Dean Baker reminds us that the "carried interest tax deduction," enjoyed by Wall Street hedge fund managers, "has no economic rationale" and doesn't even "serve() some socially useful purpose." If you know that hedge funds serve only the super-rich -- and evade a lot of regulation because they're generally not available to the public, which generally isn't super-rich -- you're probably not surprised. Key argument: hedge fund managers argue that "it is good for the managers to have their interests allied with the investors in their fund" -- "but it has nothing to do with why the taxpayers should subsidize their income."
In the aftermath of the April 13 shooting deaths of three people at a pair of Kansas City-area Jewish community centers, FAIR notes the reluctance of the "liberal" media to label the accused shooter a terrorist and wonders, "Can White People Be Terrorists?" Don't fall into the trap of thinking the media is being circumspect because Mr. Miller is still a suspect -- recall how quickly the "liberal" media rushed into speculating that Muslims perpetrated the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, rather than the white man who left Buffalo because it was too liberal for him. And whether Glenn Miller is guilty of this crime or not, he is a terrorist, simple and plain. Golly, I wonder which right-wing pundits will take statements like those personally.
NJ Gov. Chris Christie, a master of throwing up his hands at things he finds too hard, advocates ending all campaign donation limits. Because they don't work, you see, never mind that at least three bad Supreme Court rulings have made that task much harder than it needs to be. Don't fall into the trap of saying well, at least he advocates transparency of donations -- when it's time to act on that statement, he'll have a half-dozen excuses why he can't, just like they all do.
Finally, Phyllis Schafly, that devoted friend of womanhood, claims that if women make the same money as men for the same work, they'll have a lot more trouble finding husbands. But to the degree that "women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner" and "men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner," why would these be laws of physics (as Ms. Schafly treats them), and not phenomena created by several thousand years of social, political, and economic conditioning?