June 07, 2005

For Old Time's Sake... Fisking the Fiskable Neal Boortz

from - smijer

How long has it been since I've really hurt your eyes with a Best of Boortz column? Not long enough? Huh... well, I've been working so hard on being nice lately, I need a few minutes where I can, in good conscience, just tear someone a new body cavity useful for the elimination of solid waste. And who has more solid waste stored up inside than Neal Boortz? Let's throw gentility to the wind and rake him over the coals, shall we?

Neal Boortz, the (upper) Class Warlord
Today Boortz confuses an editorial page by Bob Herbert with news reporting. Specifically, he says:

The New York Times is reporting with great fanfare that the gap between the rich and the poor is rising. They seem aghast that the top .1 percent of income earners are raking in an average of $3 million a year. Furthermore, That's only about 145,000 taxpayers. So much money in the hands of so few..they must have stolen it!

Ok, so maybe he just doesn't understand the difference between opinion and news. Possible? According to him, only if he was educated in public schools. From September 29, 2004:

Meanwhile, my challenge stands. Write me an email ... give me a call ... send me some snail mail detailing any right wing bias in the reporting of the news on Fox News Channel. For those of you who went to government schools and who, accordingly, vote for the big-government party ... expressions of opinion by commentators is not considered to be "reporting the news."

Yeah... check those big letters just above the headline... the ones that say "Op-Ed Columnist". By the way, I have e-mailed one answer to Neal's "Fox News Challenge", which was never acknowledged. Of course, Boortz is preaching to a pretty out of touch choir, in any case. Everybody knows that every aspect of Fox News programming contains at least some right-wing bias. One would have to be blind from the Elephant Koolaid not to notice. Yet, in March of this year, Boortz lied outright and claimed that no one had met his challenge.

Anyway, back to the meat and potatoes, or in Boortz' case, the pâté de foi grois and crème broulee of this post. He rails against the New York times editorialist for pointing out that income disparity really does continue to rise. Sure, the Bush tax cuts have something to with that. How can they not? But Boortz doesn't buy it. He honestly (ha!) thinks that income disparity comes from the moral fibre of the rich and the degeneracy of the poor... No, really:

If rich people are getting richer, that means they're producing more profit or earning more money. We'll call them the achievers.[...]Poverty is a mental disease at worst and a behavioral disorder at best. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. Everyone is where they are in life as a direct result of the decisions they have made to put them there. If they've worked hard, they can be rich.

He closes with this unintentionally ironic twist: "Unless, of course, you're a Kennedy and get rich by default." ... hmmm... you mean you can be born rich? Maybe that's why Boortz campaigns against the estate tax, huh?

'Course, there are a lot of factors that figure into the income gap. As was pointed out not too long ago, it's expensive to be poor... especially in Tennessee. And then there is the pervasive corporate cronyism (pdf) which ensures executive salaries go up even when profits go down. So, no... it's not really that rich people are just great achievers and poor people are all bums. It's also the fact that wealth is power. It's the fact that work and achievement are among the least successful means of producing wealth available. So, when Boortz snorts that '[the poor] aren't going to make the sacrifices necessary to become rich like them', remember that his chief sacrifice is to sit on a comfortable chair in a studio and talk about things he knows next to nothing about.

If we can't lock them up indefinitely without charges or trial and abuse them in the meantime, we might as well let them go.

Quote number one:

Apparently Amnesty International doesn't know what real human rights abuses are. So why are they attacking us?

Ouch. Funny, a lot of people seem to think that exact thing. I suppose Boortz can be forgiven since he only got into this "freedom" and "human rights" thing fairly recently, when he needed a pom-pom to shake with his war cheers, but honestly... I suggest that Neal read up on Amnesty.

So, what to do with these 500 or so 'jihadists' that haven't already been returned to their home countries because of their innocence?

Senator Joe Biden says we should shut down the Gitmo prison. What would he have us do with the 500 or so jihadists we have imprisoned there? Perhaps we should put them all up for adoption? Send them around to live with liberals in a terrorist exchange program. Then people could learn the "root causes" of terrorism and try and reason with these bloodthirsty animals, which of course would never work.

No... we could never do that. I say we dig a hole under Camp X-Ray and dump them in there. Or, and I know this is going to sound radical, but what if we took them to a detention center where the Red Cross and Amnesty International were allowed to monitor their treatment. Then, we could charge them with war crimes, let them consult with their attorneys, and hold a trial. Ok, ok... I know that may sound kind of UnAmerican, but it could work!

I could go on, but I'll spare us both...


Posted by smijer at June 7, 2005 07:08 AM

As to Boortz, here is another example of his dishonesty!

Major flaw found in H.R. 25 [Fair Tax proposal] and is reported in Money Magazine.

But Neal Boortz, a talk radio show host and co-author of The Fair Tax book snaps back and points out the book‘s introduction says“…the book isn't about saving a penny in taxes " and promises to make a correction in a reprinting of his book. But the painful truth is, the Boortz/Linder book has conveniently confused tens of thousands of readers into believing something which the Fair Tax will not do, and obviously turned them into wishful thinking fair tax supporters because of misleading information!.

For the Money Magazine article see: Just how fair is the 'FairTax'?

The following is quoted from the article:

“What The FairTax Book fails to mention is that prices can only fall this sharply if companies cut wages. I asked Jorgenson about this, and he agreed. Say your salary is $100,000 a year today, but you take home $80,000 after taxes.

Your company is still paying that extra $20,000. In a FairTax world, it will save that money, and be able to lower its prices accordingly, only if it can reduce your salary to $80,000. In other words, your take-home pay is the same as before. Sure, you'd get to "keep 100 percent of your paycheck," as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck. That's kind of a big thing to leave out.

I pressed the point with Boortz and Linder. Boortz denies that the book intentionally overpromises. The introduction, he notes, emphasizes that "this book isn't about saving a penny in taxes." But he concedes that the book is confusing about this, and vows to correct it in later printings. Fair enough.”

Meanwhile, these guys want to replace the entire tax code, they've ignited a populist movement to get it done, and tens of thousands of copies of the uncorrected book make the FairTax sound like magic.”

For a thinking person’s view on tax reform see:An answer to the Steve Forbes flat tax



The only stinking tax reform we need is for the American People to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

univar.jpg Posted by john w k on September 24, 2005 04:41 PM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.