Archive for the 'Samuel Dale “Sam” Brownback' Category

Republican GOP Presidential Debates Go Tom Tancredo

May 3, 2007

Islamic radicalism question. “How do we win the war on terrorism, when jihadis are so easily replaced, when killed?” (paraphrase). Brownback. Engage moderate Muslim regimes, in Pakistan and Egypt. Confront Iran.

Q: Zogby poll shows 10 to 12 percent support us in moderate countries like Turkey and Morocco, and rest hate us. A: We need to engage. Not much of an answer, blather.

Q to Huckabee. Would you have fired Donald Rumsfeld before election last November? A Yes.

Q: General shakeup in cabinet? A: Jim Gilmore, right hand in pants pocket. Engage in Middle East. Palestinians and Israels. Sunnis and Shiites.

Q: On Iran nukes. A: McCain, will wait until they have a nuke to respond. (That’s too late.)

Q: Help Israel strike Iran? A: Tancredo. Would depend on our analysis, but would support.

Q: Amend Constitution so foreign born can run? A: Huckabee Yes, McCain maybe, Guilani sort of Yes. Rest No.

Q: to Rudi, what did you learn about African American community or by interacting with them? A: Tried to move people out of welfare, followed Tommy Thompson program. Moved people off, crime down.

Q: Dislike most about America to Romeny A: No real answer.

Q: Global warming to Huckabee: A: Leave planet in better shape. No real answer on whether believes in global warming.

Q: Shortage of organs donated for transplant: A: Not president’s job. No cloning.

Q: Compassionate Conservative like Bush to Hunter: A Yes. Iran has crossed the line. US has license to take necessary actions to stop instruments being moved across line inside Iraq. Don’t wait for enrichment by Iran, move quickly. (Basically he would attack Iran. Way to go Hunter.)

Q: A: Ron Paul. To lower taxes, change policy.

Values segment.

Q: Roe v Wade overturn: A Rudi ok to overturn, but ok not to overturn. Court has to make that decision. States make own decision. Others want it. Tancredo yes. Gilmore is pro choice?

Q: To Romney. Personally pro life, but would protect the law as it was. Cloning is too far. Changed mind, is now pro life.

(The Republicans overall are the A team compared to the Democrats. They come across as presidential. They are all solid executives and solid on policy. Also much stronger. Dems lacked in strong leadership presences in their debate. )

Q: McCain restore unity? A I want to be president to defeat enemies and help allies. Take on radial Islamic extremism, which threatens our values and very life. Most experienced candidate. Don’t want to be proud of nation which thinks best years are behind us.

Q: Duncan Hunter. China dangerous. Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

Q Unite? Huckabee: Morning in America. Vision for America.

Q Paul A: Military aggressiveness weakens national defense. Getting ready to go to war with 3rd world countries with minor forces.

Huckabee Q: Private employer finds homosexuality, can fire them: A: Leave it up to business. Answer is yes.

Romney: Separation of church and state.

Huckabee. My faith affects my decision process. I am troubled by someone who tells me their faith doesn’t affect their decisions.

Gilmore: Spending too much money in government. What is important to this country is not Karl Rove.

Q: Tom Tancredo: A Karl Rove would not be in the White House if I was. Differ on immigration.

Q: Guiliani. A. Neither party has monopoly on virtue and vice. Ran a city that was 5 to 1 Democratic. Most conservative govt last 50 years, reduced crime.

Q: Thompson: Vetoed 1900 things? Welfare reform. Reduced welfare in Wisconsin by 93 percent. Republicans lost way. Washington changed us instead of us changing Washington.

Q: Brownback. Corruption in Republican party. A: Also Democrats with money in deep freezes.
Q: Tancredo. Ethics violations. A: Failures by individuals. Not just Democrats. Don’t have to be a centrist. Had principles. Believe in your heart in things you say is what matters.

Q: McCain. A: Special interest have kept spectrum. Lost election 2006, lost way. Spending got out of trouble.

Q: Budget. What programs cut. A: Line item veto is best tool. Defense acquisitions.

Q: Huckabee. What letter grade on Iraq war handling. A: No grade until it was over.

Q: Romney. Judges. A: Will appoint pro life judges not just strict constructionists.

Q: Rudi. pro choice? A: Hate abortion. Encouraged adoptions, went up 65 percent, abortion down 16 percent. Support choice.

Q: Thompson. Racism a problem. A: A problem can do things about it.

Q: Tancredo. A: Who else should be nominee? Good men all here. Issues not addressed tonight, immigration reform. No more platitudes. No more not for amnesty but for letting them stay. Who is where on this incredible issue.

Q: Anti illegal immigration position? A McCain is for comprehensive solution for illegal immigration. Temporary worker program. 12 million illegals.

Q: Hunter: Global warming and need to be energy independent. Bring together to remove energy dependence on Middle East and help climate. Take taxes to zero on alternative energy sources. Support US industry not foreign.

Q: Ron Paul. Decisions. A: In medicine have to make decisions. Not go to war in Iraq.

Q: To Gilmore. Mothers nonviolent first time offenders. A: Insist on obedience to the law. Let courts and juries make decisions. When elected prosecutor, had to address them. Have to have the law apply. Was governor during 9-11 attack. Chairman on terrorism commission.

Q: Embryonic stem cell research. A: Romney against. Brownback against. Gilmore no.

Huckabee no. Hunter no. Thompson mixed. Adult. McCain: Fund this. Ron Paul. Shouldn’t be in Washington. Rudi: Support it with limitations. Tancredo: No taxpayer money.

Romney: Health program. Also tax relief middle class on investment income. Eliminate tax on dividends, interest and capital gains for middle class.
Brownback: Flat tax.

Gilmore: Cut alternative minimum.

Huckabee: Fair tax. Flatter, fairer, family, finite.

Hunter: US manufacturing move off shore. Dumb trade deal, our exports taxed twice. Eliminate all taxes on companies hiring American workers and making products in US.

Thompson. Vetoed 1900 items. Cut alternative minimum tax. Flat tax. Pay whichever is least.

McCain: Alt minimum has to be repealed. 3000 tax credit to purchase health insurance. Simpler, flatter, fairer tax.

Dr. Paul: Cut taxes. Also inflation tax.

Rudi: Adjust AMT. Get rid of death tax.

Tancredo: Fair tax. Repeal 16th Amendment. Consumption and income tax we will end up with. Deal with structural problem in mandatory spending.

McCain: Lieberman may appoint to Cabinet. John Chambers hire from industry. (But Chambers already works for the Chinese government?)

Hunter: Secure the border. 2000 miles porous. Hundreds of thousands come across border. Some come across from Iran, Communist China, Korea.

McCain: Yes believes in evolution. A: See hand of God at Grand Canyon. (Actually the number 1 shows God’s presence more than the Grand Canyon does.)

Rudi: Sunni v. Shiite. Sunni believe Caliphate selected, Shiites believe by descent. Slaughter of Shiites in early history. (Very good answer.)

Gilmore: Consistent conservative.

Ron Paul: Trust internet more than MSM. Never interfere with internet. Never voted to regulate internet. Freedom of expression. Pick and choose in MSM. Some friendly, and some not so.

Rudi: Weakness as candidate. Optimist.

Huckabee: CEO’s get bonuses and workers lose pensions in sellouts to overseas is wrong.

Tom Tancredo: Work to protect women’s rights. Abortion. Not right to kill another person.

Thompson. Over 3000 killed, several thousand injured.

Ron Paul: No national id card. Tancredo: no national id. But a verifiable social security card. Thompson no national id.

Pardon Libby: Judicial process should complete. Should not have prosecuted after knew someone else leaked. Brownback: No law violated. Gilmore. Pardon has to make case. Tancredo: Pardon Ramos and Compean first then Libby. Ron Paul: No pardon.

Romney and Rudi: national id only for immigrants, not citizens. (Silly distinction, meaningless.) Gilmore: No national id card.

Clinton back in White House: Romney, awful to have Clinton back in WH. Paul voted to impeach Clinton.

Rudi: Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Not mentioned by Democrats.

(Almost every answer possible, the moderator would respond to Tom Tancredo’s answer with a sneer and gibe and put down. Tancredo said, Clinton is measuring drapes, and Chris Matthews put Tancredo down, you really think he is doing that? And this was typical of Matthews treatment of Tancredo. This was not done to other candidates like this. Another one was when Matthews asked Tancredo about Rove, and Tancredo said this is the closest Tancredo had ever been to Air Force One. Matthews then derisively said that isn’t air force one to put him down.)

Mistakes by Bush: Huckabee, taking power from states. Hunter: losing industrial base. China is cheating. Enforce trade laws, Bush doesn’t. Brownback: 3 state solution in Iraq. Push political solution. Tancredo: No child left behind, medical prescription were overreaching. Tancredo on Iraq Matthews cut him off and went to Thompson: Medical diplomacy. Dr. Paul: change foreign policy. Robert Taft foreign policy. Privacy of citizens. Warrantless searches. Not abuse habeas corpus.

Matthews thanked Mrs. Reagen but not any of the candidates, until after this was written.

MSNBC: The 10 most prominent candidates were debating ET at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., north of Los Angeles. The debate, co-sponsored by MSNBC and the political Web site politico.com, is airing on MSNBC-TV and C-SPAN radio and streaming live on MSNBC.com.Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, chairman of the Republican National Committee…

For former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the gathering is a chance to build momentum on recent polls that show him leading the field. A poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University showed Giuliani leading his closest declared rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, by 27 percent to 19 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney trailed in third, with 8 percent.

The other candidates on the stage Thursday night are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Tommy Thompson, a former governor of Wisconsin and Bush’s first secretary of health and human services.

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act smited Graham family’s stability

February 19, 2007

Two posts at Vdare by Patrick Cleburne and Randall Burns lead into this article’s discussion of how Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act harmed the family of Senator Lindsey Graham while he and his sister were growing up. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act created income inequality and economic insecurity to further undermine Senator Lindsey Graham and his sister’s start in life when both their parents died.

If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since. Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Most Senators timed the income inequality graph perfectly, coming of age as young adults when income inequality was low from the 1940’s to 1960’s and then building or increasing fortunes as income inequality increased from 1968 to the present.

In an earlier article, Graham was compared to several other senators who sponsored or cosponsored the S. 2611 amnesty bill who unlike Graham benefited from low income inequality when they started out as young adults and high income inequality in their peak earning years. Several Senators who conspored S. 2611 built or deepened fortunes from the misfortunes of others on the income inequality graph.

From an earlier Old Atlantic article:

The lives of Arlen Specter and the 6 cosponsors of S. 2611 are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Arlen Specter, John McCain and Ted Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

Patrick Cleburne comments on the prior Old Atlantic article at Vdare.com:
The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for a previous Old Atlantic column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

Randall Burns deepens our understanding of the comparison of the lives of the Senators by providing information on the life of Lindsey Graham. Burns points out that Graham helped to take care of a sister when both of their parents died.

His sister was taken in by relatives and Graham arranged to do his law school education near to where she was living and also with the military’s assent adopted her so she could take advantage of military health care.

As Burns points out, this was not selfish on the part of Graham. But in the context of the discussion here and in Mr. Cleburne’s column, Graham was distinguished from the selfish Senators as illustrating the impact of economic insecurity as he reached young adulthood. The other Senators’ lives illustrated selfishness and attributing to themselves the advantage of the timing of their birth on the income inequality graph.

The loss of both parents can only be a shock to the sense of economic security of any person. Since Graham had a minor sister at the time, that can only deepen that sense of economic insecurity. In the comparison of the lives above, Graham illustrated how economic insecurity was higher in the late 1970’s and 1980’s as income inequality was going up from its low in 1968 as the effects of Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act cut in.

By pointing this episode out, Burns deepens our understanding of this. Graham was subject to two shocks, one was the loss of his parents while he had a minor sister and the other was the rising tide of income inequality from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. This meant it would be harder for her to have a job during school or for her relatives to support her who had taken her in.

In fact, Graham tells us she got 600 dollars per month from Social Security and that she needed that money. This shows how social security had taken the place for the Graham family of a job market with job shortages and high wages, which is the historic basis of income security for all but the rich.

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act had taken from the Graham family the economic opportunity it needed both before and after the loss of Graham’s parents. The Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act had left the Graham family unprepared except by social security and the kindess of relatives for one of life’s blows, the loss of the two parents. We can infer that Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act kept Graham’s parents from having sufficient life insurance, and that they couldn’t afford sufficient life insurance because Kennedy took away the wages of both of Graham’s parents with his 1965 Immigration Act.

Kennedy McCain rode income inequality wave

February 13, 2007

Most Senators today were born or became young adults in the 1940’s or 1950’s while income inequality was going down. If you look at Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Fig 1 or p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Census Income home page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

Census Income Inequality Home Page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html#incomeineq

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income05.html 

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-231.pdf page 18 or see p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Specter who sponsored S. 2611 was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Specter supports.

But Specter and most of the cosponsors rode the chart of income inequality from the time it was going down to the bottom of income inequality when they were starting out to the top where he is now on the top. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why they had it good and young people today don’t in their minds.

The lives of Specter and the 6 cosponsors are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Specter, McCain and Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Hagel and Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

The Senators who voted for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970’s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._2611

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@P

S.2611
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 4/7/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.4437, S.2454, S.2612
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 – 36. Record Vote Number: 157.


COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 4/7/2006
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 4/7/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] – 4/7/2006
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 4/7/2006
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] – 4/7/2006
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 4/7/2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter 1930http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback 1956http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M_Kennedy 1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain Born 1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter Born 1930

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-191.pdf

You may want to open the above pdf in another window and look at the income inequality graph. It is a bowl shape that goes down from the late 1940’s to bottom out from 1965 to 1968 and then heads back up. It splits into two indices and these reach the 1940’s level of income inequlity sometime between 1980 and 1985. Income inequality then rose to its current levels the most extreme. The bottom of the bowl is the 1965 Immigration Act. Despite the effect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, income inequality was at its low from 1965 to 1968 for all time that they have statistics.All the bill sponsors and cosponsors benefited from the time period at the bottom of this bowl.

Specter is the bill sponsor. He was born February 12, 1930 and 21 years later, in 1951, income inequality was headed down. That was when he was starting out as a young adult. Income inequality was falling rapidly in the early 1950’s. He could go to law school, get married, and have a family while he was a young adult and attribute all of that to his smarts and hard work.

Edward M. Kennedy was born February 22, 1932 and he was 21 in 1953. Although rich, he could feel that he was part of a generation where income inequality was falling rapidly. He became a young adult and even became a Senator in 1962 while income inequality was falling faster than at any time in history. He was the one who stopped that and reversed it by the 1965 Immigration Act.John McCain was born August 29, 1936 and was 21 in 1957. This was while income inequality was falling rapidly. He started out as a young adult during that time of rising boats for all. He was able to get married during this time. He was in a prison camp from 1967–1973 while income inequality bottomed out. When he returned he would divorce his wife, marry a millionairess and launch his political career. He was helping Charles Keating in the early 1980’s during the S and L scandal and was a member of the Keating 5.”

Melquíades Rafael “Mel” Martínez (born October 23, 1946) is a Cuban-born American politician,”. He started out as a lawyer in 1973 and built his practice for 25 years. He was 21 in 1967. The all time bottom in income inequality was 1968. He too could go to law school like Specter, get married, have a young family and build a legal career all as a young adult.”

Charles TimothyChuckHagel (born October 4, 1946) is the senior United States Senator from Nebraska. A member of the Republican Party, he was first elected in 1996 and was reelected in 2002.” Hagel enjoyed the same opportunity that Mel Martinez had, to become 21 in 1967 one year before income inequality bottomed out in 1968. Hagel thus could build his life while income inequality was low and enjoy rising income inequality later when he was an investment banker and businessma in the 1980’s. He could build a fortune in the 1980’s as income inequality was going up from over 20 years of the action of the 1965 Immigration Act. Hagel wants to keep his business network of rich guys in the same sweet spot of when they were born together and doing well so they can hire each other’s kids and avoid the fate that young people who are not children of business moguls like Hagel have to face.

“Lindsey Olin Graham (born July 9, 1955) ” “Graham graduated from the University of South Carolina at Columbia with a B.A. in Psychology in 1977 and from its school of law with a J.D. in 1981, and eventually entered private practice as a lawyer. He is a brother of the Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. Graham has never married.” Graham unlike the others, could not build a career and have a family as a young adult. Graham is already illustrating the impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, its why he had to choose building a career or a family as a young adult. Graham chose to build a career, so he never had a family as a result.

“Samuel Dale “Sam” Brownback (born September 12, 1956) is the senior United States senator from the U.S. state of Kansas. On January 20, 2007 he announced his intentions to seek the Republican Party‘s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential election.[1][2]“Brownback is married to the former Mary Stauffer, heiress[citation needed] to a Topeka, Kansas newspaper fortune. The couple are the parents of five children (three daughters and two sons; two of the children are adopted).”

So Brownback avoided Graham’s choice have a career or a family but not both, by marrying an heiress. So he could have both. But not those he governs. Brownback’s S. 2611 puts most Americans in the same boat as Lindsey Graham, if you want to build a career during this time of economic uncertainty, you have to defer marriage and children, maybe forever. For those making this choice, even becoming a US Senator may not be enough to reverse income inequality preventing them getting married and having kids when biology tells them to, as young adults.

==Reference Material

Table IE-6.  Measures of Household Income Inequality: 1967 to 2001*

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Variance        Mean

                        of the logarithmic                Atkinson

                        log of   deviation         -----------------------

 Year            Gini   income   of income   Theil  e=0.25  e=0.50  e=0.75

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2001           0.466    1.007       0.515   0.413   0.098   0.189   0.282

 2000 30/       0.462    0.983       0.490   0.404   0.096   0.185   0.275
1970           0.394    0.805       0.370   0.271   0.068   0.138   0.214

 1969           0.391    0.774       0.357   0.268   0.067   0.135   0.209

 1968           0.388    0.779       0.356   0.273   0.067   0.135   0.208

 1967 12/       0.399    0.813       0.380   0.287   0.071   0.143   0.220

=–

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie1.html

==

 Table IE-1.  Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion:

      1967 to 2001      (Households as of March of the following year.  Income in current

      and 2001 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      Measures of Income Dispersion    2001   2000 30/ 2000 29/   1999
Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles         95th/20th                        8.38     8.10     8.11     8.26

         95th/50th                        3.57     3.46     3.46     3.48

         80th/50th                        1.98     1.95     1.95     1.94

         80th/20th                        4.65     4.56     4.56     4.62

         20th/50th                        0.43     0.43     0.43     0.42
Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.466    0.462    0.460    0.457
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures of Income Dispersion    1970     1969     1968   1967 12/

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

       Household Income at

         Selected Percentiles       In Current Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit   3,687    3,574    3,323    3,000

         50th (median)                 8,734    8,389    7,743    7,143

         80th percentile upper limit  14,661   13,900   12,688   11,841

         95th percentile lower limit  23,178   21,800   19,850   19,000

In 2001 Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit  14,556   14,789   14,350   13,474

         50th (median)                34,481   34,714   33,436   32,081

         80th percentile upper limit  57,881   57,519   54,790   53,181

         95th percentile lower limit  91,505   90,209   85,717   85,334

Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles

95th/20th                        6.29     6.10     5.97     6.33

         95th/50th                        2.65     2.60     2.56     2.66

         80th/50th                        1.68     1.66     1.64     1.66

         80th/20th                        3.98     3.89     3.82     3.95

         20th/50th                        0.42     0.43     0.43     0.42

Mean Household Income

         of Quintiles

In Current Dollars

         Lowest quintile               2,029    1,957    1,832    1,626

         Second quintile               5,395    5,216    4,842    4,433

         Third quintile                8,688    8,335    7,679    7,078

         Fourth quintile              12,247   11,674   10,713    9,903

         Highest quintile             21,684   20,520   18,762   17,946

In 2001 Dollars:

         Lowest quintile               8,010    8,098    7,911    7,303

         Second quintile              21,299   21,584   20,909   19,910

         Third quintile               34,300   34,491   33,160   31,789

         Fourth quintile              48,350   48,307   46,261   44,477

         Highest quintile             85,607   84,913   81,019   80,601

Shares of Household Income

         of Quintiles

Lowest quintile                   4.1      4.1      4.2      4.0

         Second quintile                  10.8     10.9     11.1     10.8

         Third quintile                   17.4     17.5     17.5     17.3

         Fourth quintile                  24.5     24.5     24.4     24.2

         Highest quintile                 43.3     43.0     42.8     43.8

Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.394    0.391    0.388    0.399

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb1.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60191.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html

“income inequality” site:census.gov

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2611
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

“Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.” More on Rubenstein‘s ESR Research, which does statistical research.

Time to Rethink Immigration?
by Peter Brimelow
from National Review, June 22, 1992

Mr. Brimelow is Editor at VDARE.com.

Above is the famous Brimelow piece at National Review, when William F. Buckley was still for us on immigration restriction. William Kristol is now editor of National Review. Kristol, born in 1952, rode the income inequality wave and has pulled up the ladder on the generations that came after him.

The above was rewritten from a comment at Front Page Magazine on

The GOP’s Moment of Truth
By William Kristol
The Weekly Standard | February 13, 2007

William Kristol was born in 1952. He rode the same income inequality wave.

==Comment that was rewritten into above:

Kristol was born in 1952 while income inequality was going down. If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Kristol was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Kristol supports.

But Kristol rode the chart of income inequality from the bottom of income inequality when he was starting out to the top where he is now on the top. So he is against us. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why he had it good and young people today don’t in his mind.

You can simply type in the names of the pdf files into google and those will give the link to the pdf files at the census site, you don’t have to hunt through it.

The Senators for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970’s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

==Comments at Vdare on this post

The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for this column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.
— Also

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

These are discussed further in this article.

%d bloggers like this: