Couldn’t Help But Notice (020708)

IBDeditorials.com, unlike much of Old Media and a number of bloggers who should know better, fully understands that what Bill Clinton said last week about reducing economic growth in the name of environmental purity — regardless of its “context” — was an expression of a core belief. Though, like on so many other things, it wasn’t something he would expend any political capital for (bold is mine):

In a typically verbose speech, he put forth his idea of what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save our planet for our grandchildren.” Sounds like he should cut back on his own.

….. Clinton’s sense of urgency to save the planet was not so apparent back when he was renting out the Lincoln Bedroom. As president, and even with Al Gore warning that the Earth hung in the balance, he never submitted the original Kyoto pact for ratification.

The fact that a contemporaneous preemptive Senate resolution that called for rejecting Kyoto passed 95-0 might have something to do with that.

____________________________________________________

From the “Nothing Here, Move Along” Department:

2 seeking state gambling deals gave thousands to Strickland, Democrats

Lobbyists and executives for two firms with a chance to operate the state-run keno gambling machines proposed by Gov. Ted Strickland have donated thousands of campaign dollars to the Democratic governor and his party.
The money came from representatives of GTech Corp., the state’s online gaming vendor, and Intralot USA, which has bid against GTech and a third firm for a new state contract for online lottery services that went out in October.

Lottery spokesman Mardele Cohen said the contract did not specifically include keno, which the governor said Thursday could raise $73 million of the $733 million he needs to address a projected budget deficit.

Uh, the projected deficit ranges from $733 million to $1.9 billion.

The linked article was written by the Associated Press, and carried by the Toledo Blade. That AP had to provide the story must mean that the Blade’s Pulitzer Prize winners who covered Tom Noe’s doings, which have in the long run cost the state very little, while virtually ignoring Mark Lay, whose mis-investments cost the state over $200 million, apparently had more important things to do.

_______________________________________________

E-X, X-O-N (clap-clap, clap-clap-clap): Reader Joe C. sent a link to something that I had read in passing elsewhere that needs some cleaning up —

Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That’s $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it’s hard to comprehend. Here’s one way to put Exxon’s taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

Trouble is, that $27 billion reflects income taxes worldwide (Page 80 at link). The US portion is substantial, though, at somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion. Probably about $1 billion of that is paid to the states, and the rest goes to Uncle Sam. If you dug into the 2004 IRS data referred to at the link provided by Joe C, you could probably conclude that only one company pays as much in federal corporate income taxes as about 30%, maybe 40%, but not 50%, of US individual taxpayers.

____________________________________________

An AP story in USA Today last week on Communist China’s expansion of its censorship efforts into Internet video sure didnt get much of a reaction, and should have:

China tightens Net video control

China will take a new step Thursday to tighten control of the Internet when rules go into force limiting online video-sharing to state companies. But regulators, wary of hurting a fast-growing industry, are expected to let private operators work around the restrictions.

The rules are aimed at expanding a Chinese censorship system that tries to block Internet use to spread dissent while promoting it for business and education. Communist leaders are especially anxious about unflattering video showing up online ahead of the Beijing Olympics in August, a major prestige project.

Where’s the Old Media outrage? And which member(s) of the BizzyBlog Internet Wall of Shame might be assisting in the enforcement of this latest expansion of the Chinese police state?