Chart of the Day: Republicans responsible for a more progressive income tax

Using a chart from the Tax Foundation showing an increased tax burden on top income earners, John C. Goodman, founder of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis, notes that the tax policies of George W. Bush created a more progressive income tax system.

More Progressive Income Tax

Are Republicans really anti-government?

Opponents to Barack Obama’s agenda are often casts as anti-government extremists. The president himself has taken shots at his Republican critics, who he says “[believe] that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges.”

Over at Reason, Matt Welch picks apart this rhetoric:

Keep in mind, the president is talking specifically here not about libertarian freakazoids who want to privatize their own grandmothers, but about governing Republicans. You know, the gang who, “during the first half of 2001 and all of the 2003-07 period maintained full control of both the White House and Congress,” during which time they “increased total spending by more than 20 percent, an average of 5 percent a year,” jacking up “both nondefense spending and mandatory programs enormously.” How in the hell can you spend so much money on “more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations”? Which one of those two answers (the only ones the GOP has, remember) best describes No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, or Medicare Part D? If Bush was really all about “fewer rules for corporations,” how was it that he managed to be “the biggest regulator since Nixon”? (And do click on those links, they are filled with things like facts and numbers.)

So, if Republicans are a big-government party, and believe me, they are. What does that make Barack Obama and Democrats?

Gallup: Support for Republicans jumps on generic congressional ballot

Gallup shows that support for Republicans has suddenly jumped in the generic ballot for Congress:

Gallup tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences shows Republicans moving back ahead of Democrats, 49% to 43%, by two points their largest lead of the campaign to date. Registered voters’ preferences had been closely divided for the last several weeks.
Two structural changes in the data help explain the shift. First, while the percentage of registered voters identifying as Republicans has been consistent over the past several weeks, during the last week there was a decline in the percentage of voters identifying as Democrats and an increase in independent identifiers.

That is consistent with the type of movement in party identification Gallup has observed in recent months: a narrowing of the party gap caused mostly by movement away from the Democratic Party, with no appreciable gain in the percentage of Republican identifiers.

Second, while the preferences of Republican and Democratic registered voters have largely been stable in recent weeks, the now-larger group of independent registered voters has shifted more toward Republicans in its voting preferences.

Here is a look over the last few months:

Gallup survey

Any predictions on how many seats Republicans will gain? I say 25 to 30. I just don’t see them taking control of either chamber of Congress.

Republicans v. The First Amendment

Dan Kennedy at The Guardian takes a look at the extent to which the current front runners for the 2012 Republican nomination have adopted a view of America that is radically at odds with the First Amendment:

If you’re part of secular America – that is, if you’re an atheist, an agnostic, a religious liberal or even a mainstream believer who thinks religion should be kept out of politics and vice-versa – then you should be very afraid of what the Republican party has in store for you in 2012.


f you don’t believe me, let’s start with Tim Pawlenty, unassuming governor of Minnesota in his day job, fire-breathing Christian warrior and aspiring presidential candidate in his spare time.

“I want to share with you four ideas that I think should carry us forward,” Pawlenty said on Friday at the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee, or CPAC. After invoking “basic constitutional principle and basic common sense,” he continued:

“The first one is this: God’s in charge. God is in charge … In the Declaration of Independence it says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. It doesn’t say we’re endowed by Washington, DC, or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state government. It’s by our creator that we are given these rights.”

Never mind Pawlenty’s fundamental and no doubt deliberate misreading of the founders’ intent. (Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, is well-known for having cut up a Bible to remove all supernatural references to Jesus.) How, in practice, does Pawlenty envision “God’s in charge” as a governing principle?

Excellent question, but Pawlenty’s not alone, there’s also Mitt Romney:

The GOP’s Shameful Rant Against Gays In The Military On The House Floor

The highlights lowlights from last night’s floor debate:

Republicans Solicit Ideas From The Public, Hilarity Ensues

A few days ago the House Republicans opened a web site called America Speaking Out designed to be yet another one of those opportunities to plow the wisdom of the vast unwashed.

Well, it didn’t work out so well:

“End Child Labor Laws,” suggests one helpful participant. “We coddle children too much. They need to spend their youth in the factories.”

“How about if Congress actually do thier job and VET or Usurper in Chief, Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen in any way,” recommends another. “That fake so called birth certificate is useless.”

“A ‘teacher’ told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish!” a third complains. “And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story.”


“Build a castle-style wall along the border, there is plenty of stone laying around about there.” That was in the “national security” section of the new site.

“Legalize Marijuana, cause, like, alcohol is legal. Man. Also.” That was in the “traditional values” section.

“I say, repeal all the amendments to the Constitution.” (“American prosperity” section.)

“Don’t let the illegals run out of Arizona and hide… . I think that we should do something to identify them in case they try to come back over. Like maybe tattoo a big scarlet ‘I’ on their chests — for ‘illegal’!!!” (Filed under “job creation.”)

A few more that I noticed:

GOP Losing Hispanic Support Since Passage Of Arizona Law

Well, this isn’t at all surprising:

There’s no doubt that the new Arizona immigration law is popular nationally, but that still doesn’t mean the issue’s going to work to the GOP’s advantage this fall.

Hispanics in the Mountain West are leaning much more strongly toward the Democrats since the Arizona law was passed. The big question then becomes whether there are white voters who are going to go Republican this fall who wouldn’t have if that bill hadn’t been passed. We don’t see any evidence of that happening yet- Bennet and Glassman are both doing better with white voters than they were before as well, although not to the same degree that they’ve improved with Hispanics.

A majority of Americans may support the bill but it could still end up working to Democrats’ benefit this fall if most of the voters who care enough about it for it be a determining factor in how they vote- or whether they vote- go in their direction.

Proposition 187 set Republicans in California back for more than a decade. This Arizona law could do the same thing in other parts of the Southwest.

Ron Paul At Southern Republican Leadership Conference

Here’s Ron Paul’s full speech yesterday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference:

Maybe Sarah Palin Can Win The 2012 GOP Nomination

One blogger details how it could happen, quite plausibly:

National polling for the Republican nomination has consistently shown Palin in a roughly three-way tie  with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.  However:

Republicans look to the Supreme Court for help with ObamaCare

The Hill notes that Republicans are looking to the Supreme Court to stop ObamaCare if all other avenues fail:

Republicans admit it will be difficult for Congress to repeal the legislation in the next few years, but they see a potential ally in the Supreme Court.

“It’s very probable that a number of provisions in this monstrosity violate constitutional principles,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I think there will be a lot of ongoing litigation for years to come.”

Sessions said the provision in the law that requires individuals to buy insurance or face a penalty raises “very serious constitutional questions.”

This is probably a misplaced hope. Let’s face it, the Supreme Court is not exactly a beacon of liberty, even in recent years with less of a progressive presence. Yes, there have been some rulings that restored basic constitutional principles, such as District of Columbia v. Heller, Citizens United v. FEC and Boumediene v. Bush. However, there is a much longer history, specifically in the last 80 years, where the Court has undermined core constitutional principles.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.