Another of RT's heroes has fallen
 

• Molly Ivins could have played in the league of the big boys. They invited her in, giving her a bureau chief job with the New York Times--which she wrote her way out of when she referred to a "community chicken-killing festival" in a small town as a "gang-pluck."

link

An unlucky veteran with friends in high places.
 

You giving that credit to Newt?

Maybe if I'd ever paid a 70% marginal tax rate I'd have more appreciation. As I've noted to my wife at more than one of her friends' weddings -- its easy to be patriotic (and conservative) if you're rich.

S_A_M

Dems gone wild
 

I can't imagine why this is a surprise to anyone.

Another of RT's heroes has fallen
 

The New York Times HR people are humorless lot.

Sounds like a good speech by Bush yesterday:

• President Bush acknowledged Wednesday that there is growing income inequality in the United States . . . .
  
  "The fact is that income inequality is real -- it's been rising for more than 25 years," Bush said in an address on Wall Street. "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education." . . .
  
  Bush aides did not deny that Bush was seeking to address Democratic concerns, but they said income inequality has been on the minds of senior administration officials such as Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who mentioned the subject in his first major address last spring, and chief economic adviser Edward Lazear.
  
  "It's something that obviously the administration has made note of," said presidential counselor Dan Bartlett. The president "understands that there are many Democrats who have spoken to this issue. It is an important time for the Congress and the American people to hear what he says," Bartlett said.
  
  Few economists would disagree that income inequality is real and getting worse. The gap between rich and poor has been growing wider since the 1970s. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the wealthiest 20 percent of households accounted for 45.4 percent of total U.S. income in 1979, but claimed 53.5 percent in 2004. Households in the bottom fifth dropped from 5.8 to 4.1 percent over the same period. . . .
  
  "The question is whether we respond to the income inequality we see with policies that help lift people up, or tear others down," Bush said. "The key to rising in this economy is skills -- and the government's job is to make sure we have an education system that delivers them."

WaPo

eta: Good piece on inequality here.

Another of RT's heroes has fallen
 

But could any of the "big boys" have made it to Molly's league? The only one I can think of who even comes close was Royko and he had Hizzoner Da Mare for inspiration.

This is, of course, the sort of article which gets accused of "liberal bias", because there are a significant number of economists who are hard at work fighting the bolded language above.

Another of RT's heroes has fallen
 

This is the best thing ever done in her honor. The Texas Observer has a page of rememberances from various people she's skewered over the years. The link for the Governor's comment says "Gov. Goodhair." The link from the President's says "Shrub," a nickname she coined.

And this is precisely why the income gap will contiue to grow.

I don't doubt it, but I also don't know why that's a bad thing.

"Significant"? I don't think so.

And if so, Cato wouldn't have to spend money to try to persuade people that there really is a controversy about it.

Well, the number may not be particularly significant, but when adjusted for the amount of noise they make and the play they get in, for example, the WSJ, they are significant. I don't think it makes them more correct (or, if you prefer, less wrong), but it does make them significant--it's not as if it's three guys in the basement offices of the Econ department at Liberty University disputing the growing gap. They're ideologues, not wackos (per se).

Unlike the deficit, which rapidly continues to shrink because of unanticipated tax receipts collected on the flood of cash released into the markets after the capital gains tax cut.

An unlucky veteran with friends in high places.
 

I never paid a 70% marginal rate either, but I know that they existed and would still exist but for Reagan.

As for the rich comment, the assumptions in it and the assumptions that liberals frequently make regarding class are amazing. If I am rich, which would be at the broadest characterization, that state has only occured since W came into office. the previous decades ranged from lower to lower/middle. I would tend to think that the foundations of my viewpoints were based in those first 30 or so years and derive as much from experiencing what not having economic means and working hard to get to a different level as they do from any current status.

Of course the liberals with their keen eyes for diversity, tolerance and non-bias would just classify patriotic americans as the evil jesus freak rich.

Another of RT's heroes has fallen
 

Dear god, they're still humorless. Her obituary: They're still too chicken to print the words "gang pluck"?