Andrew Sullivan of the daily dish posted today this ABC News/WaPo survey:

 

Andrew tells us, what does this all mean Kevin Drum thinks the Mother Jones:

Why are more people in favor of an estate cut taxes you will never see, but to favor of a Lohnsummensteuer intersected set instant money in your own pocket so many?

Possible answers: (a) people don't really understand that cut pay and payroll means taxes to you, (c) fantastic overestimate an immediate increase in their take home pay, (b) people pay and payroll taxes so heavily with social security solvency assign do not want people as are likely to see, a $5 million estate when you die (d) many people have a strong instinctive view, the people on their wealth for your children, no matter how much it is, (e) people are just confused about all this stuff and it is hopeless to try to figure out what really is going to pass should be.

Mr drum I give credit for at least including its five possible answers an option (d), which not offend the intelligence of the majority.

But I have a (f):

People are against high taxes of whatsoever because you know that higher taxes reduce the chances that Congress ever seriously be entertained spending cuts. And the failure cut spending means a growing Government.

And a (g):

People realize that the federal bureaucracy is inefficient and wasteful and therefore believe that it is foolish to the Government give a raise, if it the money that there already been carelessly has wasted.

Liberals make regular the cynical assumption that conservative support only policies that you will be personally and directly benefit. Therefore, if a conservative is a measure which allegedly benefited him against the links to the conclusion that he does not really understand you it.¹

I don't know maybe you're only project. I know however, that decisions (f) and (g) only possibilities of someone had made this assumption could have been.

Footnotes:

Technology¹ blogger and tax you law professor James Maule is one of the worst offenders of this type of initial analysis bias. He can not simply understand how informed and intelligent middle-class American confiscatory taxation upper-class Americans could oppose. The irony is, of course, while Mr Maule claims someone else - be self-less because he is willing to support measures which will have adverse effects on him if these policies benefit the country as a whole, he could not imagine, especially a conservative or a Republican - will be similarly motivated.

Tags: Policy of taxation · Tax policy

"Capital is dead work that lives only by sucking of living labour, vampire-like, and the more lives the more work it sucks."

I have reviewed in this article and I'm strange with the author, but it is still awfully interesting.

Tim Worstall write for adamsmith.org says that the taxation of capital will be reduced not inequality of income because rich people today rich to get by investing, but by 'Investment' in her own work:

Maybe our friends lefty right..., that we should capital tax, the things in the possession and the rich, more highly held social reasons?

Well, no, it has a huge underlying change in what where deserve since the gilded age. It was true (these are Canadian figures but much the same numbers for USA and UK), that the majority of the upper income from income from capital, and also came the majority of the capital was result to top income of peeps.

That's not necessarily true today at all.

Occurs by far the majority of upper income from labour income these days. And the majority of the investment income is the income scale to those below: Canada, 50% of the investment income went to workers with an income of less than $60,000 per year. It is simply not true (as it was probably a century ago), those get it with high income from interest and dividends, you make everything to have.

To increase capital taxation only going to reduce inequality of incomes for the top earners are always your income isn't from their work, our work.

As so often, we find our lefty friends who fight the battles of a century ago. Since it is not true that high income are a result of capital concentration then tax returns to capital, to either go reduce high incomes and income inequality.

If Worstall is correct and I believe he is – increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends will do little reducing of inequality of incomes in the United States and can even increase it.

Even better, if capital accumulation no longer is the owning and the have nots, then what is a Marxist to do?

Now, I know one thing, the he's not: give, that rich not enough because you control the levers of the capital. After all, if the recording he was made a Marxist no longer and he would be having to admit always closer to the equally unfathomable:, the rich their disproportionate wealth through one or a combination of the following deserve:

(a) work harder

work (intelligent b)

God forbid.

Footnotes:

Technology¹ America is no longer a capital intensive, production-based society, but rather a service economy. This means work, not capital. As a result, it is rich to get through education of human capital, but rather work useful if Worstall says that rich no longer. The only remaining question is "whose work?" Think about the super-rich in America? Top flight doctors, elite lawyers, professional athletes and entertainers. You all make their wealth largely due to one of their own work. In short, the rich are not rich in America because you have stockpiled the means of production. They are rich, because you deserve it.

"Although suppressed, growing inequalities;" only the man under the average economic ability desires equality; "those outstanding ability conscious desire freedom, and at the end of outstanding ability has its way."

-Will Durant-

Yesterday in Panama City opened a certified Wackjob named clay Duke fire on six school board members he accused, firing his school teacher wife. Fortunately, he was about as good a shot as the Schofield kid and missed you all. He turned the gun on himself later itself and, again, fortunately to hit his target:

The police say that it had planned for some time to do ex-convict named stopped a Florida School Board at gunpoint. Panama City says Tuesday's police chief John van Etten was date from a calendar in the 56-year-old clay Duke North of Panama City trailer was found circled. Board members shot Duke even after firing at school during a session on Tuesday. Nobody was hurt.

Before opening fire, he painted a red V on a wall and talked about his wife, who is thrown. Officials say worked for the schools, but it was not clear whether you resigned or had dismissed or what was your job. Apparently, she lived with her mother in a nearby city. Van Etten says the shooting was not "spur of the moment."

The police found also anti-Government Paraphanelia in Duke's House.

We have read and written about the bratty children rioted in London, because their tuition fees by the taxpayer funded was to increase. We have read about the spoiled French received violent in Paris, because the Government was going to raise the retirement age of 62. And we have read wild mob about of entitled Greeks, the cars on fire and damaged buildings set because their nanny State Government from money ran and announced that it would have to stop its handout programmes.

But we Americans are individualists. We need no stinkin' group to tell us when are not violent. Take our standards, we have our tantra alone.

So motivated what Mr Herzog to try to kill the School Board? Was it right talk radio? Glenn Beck, perhaps? Maybe it was to this crazy tea party goers running always telling everyone how bad is Government?

Well, it turns out, it was none of the above even intended, threw the AP in the mandatory Zinger about the police, the search for "anti-Government utensils" in Duke's House.

See what you say the AP that Mr Herzog rich hated and kept, and the system which he thought you controlled, is responsible for his wife firing (and probably for any other bad and unfortunate thing, it ever in his life short and disturbed occurred).¹

The Huffington Post has more on what have eaten Duke can (emphasis is mine):

Entries from December 7 and 8 are only dated on a Facebook page under his name. The page displays a cryptic message "about me" section.

"My Testament: some people (the State-funded media) to say I was evil, a monster (V)... No.... I was only in a country where the wealthy manipulate, use, abuse and economically to enslave 95 percent of the population born poor." Rich Republicans, Democrats... same same... rich... you alternately cupping us... our few dollars... pyramiding wealth for themselves. "

His Facebook profile PIC is the Red V icon he painted over during the session on the wall and its page contains photos from the film "V for Vendetta," that was a graphic novel.

Citing Billionaire Warren Buffett said in 2006 New York Times: "it is all right class warfare, but it is my class, the rich class that makes war and we are winning."

Make the blood vessels that would become bulging of the forehead of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schulz, Duke's Facebook page, anti-Government comment of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh say, rather than an anti-rich comment by Mr. Buffett had cited?  Have doubts that the mainstream media will call a cautionary tale about the evils of conservative anti Governmentism Duke's outbreak would?

I do not.

Footnotes:

Blame the soak the rich amount technology¹ I for what Duke did yesterday? Absolutely not. The only person that is responsible for what is Duke Duke itself. But I doubt for even a nanosecond, Duke had been, a tea party type would have blamed the anti-Government set the left, and probably conservatives in General for what happened. No doubt at all.

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9243.
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9490.

“I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too.”

- Wicked Witch of the West -

Feminist broom-pilot Wendy Murphy says that the rape charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange are weak and hurt true victims of rape (emphasis added):

As a former sex crimes prosecutor, I’m the last person you might expect to come to the defense of the unsavory WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. But the charges that now have him sitting in a British prison reek of opportunism and political expediency, and that does women around the world no good.

That doesn’t mean that I think the two women who’ve accused him of committing sexual offenses last August are lying. One woman said she had consensual sex with Assange, but that the condom broke and he used his body weight to hold her down, presumably to complete the act.

She hosted a party for him the next evening.

A few days later, Assange had sex with another woman—allegedly while she was asleep—also without wearing a condom. Both women reportedly acknowledged that they freely chose to engage in sex acts with Assange—but that some of his conduct was nonconsensual.

As a general matter, assuming the allegations are true, Assange should be punished because he violated the women’s fundamental right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity by acting without their “knowing, intelligent and voluntary” consent.

For the love of God, Elmira, isn’t screwing someone while they’re asleep the very definition of rape?¹

And this Wendy Murphy – the one who only assumes Assange’s accusers are telling the truth – is the same Wendy Murphy who is renowned for her repeated public condemnation of the clearly innocent Duke Lacrosse players and who once stated on the MSNBC news show The Situation that women never lie about rape:

“I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.”

Then the arbiter of all things consensual and sexual shows her true colors when she says (again, the emphasis is mine),

In another context, I might support these claims as legitimate sex crimes charges simply to get the message out more clearly in this country that nobody should impose their body parts onto or inside the body of another person without their knowing, intelligent and voluntary consent.

So Wendy Murphy believes we should criminally prosecute men wrongly accused of rape just to “get the message out.” Well, I suppose this explains why she continues to support the condemnation of the Duke LaCrosse players and continues to publicly defend their disbarred rogue prosecutor, Michael Nifong.

Wendy Murphy is a bad and dangerous person and if you don’t believe me just listen to Radley Balko of Reason (emphasis added):

Murphy’s continuing saturation of the cable news airwaves is nauseating. Her punditry career should have ended with the Duke lacrosse case, when she appeared all over cable news to defend Nifong and to damn the falsely accused lacrosse players, first prematurely, then even as it became clear to the rest of the world that they were innocent. (As late as last year Murphy was still griping about the lacrosse case).

K.C. Johnson wrote of Murphy at the time,

“In addition to the outrageous quotes highlighted above, on at least 18 occasions over the past nine months, Murphy has made demonstrably untrue statements. She also has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and has routinely denigrated due process.”

Murphy never apologized for repeatedly slandering the Duke players. Yet her punditry career took off. She was rewarded with a book contract and dozens more TV appearances.

William Anderson noted earlier this year that Murphy was recently invited onto the Today show to vouch for Catoosa County, Georgia’s shameful sex abuse persecution of Tonya Craft.

(Craft was acquitted on all counts.)

In a 2007 interview with the American Journalism Review, here’s how Murphy justified going on TV to publicly convict potentially innocent people in spite of the evidence against them:

“Lots of folks who voiced the prosecution position in the beginning [of the Duke case] gave up because they faced a lot of criticism, and that’s never my style.” She notes that she’s invited on cable shows to argue for a particular side. “You have to appreciate my role as a pundit is to draw inferences and make arguments on behalf of the side which I’m assigned,” she says. “So of course it’s going to sound like I’m arguing in favor of ‘guilty.‘ That’s the opposite of what the defense pundit is doing, which is arguing that they’re innocent.”

It’s all theater, you see. She’s just playing a part. It’s fine if she slanders some people, ruins some reputations, spouts flat falsehoods, and generally dumbs down the public discourse. Because it’s just entertainment. It’s what pundits do.

Ms. Murphy wants us to believe that she’s merely a law whore whose opinions can be bought. It is clear to me, however, that she’s trying to distance herself from some of the outrageous and immoral allegations she has publicly made against innocent young men.

So, when she’s says she’s merely making an argument on behalf of the side to which she is assigned by the network, she’s lying through her teeth.

Television pundits like Murphy are asked to appear on air because of their views. They aren’t asked to mold their views so they can get on television. In other words, when NBC needs a pundit to present the prosecution’s point of view it looks for one who already holds that point of view.

Make no mistake about it, Murphy gets her T.V. gigs because of her well-known legal positions. She doesn’t develop her position after she gets the T.V. gig. This is why you never see Murphy taking a defense position on air and why her written material always conforms with what she says on air.

These are Wendy Murphy’s views, people, and she is indeed a dangerous person.²

Footnotes:

¹  I don’t know whether Assange did anything wrong in this case, but I do know that it’s a facially much stronger case than the one brought by prosecutor Michael Nifong against three white Duke Lacross players in 2006, which prosecution Wendy Murphy publicly and stridently supported. (She’s claimed, without a shred of evidence, that the young men “ripped open the girl’s vagina.”)

²  For you mothers-of-sons out there who are still not convinced that Murphy is a loose cannon, consider that she is on record saying that rape cases are easy to prosecute:

There’s nothing inherently difficult about prosecuting rape. It is, in fact, the easiest and least expensive crime to investigate and prosecute. The victim takes the stand and says she was forced to have sex without h er consent. If the jurors believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, they vote guilty. If not, they vote not guilty.

In other words, Murphy believes that a mere accusation without a single shred of corroborating evidence is enough for a prosecutor to bring an aggravated rape charge against a man who has no criminal record. Couple this with her wacky contention that women never lie about rape and you really don’t need a trial at all. All you have to do is have the woman identify her rapist and proceed to sentencing.

If we extended Murphy’s irresponsible and downright loony theory to non-sexual violence cases, it would mean that I could file a police report against a neighbor alleging that he broke into my house and stole my laptop and the prosecutor would allow the case to go to trial and the jury decide his guilt based solely on my testimony.

And Wendy Murphy claims to be a champion of due process and the Bill of Rights?

With views like these Wendy Murphy has disqualified herself from ever holding a prosecutorial position in America again. In fact, she shouldn’t even be permitted to clean the latrine of a prosecutor’s office.

She’s nuttier than a Snickers bar and twice as dangerous to the national health.

If we want to American staff start company to invest in America and we should start, the highest not see through income tax rate to the federal companies in the world.

Dan Mitchell Cato says now that Japan is exactly its corporate income tax rate of 5 cut has, where America can be found:

Japan has announced that it will cut its corporate income tax rate by five percentage points. This America with the highest corporate was the global laggard on corporate tax reform, Japan and the United States rate under 34 wealthy Nations, the Organisation for economic cooperation and development leaves.

Then, for those a little slow on the record, he says us, why this is a bad thing:

This is not a good position for us to be. Most of the competition from US companies face comes from company headquartered in other OECD countries. America competes with other OECD countries as a location for investment. Our high corporate tax rate scared investments in new plants, makes it difficult to compete for U.S. companies in foreign markets and provides strong incentives for companies avoid and escape control.

The diagram shows the KPMG data for 2010 on statutory corporate tax rates in the OECD, but I also in the new lower price for Japan. Reform of the Japanese, the average rate in the OECD will be 25.6 percent.

This means that it is 56 percent higher than the average wealthier nation at the 40 percent U.S. rate.

Finally, he is President Obama a recommendation:

Most tax experts agree that the U.S. corporate tax rate is cutting a high priority, and President of Obama's financial year the Commission approved the idea. If the President to the economy will fire from all cylinders and generate a new pragmatic and centrist image for himself-he should charge to delete the corporate rate by at least 20 percent.

State level taxes on top a federal corporate rate of 20 percent would America above the OECD average and all these companies are setting a good reason sitting on piles of cash to start investing again to give.

Daniel j. Mitchell Cato like the tax business for the obvious reason:

The reason there much like and like the tax deal between President Obama and-Kongresses Guide. On the positive side we dodge a big tax increase for the next two years. We replace a goofy and ineffective "Work rewarding make" tax credit with a supply-side oriented reducing wage and payroll tax rate (only for year a, so it probably not much economic benefits will be).

And for the not so obvious reason:

But here's a bit of good news that has received much attention. The tax deal ends "build America bonds" tax preference, was one of the most devastating provisions of Obama of so-called stimulus. Here is an excerpt from a Bloomberg report.

Senate Democrats secure the subsidy which has helped finance bridges, roads and other public works, it fell added shortly in a bid to get, an invoice, the extension of the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts. A failure was the latest efforts to build America program 31.12 to keep alive behind its scheduled end. …While Obama and Democrats to extend have supported it, you have run into opposition from Republican critical of the stimulus package. Extensions passed twice the Democratic-controlled House only to stall in the Senate, where the Republican minority sufficiently powered is to block legislation. The Government pays the interest costs on build America bonds 35. …The proponents are State and local governments, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the construction industry representatives under the program.

Build America bonds are a backdoor handout for wasteful State and local governments so that more money to lend, while some of the resulting interest costs on the Federal Government moved.

But States are already in deep trouble because of too much spending and debt, to encourage more spending, and debt with federal tax was a very bizarre policy distortions.

In addition the directive the economy by creating a incentive for investors harm State and local governments rather than private sector Investments.That's a very bad idea, unless you think somehow (in spite of all the evidence) that it is wise to the public sector at the expense to make greater private sector.

In one fell swoop, build America bonds increase the load on the Federal Government, encourages a greater burden of the State and local government and drained resources from the productive sector of the economy.

That is stupid of Washington standards. So what we think of the overall package about, let us enjoy the death of this destructive provision.

Also dislikes Mitchell the tax business for the obvious reason:

On the negative side, the business expanded unemployment benefits, which has the perverse effects of the unemployment subsidy. The deal is filled with all kinds of corrupt governing various stakeholders such as ethanol producers.

And for the not so obvious reason:

Then there are provisions like the 35 percent death tax. Is this bad news because there is an increase of zero percent this year? Or there is good news because it much lower than the 55% rate effective at the beginning of next year was planned? This is difficult to answer, even though I know the correct rate of 0 (zero).

As regards the extension of unemployment benefits, the Democrats managed to what do you often: fashion a measure which appears on its face, compassionate, generous and care, but in reality is bad for the intended benefactors and the country as a whole.¹

It is true. Extending unemployment benefits incentivizes unemployment and does nothing to create jobs. If to spend felt the Democrats taxpayer money to help unemployed forced would have done better, currently unemployed Americans give everyone that gets a job and considers it a $5,000 a year-tax reduction.

Reward employment, not unemployment.

Duh!

Footnotes:

Technology¹ Bill Clinton moved right reform America's social system. It was one of the best pieces of legislation in recent years 5o and effectively killed the word "Welfare" and replace it with the word "Workfare." Should be required every able-bodied American citizen currently receiving unemployment benefits to its services to the Government by volunteers. It is a crime, 10% of Floridians are always taxpayer money for sitting on your sofa while only a few meters outside their homes, streets with bedding are filled.

Alternatively we should offer instead of allocating "unemployment" citizens, short-term employment. This will make you feel better about yourself because you will get you at least partially, worthy of support. We have not of learned now that we do not not only you money * and when we do, we run of the entitled risk a revolt as we have seen, in Greece, France and England to create.

* Even moderately responsible parents know enough to your tasks for your certificates do children and parents criminally like should be arrested the for unleashing on society by Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9127

"He can take his 'n and beat your' n then take your'n and beat his'n."

-Houston Oilers coach bum Phillips on Miami Dolphins' coach Don Shula-.

One L at the University of Miami School of law are required to participate in a moot court exercise where they make an argument for the appellant and then switch sides and make a counter argument for the Todd white. The pedagogical goal of the exercise is to get Carlyle lawyers to understand the necessity of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of opposing arguments.

So, since I have already f.d.a. ad infinitum that the the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, not just the middle class, today I will argue the other side: namely, that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire for taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 a year.

Wish me luck.

The rich will not spend their tax savings

The primary reason for extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class is to stimulate spending and jump start the economy. The middle class will use their tax savings on necessities and, therefore, their tax cuts will have the stimulus effect looked for. The rich, on the other hand, do not need a tax cut in order to pay for their necessities and, therefore, are less likely to spend their tax savings in a manner that will stimulate the economy.

Listen to Timothy Homan of Bloomberg:

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. when taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and Democrats in Congress who some say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse them to reduce will their spending promptly, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

"I would continued to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior," said Chris Cornell on economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody's analytics. "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."

The Moody's research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

In short, the benefits of extending the tax cuts for the rich are less than the costs of doing so.

The wealth gap will increase

The gap between the haves and the have nots has nearly tripled in the last 30 years. The rich have seen their incomes sku rocket while the middle class have experienced only moderate increases. Democratic societies operate best when large discrepancies of wealth are avoided. When there is disparate wealth there is disparate influence (or at least the appearance of it) which causes those at the bottom to loose faith in the system.

Listen to Timothy Noah of slate:

[I] ncome inequality is a topic of huge importance to American society and therefore a subject of large and growing interest to a host of economists, political scientists, and other wonky types. Except for a few libertarian outliers (whose views we'll examine later), these experts agree that the country's growing income inequality is deeply worrying. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman and onetime Ayn Rand acolyte, has registered concern. "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society a capitalist democratic society can really accept without addressing," Greenspan saidin 2005. Greenspan's Republican-appointed successor, Ben Bernanke, has so fretted about income inequality.

Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle-class will increase the wealth gap even further because in a progressive tax system across the board tax cuts have a regressive effect in that those in the higher tax brackets will experience greater tax savings.

The deficit will increase

Extending the Bush tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 per year increase the deficiency will by $700 billion. If the cutting the taxes of rich people were guaranteed to stimulate the economy and result in job creation, then, perhaps, it would be worth the cost of increasing the deficiency. But, as discussed above, since it is unlikely that tax cuts for the rich will have any significant stimulus effect we would have substantially increased the deficiency for little or no return.

Here's what Isabel Sawhill of Brookings wrote back in 2005 when the deficiency what less than a third of what it is now:

Psychiatrists have clinical terms to describe how most elected officials are responding to the deficiency - denial, repression, magical thinking. In short, they're doing next to nothing. There is a deafening silence - from the halls of Congress and corporate boardrooms to the living rooms and voting booths where Americans make decisions about their own and their children's futures.

In fact, there is some good news on the front of. The Congressional Budget Office outlook for 2005 has improved markedly since its March projection. But no one should be lulled into thinking that this good news will last. The problem will get much worse if nothing is done. Deficits will become unsustainable when baby boomers begin to retire in 2008 and are poised to balloon out of control a generation hence, wreaking havoc on today's younger Americans.

The rich can afford to pay more taxes

The most obvious of all reasons for not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is also the best reason. They can afford it.

If we were not saddled with a diagnosis of trillion dollar and there were good options for making serious spending cuts, perhaps this argument would not be as strong. But, as I said earlier, in a time of fiscal emergency the only people who can afford to pay more taxes are the rich and it is both reasonable and moral that we ask them to do so.

How did I do?¹

Footnotes:

¹  Alert readers will note that I have made no ad hominem attacks on those who believe we should renew the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle class. Not a single use of the words selfish, greedy or evil. I assume that the opponents of tax increases on rich people are every bit as patriotic, compassionate and sincere in their beliefs as are the proponents of tax increases on the rich. In other words, it is, the character and decency of those who happen to think differently possible to argue for the expiration of tax cuts on wealthy people without assassinating.