The Talking Dog

April 4, 2006, More "restoring honor and integrity to the government"

Deputy press secretary for the Department of Not Doing Anything At All to Help in the Event of a Crisis Homeland Security Brian Doyle was indicted in Polk County, Florida and awaits extradition on charges that he attempted to seduce what he believed to be a 14-year old girl over the internet.

Obviously, he didn't have enough to do as deputy press secretary to Michael Chertoff's... department. We already had domestic policy advisor Claude Allen resign after shop-lifting charges, the Vice-President's chief of staff Scooter Libby, of course, resigned for Plamegate after indictment by the special prosecutor (who may not be done yet), and there are the whole panoply of charges swimming around the Abramoff scandal, some inextricably intertwined with the "retiring" Tom "Jesus" DeLay.

But as far as I recall, the one thing you could say about the crop of Bushies and their Republican allies, in contrast to Clinton, was that it was never about sex. (Don't ask me why that ever made a difference; the irritating combination of prurience and prudishness endemic in this country is a wonder to the rest of the world... and not in a good way.)

Well, guess what? This one is about sex. And the grossest kind of sex: icky sexual advances toward what Mr. Doyle believed to be a 14-year old girl (he is 55). I guess the Bush Administration will write him off as an isolated incident and a very minor player in the great scheme of things.

We'll try not to let this awful news dampen the good news that virtually all of the benefit of the '03 round of investment tax cuts went to taxpayers with incomes over $10 million per year... While Doyle may be a disgusting pervert (entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty... as if!)... at least the job of the President's (and the Republican Congress's) tax cuts ensuring that the rich don't pay taxes at rates any higher than poor people continues unabated.


here's what the rightwing nutjobs will say: yeah, well, cynthia mckinney. it's all they got right now.

Posted by rael at April 5, 2006 8:59 AM

And don't forget 'Cooter' Libby's bear-poking teen-pimping porn classic!

Posted by Kevin Hayden at April 5, 2006 7:35 PM

"... ensuring that the rich don't pay taxes at rates any higher than poor people continues unabated."

Ah... hate to chill your rant with reality, but the poor don't pay income taxes. Check the latest stats - only the top 50% of wage earners pay any income tax at all, and the top 2% of wage earners pay about a third of all income taxes. So, if there is a "tax cut", does it not seem logical that those who actually pay tax would benefit and that those who pay the most tax would benefit the most?

Now, I appreciate that this logic requires elementary math skills, so try to focus or call a friend for help ...

Posted by BeReal at April 6, 2006 12:09 AM

BeReal, I'm glad that you passed math. The problem with your Limbaugh logic is that you and me aren't considered poor, neither is most of America. Most people are having a tough time making ends meet. Those are the people that need help and I hate to say it, the tax cuts aren't so great on this side of the equation. I'm sorry if I feel that someone who makes $20 million a year doesn't need to get back a couple of extra million. Especially since it comes at the expense of the common good. Megadildos to you.

Posted by DoJo at April 6, 2006 12:38 AM

DoJo - The genius of our Constitution resides in its protection of individual property rights from your "feelings". Thank God for that because if it didn't, why would you or your ilk allow this hypothetical $20 million a year earner to keep any of what he earned? Shouldn't the "common good" dictate that the Government confiscate it all? Or would you, in your "generosity", allow him (or her) to "get back a couple million"? (By the way, exactly when did it become the role of Government to decide how much private property an individual may "keep"?)

Now, with respect to your other assertion, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that most Americans have a tough time making ends meet. I have a question: For such an American, what percentage of his or her annual income does federal, state, city, county, etc. confiscate for its various uses?My best estimate is 60 to 70%, considering both direct taxes - such as income, property and sales taxes - and indirect taxes, such as taxes paid by businesses and passed through to consumers in the price of goods purchased. If you were genuinely concerned about the struggles of these wage earners, you would be promoting getting Government off their backs.

But, I suspect that you care not a wit about the common good; instead, you see the tax system as a tool for taking out your envy and frustration on those more fortunate than you. And, for that, you should rightly feel sorry.

Posted by BeReal at April 6, 2006 11:02 AM

I see the tax system as a means of funding the government.

At only slightly higher marginal rates than we have now, with a negligible difference for over 90% of the taxpayers (who receive little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts) we were funding the expenses of our government, and indeed, had a surplus as recently as fiscal 2000.

Since then, we have made a shift in the tax system that provides very little if any benefit to most taxpayers, throws a fair number into the dreaded alternate minimum tax, and provides an extraordinary benefit to some taxpayers, and results in a humongous hole in national finances causing all-time record deficits, all with minimal stimulative economic effect (unemployment, for example, was slightly lower before these tax cuts came into effect). We could just as easily have raised spending and handed the same people a subsidy-- everyone over $10 million annual income... Oprah, Kenny Boy... here's a check for $500,000 of taxpayer money. The economics and legality would be the same; "tax cuts" just sound better politically, of course.

What, exactly, is your point? That not taxing the people who can most easily afford to be taxed (and borrowing to do it) is a good thing? That "big government" is good-- no... GREAT... when it has the "Republican" label on it?

Oh... our government
puts total federal, state and local tax levies at a combined 27% for the last year (2003) measured...

Posted by the talking dog at April 6, 2006 2:40 PM

Glad you asked. These are my points:

1. Just where do you get off suggesting whether or not an individual “really needs” what he has earned? How would you know? Who gave you the right to judge? And, anyway, why is it any of your business?

2. Your idea of “Tax Policy” based upon seizing the property of others (it’s always someone else’s property, isn’t it?) to gain personal or political favor for yourself (oh, and to satisfy your “sense of fairness”) is beyond arrogance.

3. Go back and carefully read the Constitution. The intended role of the Federal Government (Democrat or Republican) is not to further your sense of fairness and equality. So, you and your little friends want to play your social engineering games, fine. But do it at a local level where the grown ups can opt out by moving elsewhere.

4. If you are really interested in helping the poor, I’ve got a thought. Do what I do – stop contemplating the “social good” and start devoting your own time and resources to the effort. You will get back multiples of what you give.

Posted by BeReal at April 6, 2006 6:19 PM

Ah... never mind.

Posted by the talking dog at April 6, 2006 8:51 PM

Hey BeReal, you sound like a real asshole to me.

Posted by Steve Parkinson at April 8, 2006 11:23 AM