A very interesting cover story in this week’s City Pages, an interview with a NYT journalist on his new book about taxes in America. Wow. This guy’s got the stats to prove what we’ve suspected all along: big business has been legislating its own wealth.
I’ve been trying to follow the current Social Security debate, and this quote I found very provocative.
Johnston: None of the news coverage of social security is addressing how it is a subsidy program for the super rich, none of it is addressing that President Bush is not being internally consistent when he says I want you to have more of your own money. Why isn’t he simply proposing that we reduce social security taxes by the amount of money he thinks younger workers shouldn’t pay, and then they can choose whether they want to spend it, which would stimulate the economy, or save it, which would stimulate long-term investment? Instead, why is he proposing to create a massive, new government program that will funnel fees to Wall Street? None of the news coverage is stepping back and asking that. It’s all reactive to what the president is saying. I think that’s in good part because the Democrats don’t have a clue. The Republicans have an agenda and the Democrats don’t have a clue.
Now, the reason the president would not propose letting younger workers pay a reduced social security tax in return for smaller benefits is that it would immediately expose that the financing of his tax cuts depends in good part on middle class workers paying excess social security taxes so that rich people can have lower income taxes. It would bring it right to the front of the budget debate. So they would never propose that.
I’d love to hear from any economics-savvy folks out there on what you think about the validity of these claims.
Richard Fletcher gives us a 
It’s a sibling rivalry, similar in dynamic to the Jewish/Christian relationship. I particularly like Jon Levenson’s 
