Gallup: Conservatives Outnumber Liberals 2 to 1

More grim news for liberals and the Democratic Party.

Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

The 2010 results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June, encompassing interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% identifying as conservative represents a continuation of the slight but statistically significant edge conservatives achieved over moderates in 2009. Should that figure hold for all of 2010, it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992.

I guarantee the left's reaction will be they're not getting their message out, it's Rush Limbaugh's fault and we'll need balance in the media.

Bo Obama No. 80 on List of Most Influential Liberals

In comparison, Maureen Dowd comes in at No. 43.

These lists, which are published each year by The Telegraph newspaper in England are amusing if nothing else.

First Dog of the United States (FDOTUS)

A gift to the President from the late Senator Edward Kennedy last April, the new First Dog immediately became a media sensation – and a potent symbol of the uncritical, adoring coverage that the new President has received from the mainstream media. During the campaign, Obama talked often of having promised a puppy for his daughters Malia and Sasha, stipulating that it had to be a hypoallergenic breed because of Malia’s allergies.

After flirting with the idea of getting a “mutt like me”, Obama instead chose a Portuguese Water Dog with an American Kennel Club lineage. The Washington Post was given an “exclusive” for the story and its reporter dutifully described the dog thus: “Bo's a handsome little guy. Well suited for formal occasions at the White House, he's got tuxedo-black fur, with a white chest, white paws and a rakish white goatee.” The White House doles out regular photos of Bo, who has his own blog and several imitators on Twitter. No doubt a book deal cannot be far off.

Coming in 20 places behind Bo is another dog from the liberal side: John Edwards.

Other liberals with less influence then Bo include Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, and Chris Matthews.

They haven't published the complete list. They do 20 at a time from both the conservative and liberal side of the spectrum. Go here to view the lists.

Conservatives Outnumber Liberals 2-1

Nothing like ruining the day for liberals so early on a Monday morning.

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

The 2009 data are based on 16 separate Gallup surveys conducted from January through September, encompassing more than 5,000 national adults per quarter. Conservatives have been the dominant ideological group each quarter, with between 39% and 41% of Americans identifying themselves as either "very conservative" or "conservative." Between 35% and 37% of Americans call themselves "moderate," while the percentage calling themselves "very liberal" or "liberal" has consistently registered between 20% and 21% -- making liberals the smallest of the three groups.

Unfortunately, many of those mushy "moderates" are liberals pretending to be moderates, likely too ashamed to admit how hard left they are.

Now if only the Republican Party would wake up and start supporting conservative candidates instead of these weak-kneed RINOs. Much of the promising news from this polls shows a trend of independents moving to the right, which does not bode well for the Democrats as we enter the 2010 election cycle.

So Conservatism Is Dead, Huh?

That sound you just heard was heads popping in newsrooms from coast to coast.

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

Expect most of the media to interpret this poll as 56% call themselves moderates of liberal, while just 40% call themselves conservative. Just a hunch. Now, if we could just bump that 40% up...

Of course it's no time for the GOP to celebrate and clearly there's some ground to make up.

Thus far in 2009, Gallup has found an average of 36% of Americans considering themselves Democratic, 28% Republican, and 37% independent. When independents are pressed to say which party they lean toward, 51% of Americans identify as Democrats, 39% as Republicans, and only 9% as pure independents.

Surprise! Massachusetts Taxpayers Fail to Take Advantage of Opportunity to Contribute Their Fair Share

Nothing like putting their money where their mouth is. I've always suggested it was simple for greedy liberals to solve all the problems they blame on the rich for not "paying their fair share" and they could simply volunteer to pay more taxes.

But no, can't have that. After all, the left wants to have at it with your money, not their own.

Now lo and behold, look here at the numbers coming out of Massachusetts, that bastion of liberalism. Howie Carr finds a nice, juicy target and gleefully unloads.

Moonbats of Massachusetts, what about the children?

It is with deep regret that I must report to you that in this new tax season more than 99.99 percent of the Beautiful People in Massachusetts are again refusing to do the right thing on their income tax returns and voluntarily pay at the old, higher rate.

All year long, the Hope and Change crowd sanctimoniously lectures those of us who work for a living about how mean-spirited we are because we begrudge paying our “fair share” to help the layabouts who have “fallen through the cracks.”

But strangely, every year, when all they need to do is have the accountant check off a single box on their income-tax forms to solve the problems created by the Cheney presidency, the Yes-We-Can types adamantly refuse to part with a few extra bucks.

As you know, a few years back, as a gag, the Legislature passed a bill allowing the state’s pony-tailed, trust-funded liberals to voluntarily pay at the old 5.85 percent income tax rate, rather than at the reduced 5.3 percent rate.

Considering that in 2000, 40 percent of the electorate voted against cutting the state income tax, you might have expected hundreds of thousands of the blow-in drifters now squatting in Cambridge and Brookline and Amherst to voluntarily ante up.

But no. The state, it appears, is teeming with Leona Helmsleys. Taxes are for the little people, not the Beautiful People.

Here are the latest DOR numbers. As of yesterday, 640,783 individual taxpayers had filed their 2008 returns. Of those 640,783, exactly 293 opted to pay at the higher 5.85 percent rate.

Back me up on the math here. If 640,000 is the number, then 6,400 would be 1 percent, and 640 would be one-tenth of 1 percent. And 293 is less than one half of one tenth of 1 percent. So the percentage so far this year is one-twentieth of 1 percent.

Moonbats, I beseech you! Send in some more of the dough from Pater’s trust fund. Otherwise, how can we offer alms to the neediest among us, like Deval Patrick’s unemployed neighbor with the new made-up $120,000-a-year state job, and the Bulger hack who’s been collecting for 15 years and now was just handed a brand new $150,000 made-up state job?

Actually, the state claims the Beautiful People are twice as likely to check the higher-rate box this year, but two times zero is still zero. Even sadder is how much the commonwealth has collected from these 293 individuals - exactly $24,098.

Again, these are rough calculations, but I think that works out to just under $90 per filer. If $90 is .55 percent of your taxable income, you made about $18,000 in 2008.

That’s not a lot of taxable income. That’s why they all invest in municipal bonds - no taxes.

Theories abound as to why Beautiful People are so damn cheap, whether it’s evading taxes (see Geithner, Rangel, Daschle and now maybe Emanuel) or giving next to nothing to charity (see Biden, Kerry, et al.). Perhaps - make that probably - they’re just a bunch of phonies and hypocrites.

Read the rest.

H/T Lauren.

Massachusetts Again Strives to Be National Leader In Onerous Taxation

It was just a couple of weeks ago we noted that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, good friend of Barack Obama, was looking to further gouge his constituents through a series of taxes on candy, soda and alcohol. Well this tax-and-spend liberal is just getting warmed up.

Bay State businesses blasted an eye-popping 27-cent gas tax hike proposal yesterday being considered by Gov. Deval Patrick, saying the increase will send companies and customers fleeing across the state’s borders.

Critics also condemned the proposed boost - which would raise the tax to a highest-in-the-nation 50.5 cents - as a double whammy for drivers inside Route 128 who would still face tolls on top of the hike.

“They’ll be paying this increased gas tax as well as tolls. It will only further the inequity that already exists,” said Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board member Mary Connaughton.

Paul O’Connell, executive director of the New England Service Station and Automotive Repair Association, said raising the gas tax by 27 cents would cause a “flight to New Hampshire” by motorists seeking lower prices.

“A lot of our members operate near borders, and this could put them out of business,” he warned. “My gut instinct is that this stinks.”

The tax hike would be levied instead of $7 tunnel tolls and other Pike hikes to pay off Big Dig and MBTA debt. Tolls would be removed west of Route 128 by the end of next year.

As if they're ever going to eliminate the tolls. Keep dreaming.

A real shocker they're still paying off the Big Dig, which is basically a small taste of what's to come to America with the spendulus scam.

The real kicker here? Well, get this. Those high-minded liberals who squealed the loudest about the Patriot Act and all the imaginary horrors and invasions of privacy it wrought are now going to install chips to track motorists.

The state would work to implement a pay-per-mile system by 2014 to eliminate tolls inside of Route 128. Officials would track auto use through a chip inside the state’s vehicle inspection sticker. Drivers could get a gas tax refund to avoid double billing.

I guess Big Brother is cool when it's a leftist doing it.

Naturally, all this taxation is simply going to further drive business out of the state, leading, of course, to more taxation when the anticipated taxes fail to generate enough revenue to spend on all the entitlements and illegals crushing the state.

A bailout can't be far off. Then the rest of us can foot their tab.

H/T Lauren.

Liberal Tolerance in San Francisco: Tensions Heightened as Blacks Move In

Just imagine if a largely white conservative enclave reacted with indignity to blacks moving into their neighborhood. Why, the tut-tutting from the left would be unbearable. We'd have endless media accounts about rampant racism, hate-mongering and holier-than-thou lectures on the joys of tolerance and diversity.

But when blacks begin moving into San Francisco-area neghborhoods, the paragons of virtue on the left just aren't as tolerant as they like to portray themselves.

As more and more black renters began moving into this mostly white San Francisco Bay Area suburb a few years ago, neighbors started complaining about loud parties, mean pit bulls, blaring car radios, prostitution, drug dealing and muggings of schoolchildren.

In 2006, as the influx reached its peak, the police department formed a special crime-fighting unit to deal with the complaints, and authorities began cracking down on tenants in federally subsidized housing.

Now that police unit is the focus of lawsuits by black families who allege the city of 100,000 is orchestrating a campaign to drive them out.

"A lot of people are moving out here looking for a better place to live," said Karen Coleman, a mother of three who came here five years ago from a blighted neighborhood in nearby Pittsburg. "We are trying to raise our kids like everyone else. But they don't want us here."

City officials deny the allegations in the lawsuits, which were filed last spring and seek unspecified damages.

Across the country, similar tensions have simmered when federally subsidized renters escaped run-down housing projects and violent neighborhoods by moving to nicer communities in suburban Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles.

So here you have people looking to escape the miserable conditions resulting from liberal social engineering and the first ones complaining are the liberals themselves.

You've got to love the hypocrisy.

More from Sister Toldjah and Right Wing News.

Update: Thanks to Instapundit, Hot Air, Ace and Tammy Bruce for the links!

Glenn Reynolds also notes this USA Today item about blacks fleeing San Francisco.

African-Americans are abandoning this famously progressive city at a rate that has alarmed San Francisco officials, who vow to stop the exodus and develop a strategy to win blacks back to the city. In June, Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed a task force to study how to reverse decades of policies — and neglect — that black leaders say have fueled the flight.

Black flight can alter a city's character. "It's important for a city's future that it be a diverse place, and San Francisco is drifting toward being an upper-middle-class city," says Ed Blakely, director of Katrina recovery for New Orleans.

According to Census estimates, the number of blacks here shrank from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to just 6.5% in 2005 — the biggest percentage decline in any major American city.

They just can't handle all the progressive tolerance, not to mention the sky-high cost of living. They're probably also sick of all the bums homeless laying about on the streets.

Thanks also to Michelle Malkin for the link.

'We Liberals Are Personally Stingy'

Thank you, Nicholas D. Kristof, for confirming the obvious.

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
...
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Kristof should expect a few lumps of coal in his Christmas stocking. On the other hand, liberals are so cheap, they probably would stuff his stocking with fake coal.

Via Hot Air.

Liberals, Canada Is Waiting

Please move to Canada this time if you lose. Liberals say it every election cycle, but just like their candidates they never keep their word. Well Canada is sweetening the pot this year.

Famously Tolerant Liberals On Display in NYC

Thankfully the denizens of the Upper West Side are so famous for their open-mindedness and tolerance, otherwise we might get the wrong impression judging by their behavior.

Via Sister Toldjah. H/T Kate.

Can We Bury Liberalism Along With Lenin?

I see Mikhail Gorbachev thinks it's a good idea to finally bury Vladimir Lenin.

Considering he's the forefather of the modern Democrat Party, can we also have a symbolic burial of liberalism?

Research Concludes Conservatives are Happier Than Liberals

Honestly, they needed to do a study to conclude this?

Geez, just walk around and see all the scowling liberals on any college campus or moonbat enclave.

In fact, when was the last time a liberal was happy?

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found.

Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

Leftists being irrational?

Whodathunkit?

"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer,

The 53% of conservatives who didn't rate as very happy apparently live near too many liberals.

If you want to see some leftist rage, just let them know News Corp's quarterly profit just tripled.

NEWS Corporation's quarterly net profit has tripled on higher advertising sales at the Fox TV network and Fox News Channel, as well as a big one-time gain from its stock swap with Liberty Media.

The owner of 20th Century Fox and MySpace said overnight its fiscal third-quarter profit rose to $US2.7 billion ($2.87bn), from $US871m in the year-ago period. The latest results included a $US1.7bn gain from its swap with Liberty Media.

Famously 'Tolerant' People No Longer Very Tolerant

Of course, they're only tolerant to a certain degree. If you're a Republican or a member of the military, they hate you with ever fiber of their being, so my sympathy meter just isn't registering on this one.

Of course, in reality, they're the most intolerant kind of people--leftwingers.

After years of using the homeless as mascots and pretending it was Ronald Reagan's fault rather than assorted pathologies that caused people to live out in the street, San Franciscans have grown tired of the homeless.

Wonder what took so long?

Last time I visited in 1998, certain parts of the city were virtual no-go zones, infested and overrun by every type of human debris imaginable.

Residents of a famously liberal city appear to be changing views

San Francisco - the liberal, left-coast city conservatives love to mock - could be undergoing a transformation when it comes to homeless people. Although the city would still be a poor choice for a pep rally for the war in Iraq, indications are that residents have had it with aggressive panhandlers, street squatters and drug users.

"Maybe there has been an epiphany," says David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a local market research firm. "People have realized they can hate George Bush but still not want people crapping in their doorway."

Nice attitude. The difference between you and George W. Bush is he'd like to help these people. You idiots would prefer using them as political pawns.

Such compassion.

Consider the case of David Kiely, who has lived in the South of Market area for 18 years. He bought a home when prices were low and now lives there with his wife, Jenny, and their three boys, ages 7, 4 and 1. Kiely insists "we're not some white, yuppie parents saying we can't take this." In fact, he says, they donate to programs for homeless people at Glide Memorial Methodist Church and the food bank at St. Anthony Dining Room. But he's finally saying "enough is enough."

"I don't expect it to be Cow Hollow or Pacific Heights," he says. "But the other day Jenny is bringing the kids back from the park, and some guy is standing on the corner throwing up on himself."

Hey man, that's just diversity in action? Who are you to judge. If a guy wants to puke on himself, who are you to say it's not his right?

Trent Rhorer, executive director of San Francisco's Human Services Agency, is at ground zero for homelessness concerns. He's heard it from local residents at meetings, he's read the polls, and he noted the huge response to Chronicle columns about the homeless people and intravenous drug users in Golden Gate park. Like others, he thinks there's been a change in the way San Franciscans think the homelessness problem should be approached.

"I don't think this is a conservative or liberal thing," he says. "This is quality of life for everyone. What research has shown and what we have seen from visits to cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and New York is that you need to combine good social outreach with law enforcement."

Tell that to the ACLU. I recall when former New York Mayor Ed Koch tried to help the degenerate Billie Boggs out and get her to stop sleeping on subway grates, before you knew it, the clowns from the ACLU had her delivering speeches at Harvard.

So, as usual, the liberals are about 25 years late in coming around to where sane people stand on the issues.

That means something more than an offer of help, which often is declined anyhow. (One city official estimated that nine out of 10 say they are not interested in a shelter or housing when approached.)

"Maybe," Rhorer says, "you just need a guy with a badge standing over them and saying, you can't stay there any more."

That's tough talk for a city that's been known as a friendly place for those down on their luck. And in previous years it would have been a political non-starter. When Mayor Frank Jordan tried to push homeless people off the street with his "Matrix" program, the crackdown got much of the blame for his failure to win a second term.

But this has the feel of a new day in San Francisco.

"Homelessness, and quality of life issues, are dividing the liberals and the progressives in this city," says David Binder, a statistical analyst and founder of David Binder Research. "The liberals will say we've got to get tough on the homeless and the progressives are more old-line liberal."

Have at it folks. You've brought this mess on yourselves.

Read the rest.My solution for the problem is every self-professed compassionate progressive out there volunteers to each take in a homeless person, fedd them, clothe them and help get them back on their feet.

C'mon folks, man up and show how much you really care. Otherwise, you'll prove what we've known all along.

You don't care about these people at all.

Via Hot Air. More from Jules Crittenden, Five Feet of Fury, Moonbattery.

Dumbest Research Report Ever

If liberals are so intelligent, why do they need to come up with these cockamamie studies to prove it? Wouldn't their superior ideas just win everyone over?

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Colleges used to be institutions of higher learning. Now they're seemingly just laboratories for idiotic studies designed to show how the left is so intellectually superior.

Leftwing Lunatics Vow to Cut Iraq Funding

The cream of the loony left crop join together, desperate to surrender.

Liberals Vow to Block Continued Iraq Funding

Seventy House members, nearly all liberal Democrats, vowed today that they would not support any more funding for Iraq military operations unless tied to a complete withdrawal of combat troops.

This is a big development. Earlier this year, liberals grudgingly voted for Iraq funding bills because they didn't want to give Nancy Pelosi a defeat. Now it seems that their patience has run out.

It's the usual litany of losers, America-haters, miscreants and twits, all far-left fringe.

Also included is the nutroots' favorite Republican, Ron Paul.

What a shock.

Lame Analysis From Liberal Apologists

Apparently the weak-kneed apologists are worse in the UK than over here, but honestly, could it really be worse than the drivel offered up by morons like Keith Olbermann?

Déjà Vu: Apologists Unfurl Stale Arguments

Moments after the latest terror attack on Britain, television commentators engaged in the usual rhetorical hara-kiri, blaming everyone but its authors: the two Muslim jihadists jumping out of a burning car at Glasgow's international airport ululating "Allah! Allah!" — even as one of them was barbecued — and the European Union's vast Muslim fundamentalist infrastructure, which spawned them.

The initial discussions of the three car bombs — two in central London were defused, unexploded — were déjà vu writ large: Blaming the victims, criticizing British foreign policy offenses that might have "driven" British Muslims to kill their countrymen, highlighting the frustrations of minority communities forced to live in the West, and renewing calls for — yes, indeed — more interreligious dialogue.

It was not much better in America. With live images of the Glasgow International Airport fires blazing away, American networks hosted the so-called experts who, again, explained the "torment" of poor Muslims. Disgracefully, one guest — Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst who is a familiar face now whenever instant analysis is needed — droned on about the many reasons Muslims are "so" offended by this or that behavior in the West.

Mr. Scheuer's mindless diatribe, unquestionably motivated by the need to land consulting contracts in Muslim country, pushed a Fox News anchorwoman, Michelle Malkin, to interject something akin to "Let us not blame the victims now." But it was not enough to stop the rant.

But so the story goes: Whenever it comes to Muslims, commentators feel the need for obfuscation. It reaches absurd proportions in Britain, but America is certainly its sideshow.

Read the rest.

Kerrey: Iraq Central to War on Radical Islam

Bob Kerrey will surely earn the enmity of the left with such a pronouncement. Well, he's not running for anything, so I guess he doesn't have to pander to the nutroots.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

Read it all.

Tax Day

Not that you need a reminder to file your tax return if you haven't already, instead check out Tax Day Winners & Losers from the New York Post.

Next time you hear the liberals and Democrats demagoguing the tax issue, shove these numbers down their throats.

According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, for instance, the top 40 percent of Americans pay 99.1 percent of all income taxes - while the bottom 40 percent pay nothing at all.

And economist Gary Shilling reports that more than half all Americans - some 53 percent - receive some form of income from government.

Indeed, notes the Tax Foundation, the poorest fifth of Americans wind up getting $8.21 in government spending and services for each dollar of state, local and federal taxes they pay.

The highest earners, by comparison, get 41 cents back on each dollar spent on taxes. Top earners thus collectively kick down as much as $1.53 trillion a year to the bottom 60 percent.

Note, too, that high earners actually picked up a bigger share of the load after President Bush's tax cuts took effect.

Indeed, the richest 1 percent now shoulders 36.7 percent of the nation's income-tax bills.

Democrats have long argued the system is unfair.

The question is: for whom?

Nothing Fair About This

Adam Thierer has a lengthy piece at City Journal about efforts to revive the Fairness Doctrine, something we thought was dead and buried years ago. But since liberals aren't satisfied dominating just 99% of the media, they need to come after those outlets where free speech still means something.

This media cornucopia is a wonderful development for a free society—or so you’d think. But today’s media universe has fierce detractors, and nowhere more vehemently than on the left. Their criticisms seem contradictory. Some, such as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, contend that real media choices, information sources included, remain scarce, hindering citizens from fully participating in a deliberative democracy. Others argue that we have too many media choices, making it hard to share common thoughts or feelings; democracy, community itself, again loses out. Both liberal views get the story disastrously wrong. If either prevails, what’s shaping up to be America’s Golden Age of media could be over soon.

Read it all.

Also at Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Don Surber.

When Liberals Eat Their Own

Rich Lowry notes how liberals always gave Don Imus a free pass, until now. In typical fashion, they're running for the tall grass like the cowards they are.

Don Imus has to wonder where all his friends went. Just yesterday, his radio/TV show was the favorite venue of the journalistic and political elite, who delighted - or pretended to delight - in his ribald comments. Today, most of them appear shocked that Imus was ever given a show.

The unedifying Imus controversy is almost entirely a liberal conflagration, a perfect bonfire of the profanities: with journalists and politicians caught out ignoring their own standards of political correctness; with left-wing grievance-meisters doing their grim work on the mainstream media's favorite shock jock; with the culture of victimology running its ritualistic course. Armed only with the dubious loyalty of his frequent guests, Imus didn't stand a chance.

Read the rest.

I'm sure after rehabbing himself for a stretch, Imus will find a gig elsewhere. And if he goes back to trashing Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush four hours a day, the usual suspects will gleefully return.

Hypocrites all.