AP: In a move calculated to breathe life into the Republican party's 2006 mid-term election prospects Joshua Bolten, the new White House chief of staff, has informed President Bush he's being relieved of his position.
"The President told me no one was off limits and to root out incompetence and ineptitude wherever I could find it. He'll be missed for his sense of humor and 'aw shucks' persona but as to running the country he just wasn't getting the job done. We'll post the position in the cafeteria and see what happens."
...it is the GOP, and not Democrats who are worried about turnout this November. Why?...
Sounds good Steve, and I'd like believe it's true, but the RePigs really could not give a rats ass who turns out to vote. What they care about is who shoves money up their assholes, and how many Diebild, ES&S and Sequoia paperless, unauditable, non-verifiable vote counting machines they can get into the field. Beyond that, it's mostly window dressing. If the machine says its so, it must be so. Trust them, why would they lie?
Steve,
Gallup missed an option for it's poll question: "Already lost". I agree with the freeway blogger. It's been almost two years since the publication of the Abu Ghraib photos - April 28, 2004. And if wars are terrible means to achieve political ends, then our ends (whatever they may have been wished for initially) are completely destroyed. Sorry to be a downer on a nice spring day.
Posted by Greg in FL at April 17, 2006 01:01 PMPolls like that drive me absolutely batty.
Define "win".
There are no winners, errr scratch that. The people that have walked out the door with Tens of Billions of our tax dollars in their pockets have certainly won.
Posted by Simp at April 17, 2006 01:33 PMSteve, I rarely disagree with you, but you are completely misrepresenting the flat tax here. A true flat tax eliminates loopholes and most deductions for individuals and corporations. What we have now, by way of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, is not a flat tax "in essence" at all. It is a distorted and unfair system, as was the system before it and the one before that (meaning former iterations of the tax code). A flat tax like Forbes proposed would put the tax rate for everyone at a lower percentage than any bracket now existant, and by getting rid of deductions and loopholes, corporations and the rich would actually have to pay the tax, too, instead of creatively accounting their way out of it like they do now. Now, whether you think that kind of system is fair or not is one thing, but to say what we have now is in any way close to that is really distorting the flat tax concept beyond recognition.
Posted by John M at April 17, 2006 01:58 PMJohn makes a couple of good points, however. Even if a flat tax reduces everyones "percentage" it is still a very regressive tax. period.
Posted by Simp at April 17, 2006 02:57 PMJohn... Good points. But we're evolving to a flat tax via the alternative minimum tax anyways.
I was listening to a tax show today on the radio, and one caller said that he avoided the alternative minimum tax this year by not taking some deductions!
One interesting benchmark for the Democrats this year will be how Phil Angelides does in CA. He wants to raise taxes to the moon. The current top rate in CA is 9.3%, and if prop 82 passes, 11%. But ol' Phil wants to yank 'em up much higher than that, and put the money to (of course) education and whatever else. He's going on the same platform that Cruz Bustamonte went on against Arnold a few years back, so it'll be interestng if folks vote to hike taxes.
If they do vote yes to higher taxes with Phil, then it'll also be interesting to see how those 21,000 folks who pay most of the taxes in CA react to a higher tax rate. They could elect to take their salary in other ways than "income," or relocate to other states. Some estimates are that a higher tax rate in CA would cause tax revenues to decline because of those 21,000 folks deciding to make other decisions.
Should be interesting.
Posted by muckdog at April 17, 2006 03:35 PMVote against Rumsfeld at polls like this one at US News:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm
It is of the utmost importance that the generals have both hard and soft data supporting them in order to get the Bush Administration to stand down from attacking Iraq.
Posted by Podkopayeva at April 17, 2006 07:30 PM