March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Ron Kind, lamenting the prospect of Russ Feingold losing his Senate seat, told Dave Weigel, “Call me foolish…But I think it’s important that we still have one poor person serving in the Senate. If Johnson buys this election, he’d be the 72nd multimillionaire in the Senate.”
But what makes Kind’s remark odder still is his definition of “wealthy.”
At a recent debate, Kind defended his suport for raising taxes:
Kind said he would like the keep the (Bush) tax cuts in place for the first $250,000 of income.
“But for those who are calling for the permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent … I tell them find a way to pay for it. Don’t borrow the money from China to do it and increase the debt burden for our children and grandchildren,” he said.
So, under Kind’s set of definitions, Feingold — as an individual earning $174,000 — is a “poor person.” Yet a household earning $250,000 is wealthy.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online