When people criticize Israeli policy, or U.S. policy toward Israel, there’s an organized network of voices in the media and elsewhere who try to smear them as motivated by anti-semitism. The point of these tactics is not just to try to win an argument, but to actually frighten people who might otherwise be inclined to make such criticisms out of offering them. This smear gang used to be extremely effective across the board, but in recent years there’s been a lot of decline in its efficacy as regards the punditsphere, though it still succeeds in generating near-uniformity in the states views of elected officials and politicians.

whine_1.jpg

Recently, Jon Chait’s been on a somewhat weird quest to simultaneously engage in some of this smearing while also saying that people should stop complaining about the smearing because it’s not as effective as it used to be. I haven’t really wanted to wade into the controversy surrounding his writing on this subject even though my name’s been kicked around a lot in the course of the controversy, because honestly I find the whole thing to be painfully “meta.” I’d much rather discuss what policy steps the United States ought to take in the region. But I basically endorse everything Eric Alterman has to say on the subject.

CORRECTION: To accuse Chait of “smearing” anyone here is much too strong. The New Republic publishes a lot of smear-oriented commentary on Israel’s critics, but Chait’s article and his writing on this subject more generally is much more restrained—I just disagree with his point of view and sense of what’s important in this debate.

Economy

Schumer To Introduce Mass Transit Boost To Stimulus

schumer.jpgAccording to TPMDC, “the fight to add mass transit money to the stimulus bill is far from over“:

Senate Democratic Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer (NY) just mentioned on a conference call with reporters that he’ll be introducing a version of Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) amendment to add $3 billion in public transportation cash to the economic recovery pot.

While this would be a solid addition to the stimulus — bringing the total amount dedicated to transit to more than $15 billion — there would still be only “half as much money for mass transit as for highways.” This is a terrible ratio, as we’ve noted at The Wonk Room before.

The stimulus needs to provide a boost to the economy, but not at the expense of creating urban sprawl and encouraging more gas-guzzling driving habits. A concurrent goal to economic stimulus is working towards a green economy, and thus, as Matthew Yglesias wrote, “insofar as some of the highway projects envisioned in the bill can’t fit within the two-year stimulus window, we ought to drop the projects.”

Politics

African-American Michael Steele Takes Over Fractured GOP: Will He Join In As A Limbaugh Foot Soldier?

Today, Republican National Committee (RNC) delegates chose former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele as their new chairman. Steele is the first African-American to lead the party, which continues to struggle with diversity problems.

The choice of Steele represents a considerable failure for the social conservatives who dominated during the era of Tom DeLay and George W. Bush. These far right wingers — including Phyllis Schlafly, Tony Perkins, Richard Viguerie, and Ed Meese — all backed Kenneth Blackwell, who had one of the poorest showings in the election. The results after six rounds of ballots:

rncrace.jpg

Similarly, on Twitter, Ana Marie Cox observed, “Strong showing for Steele –widely considered a ‘moderate’ — in #rncchair suggests that Rs at least considering abandoning Palinism,” which she defined as, “[a]ggressive know-nothingism, pride in ignorance.” “It’s a diverse party. We’re tired of being labeled as white supremacists,” said a committee member from Rhode Island.

Other losers in this race were Katon Dawson — who had been a member of a South Carolina whites-only country club — and Chip Saltsman — who proudly promoted the “Barack the Magic Negro” song.

It’s unclear, however, how much influence Steele will actually have in influencing Republican lawmakers who are proud to be Rush Limbaugh’s ditto heads. Last month, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney told CNN that “the most powerful voices of the party are going to be elected officials in the Senate, in the House, and in governors’ offices.” Those powerful voices are still embracing the hate radio host — who has called Obama a “little black man-child” — as a spokesman for their movement.

If Steele — who once called Bush his “homeboy” — is serious about reaching out to people of color, will he condemn Limbaugh? Or will he join the ranks of his fellow ditto heads?

Update

In 2006, Limbaugh said he had a high level of “respect” for Steele. Robert Novak has also written that Steele could be a “black Rush Limbaugh.”


Update

,Judd Legum has some facts on Steele.
MoJo’s Jon Stein looks at Steele’s “hypocrisy” on Obama.


Update

,Picture of Limbaugh and Steele at Walter Reed in 2006:

media-spotlight03.jpg


Update

,In 2001, the Maryland Gazette reported that Michael Steele said, “Unless you’re gay, you could care less about gay rights. Unless you’re a homosexual or a lesbian, it’s not going to rise up on your radar screen.” [8/8/01]

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up