Jim

We are moderately overtaxed. Socialist Europe is excessively overtaxed. If you prefer the latter to the former, move to Europe. Reading comprehension is a good thing. Didn't mention Europe.

Ahh, THE paradox. While only moderately taxed (undertaxed by world standards) from where does the misconception arise? It's been a useful smokescreen for the rightwing agenda of cutting social spending while significantly rewarding corporations and those of the upper income brackets. Why discuss the larger social (manufactured) inequatities in the society that have far more consequences to the middle and lower class that a $500 a year tax break? The tipping point may be on the horizon however. We (Bush) have dug ourselves such a big hole, with no spending limitations that the consequences will be, interesting, to say the least.

JayB- How nicely you ignore the cuts in other marginal rates and other tax reforms that reduce the burden on the lower and middle classes. To assess trends in the overall level of taxes and to compare taxation across countries, economists usually look first at the ratio of taxes to gross domestic product, the total value of output produced in the country. In the United States, all taxes -- federal, state and local -- reached a peak of 29.6 percent of G.D.P. in 2000. That number was, however, swollen by taxes on capital gains during the stock-market bubble. By 2002, the tax take was down to 26.3 percent of G.D.P., and all indications are that it will be lower still this year and next. This is a low number compared with almost every other advanced country. In 1999, Canada collected 38.2 percent of G.D.P. in taxes, France collected 45.8 percent and Sweden, 52.2 percent. Still, aren't taxes much higher than they used to be? Not if we're looking back over the past 30 years. As a share of G.D.P., federal taxes are currently at their lowest point since the Eisenhower administration. State and local taxes rose substantially between 1960 and the early 1970's, but have been roughly stable since then. Aside from the capital gains taxes paid during the bubble years, the share of income Americans pay in taxes has been flat since Richard Nixon was president. Of course, overall levels of taxation don't necessarily tell you how heavily particular individuals and families are taxed. As it turns out, however, middle-income Americans, like the country as a whole, haven't seen much change in their overall taxes over the past 30 years. On average, families in the middle of the income distribution find themselves paying about 26 percent of their income in taxes today. This number hasn't changed significantly since 1989, and though hard data are lacking, it probably hasn't changed much since 1970. Meanwhile, wealthy Americans have seen a sharp drop in their tax burden. The top tax rate -- the income-tax rate on the highest bracket -- is now 35 percent, half what it was in the 1970's. With the exception of a brief period between 1988 and 1993, that's the lowest rate since 1932. Other taxes that, directly or indirectly, bear mainly on the very affluent have also been cut sharply. The effective tax rate on corporate profits has been cut in half since the 1960's. The 2001 tax cut phases out the inheritance tax, which is overwhelmingly a tax on the very wealthy: in 1999, only 2 percent of estates paid any tax, and half the tax was paid by only 3,300 estates worth more than $5 million. The 2003 tax act sharply cuts taxes on dividend income, another boon to the very well off. By the time the Bush tax cuts have taken full effect, people with really high incomes will face their lowest average tax rate since the Hoover administration. So here's the picture: Americans pay low taxes by international standards. Most people's taxes haven't gone up in the past generation; the wealthy have had their taxes cut to levels not seen since before the New Deal. Even before the latest round of tax cuts, when compared with citizens of other advanced nations or compared with Americans a generation ago, we had nothing to complain about -- and those with high incomes now have a lot to celebrate. Yet a significant number of Americans rage against taxes, and the party that controls all three branches of the federal government has made tax cuts its supreme priority. Que up the "starve the beast" theme song.

We did it under Clinton. Look where we are now.

I actually don't mind being taxed for these things if the money is spent well. I think the taxes are high enough - it's the other side of the equation that isn't coming through. Like how much we're spending on homeland security, our military, and corporate welfare? Ya know, we've been spending billions each year on the military and there's still bad guys out there. They're obviously not doing thier job and we should have merit pay for generals or disband the Department of Defense. Gimme a break. The money spent on welfare is but a drop in the swimming pool. Take a look at all the pork in the recent transportation bill if you really what to make a dent. Welfare roles have been cut by more than half since Clinton signed (and the Rep congress passed) the welfare reform bill. There are 5 yr time limits for receiving aid. The problem of course is with the low end of the spectrum who have no skills and/or mental health issues. There will always be a portion of the population that is chronically underemployed. Many of these folks used to be in state mental facilities run with federal and state funds. Under Reagan this program ended and these folks are now on the street. It always cracks me up when folks born with the privelage of a middle class background start harping on the poor as if their all shiftless. Sure some of them are, but likely are a similar proportion from other social strata that can skate along based on where they started. I don't know who said it (Barry Switzer OK coach?) but it fits "George Bush is the type of guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple"

Oh come now. There is no racism in this country and a person's station in life depends on nothing more than his work ethic.

I'll bet your plot correlates quite well with the size of government - bigger government = more "social stagnation". Your solution would be, of course, bigger government! Or would it be "revolution"? Sorry, but I'll take stagnation over those alternatives. Seems lately it's the Republicians, who own both houses of Congress and the White House, who can't control their spending and making government grow. Funny how the patter has become overspending Republicans followed by the fical responsible Dems needed to get the house in order. Problem this time around is that the money pit is much larger and in line with Argentina's debt ration when they defaulted.

I just got back this morning after two days over there. Yesterday was pretty grim and sodden. Good luck witht the weather - I hope it improves.

Citing government reports on the increasing demand for petroleum and natural gas and the sustained high prices that tend to result, she said, "The hurricanes have brought more attention to the fundamental issue." And I guess that issue is how we continue to move forward as the land of mass consumption. If you missed it a few Sundays back there was a very informative article in the NY Times magazine entitled "The Beginning of the End of Oil". Very well researched a article that discussed the over estimates of the mid-east oil field capacity in anticipation of OPEC shares for the producing countries, the dwindling production of the main Saudi fields (garnered from years of geotechnical publications as the Saudi, or other, will never release these figures), and the extrapolation of consumption mainly fueld by the US and China. While the engineers are eternally optomistic about new technology and new finds, this has not been the case, especially in recent history. The short story is we're not going to drill our way out of this one and the winners will be the ones who are investing heavily now in fuel efficient technologies and alternative fuels, not the ones driving around in yellow Bummers.

On another note - I was told recently by a sport-climber type that"all" the bolts at Peshastin are now suspect because of the fire. I haven't been there for a couple of years - so what's the scoop?

I will be teaching some youngen's over at Icicle during the week and on a recent trip noticed two new bolts atop the Barney's Rubble slab without hangers. I was thinking of taking a couple of hangers and bolts, locktite, and a smear of epoxy to keep the hangers from being stolen again. Any other suggestions? I guess I could always mangle the threads a bit. Seems kinda lame to steal the hangers of a beginner TR area.

.....type that in Google and note the first entry.

Yea - Well if he's so dumb how come he's president?

Yes on the reform. Thoust protest too much eh? on the rest.

Ah, the usual straw dog strategically posed as the only alternative. Contrary to the devoted knee-benders to Milton Friedman there are alternatives to the current historical disparities between rich and poor in the conntry. It alway amusing to watch the right wing tie themselves in linguistic knots explaining to us how the marketplace solves all problems and unfettered capatilism is the only game in town. While keeping a straight face their hand is placed firmly in the taxpayer cookie jar for corporate tax breaks, subsidies, and no-bid contracts. The working-poor however - well if they just worked harder..... The push for the repeal of the estate tax is prime with such irony. To then insist that the only alternatve is via Trotsky and company is a typical attempt to divert attention from the issues at hand (don't forget to add witty and snide comments about Che, subaru and prius drivers, bicycle commuters, and LIBERALS). If nothing else the flood in New Orleans revealed what was always there but not acknowledged - the chasm of income inequity in the US, who benefits, and who suffers. Guaranteed - When they say "It's not about the money" it's about the money. And when they say "it's not about race" You bet it is.

There will be no major changes unless the late-sipping middle class feels some crunch. No, a big crunch. If they can still afford the SUV and the gas, the wide-screen TV, and the mortgage on the McMansion, why care about the have-nots that don't vote? Line that up with the pablum that passes for news, the latest cleb gossip, and Oprah. Well how can a debate on society and goverenance compete with that?

The Bush administration is very good at politics, but not very good at governing or leading. WTF would you appoint the recently resigned head of the Arabrian Horse Breeders Association as the head of an important agency such as FEMA?

I'm hoping to desenitize my fingers enough that my crack climbing will improve.

Maybe he could start by firing this hack: The federal official in charge of the bungled New Orleans rescue was fired from his last private-sector job overseeing horse shows. And before joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a deputy director in 2001, GOP activist Mike Brown had no significant experience that would have qualified him for the position. The Oklahoman got the job through an old college friend who at the time was heading up FEMA. http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=100857

AP-Bush to lead investigation into his own failure ... Buffeted by criticism over the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, President Bush said Tuesday he will oversee an investigation into what went wrong and why — in part to be sure the country could withstand more storms or attack. Bush also announced he is sending Vice President Dick Cheney to the Gulf Coast region on Thursday to help determine whether the government is doing all that it can. "Bureaucracy is not going to stand in the way of getting the job done for the people," the president said after a meeting at the White House with his Cabinet on storm recovery efforts. "What I intend to do is lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong," Bush said. "We still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure we can respond properly if there is a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack or another major storm." ---Idiot

Oh my!! I saw them seperately way back at CBGB. This was not in Utah I assume - they would not allow this act!! A little excess energy I imagine.

Climbed in the Icicle on Saturday, including some routes on Domestic Dome - that snag is looking prime to peel. My crack technique hasn't gotten better w/o practice - thrutching comes to mind. Checked out the bolt anchors for an upcoming kids class. Saw only a few folks - very quiet. Sunday woodworking and 10 mi run. Sunday woodworking (stabbed self with chisel - don't do this) and brewski with friends.

Did I miss the part where they provided transportation for the 100,000 people or so that didn't have the resources to get themselves outta town?

The guy is as bright as a tree stump. What a legacy he's leaving.

This doesn't look like guess work: But although many people say "four million jobs in the last two years" reverently, as if it were an amazing achievement, it's actually a rise of about 3 percent, not much faster than the growth of the working-age population over the same period. And recent job growth would have been considered subpar in the past: employment grew more slowly during the best two years of the Bush administration than in any two years during the Clinton administration. It's also true that the unemployment rate looks fairly low by historical standards. But other measures of the job situation, like the average of weekly hours worked (which remains low), and the average duration of unemployment (which remains high), suggest that the demand for labor is still weak compared with the supply. According to Labor Department statistics, the purchasing power of an average non-supervisory worker's wage has fallen about 1.5 percent since the summer of 2003. And this may understate the pressure on many families: the cost of living has risen sharply for those whose work or family situation requires buying a lot of gasoline. --- And if you're point is that job demand is up - I agree - it's way up because wages and other compensation is down. Across the board people are getting slimmer medical care insurance packages.