May 28-29, 2009
May 28 00:41 President Obama, Job Killer May 28 01:55 They Pay This Idiot to Write This Stuff? May 28 10:22 This Is Proof of Recovery? May 28 22:33 Larry Haws On Education May 29 01:58 Translating the DFL's Budget Spin May 29 14:30 Today's DFL: Nothing But Spin May 29 15:02 Pinheads & Patriots May 29 16:00 Marginal Tax Rates Don't Matter?
President Obama, Job Killer
If I got paid $5 each time President Obama or any Democrat talked about jobs created or saved, I'd be a wealthy man. It's getting more difficult for President Obama to credibly use that phrase because of the jobs it's killing through its bullying of Chrysler bondholders in its attempt to pay off its UAW allies. Now there's a new twist to the story:
Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., a businessman who has owned car dealerships since 1992, learned Thursday that his Venice, Fla., Dodge dealership was among those scheduled to be terminated.What's most appalling is that a number of the dealerships getting shut down were making profits. It's also disturbing from a customer service standpoint. Whoever came up with this plan is an idiot. That's why I've got a hunch that this plan was concocted by someone in Steve Rattner's office.
"It's an outrage. It's not about me. I'm going to be fine," said Buchanan, the dealership's majority owner. "You're talking over 100,000 jobs. We're supposed to be in the business of creating jobs, not killing jobs."
People should remind themselves of the jobs being lost due to President Obama's strongarming bondholders while paying off his UAW friends. They should also remind themselves that the bailouts weren't an attempt to make GM and Chrysler healthy; they were an attempt to put a deal in place that would preserve the UAW's pension plans, which are at the heart of the auto manufacturers' financial troubles.
Thus far, President Obama's economic policies haven't helped lay the foundation for a new round of prosperity and wealth-building. They've laid the foundation for high interest rates, high inflation and big tax increases.
In 2004, Democrats, led by John Kerry, kept talking about whether President Bush would be the first president since Hoover to create fewer jobs than were lost. There's a very real possibility of President Obama being a one-term wonder because his administration lost million more jobs than it created. That's what happens when a smooth-talking bitter ideologue is elected as president.
When I read things like this, I'm more convinced than ever that this administration's priorities are misplaced:
Buchanan owns five dealership locations in Florida and North Carolina. He once owned 23 car franchises and sold off about 60 percent of his car dealerships before entering Congress. His Dodge dealership in Venice also includes a Nissan store.Families are hurting just because President Obama wanted to help the UAW. Remember that when you go to the polls in November, 2010.
"This doesn't do anything but hurt Chrysler. This doesn't help Chrysler. And they're going to be hurting a lot of working families," said Buchanan, who was first elected to Congress in 2006 to a seat previously held by Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla.
This post about which dealerships were shutdown is scary if verified as fact:
To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.The post goes on to list some of the dealers who contributed to political campaigns. Thus far, the vast majority of them contibuted to Republicans. The list is only a partial list. Another thing from this post is a:
Quote from an attorney who Deposed Chrysler's president last week: "It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers...It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."Like Allahpundit says, what are the odds of that happening?
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:50 AM
Comment 1 by Reaganite Republican Resistance at 28-May-09 01:58 PM
Obama thinks he's Tony Soprano now- strong-arming legitimate, legal rights and claims from hedge funds, mafia-style, including union death-threats, so he could hand 55% of Chrysler over to the UAW, who donated $5M to his campaign.
If that's not stealing, I don't know what is, it doesn't matter how much you dislike hedge funds.
Now he's destroying the evil capitalists that didn't support his fraudulent, disingenuous campaign?
The White House says there's "no evidence" - note that Hitler was careful to only give verbal orders, too, and Obama's not new to this sort of thing.
Obama's completely out-of-control. But what did anyone expect with a neutered press, compliant congress, and cabinet full of sycophants?
They Pay This Idiot to Write This Stuff?
I don't often talk on this blog about Sid Hartman's columns but I can't avoid talking about his latest column this time. Here's the idiotic statement Sid made that should make him the laughingstock of the sportswriting community:
The point I'm trying to make is that, had the Twins decided to sign Hunter, and not have made the deals involving Castillo, Santana, Bartlett and Garza, they would have a lot more solid club with fewer holes in the lineup.No shit Sherlock??? The Twins couldn't have signed Hunter, Santana, Castillo, Bartlett & Garza. Hunter & Santana alone would've added $38 million to this year's payroll, with Castillo & Bartlett adding another $8.75 million. According to this ESPN website , the Twins payroll is approximately $65,000,000.
Keeping Santana, Hunter, Bartlett & Castillo alone would've pushed the Twins payroll north of $110,000,000, approximately $40,000,000 more than their highest payroll ever. That's before thinking about signing Joe Mauer, the best hitter in baseball by far, to a contract extension. Expect that contract extension to be in the neighborhood of $25,000,000 a year.
If that typical Sid boilerplate isn't enough, then think of this:
Talking about holes, if they should lose Joe Mauer, it would be impossible to replace him.No shit Sherlock. That's like saying it would've been impossible for the Giants to replace Barry Bonds if he got injured.
Sid Hartman & Nick Coleman are (semi-living) proof positive of why the STrib is a dying newspaper.
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:55 AM
No comments.
This Is Proof of Recovery?
President Obama plans on highlighting the fact that it's been 100 days since singing ARRA, aka the Porkulus Bill. Accompanying his speech is this report which supposedly reports of the recovery being unleashed by the Democrats' porkfest. Here's a little portion of it that's worth debunking:
Across America, recovery is under way. From the new State of Maine Ferry to a community health center in Mississippi, from classrooms in Florida to the Willamette River Bridge in Washington, we are using the Recovery Act to jump-start our economy today, while building a new foundation for the sustained economic growth of tomorrow. In the first 100 days since President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, we have obligated more than $112 billion, created more than 150,000 jobs and helped communities and tribes in every state and territory.Borrowing $787,000,000,000 for public works projects, most of which will be spent after the 2010 midterm elections, is hardly a springboard to prosperity. Spending money on "classrooms in Florida" might sound nice but it's hardly something that will jumpstart this faltering economy.
But recovery is more than just a compilation of statistics; it's the return of hope and optimism about the future that comes with making life better for communities and families across the country. And it's proof of America's vast capacity to create real progress in the short term as we emerge from an economic crisis that was years in the making.
What's particularly insulting is this sentence:
But recovery is more than just a compilation of statistics; it's the return of hope and optimism about the future that comes with making life better for communities and families across the country.By now, people across this nation know that they're facing a future with high interest rates, high inflation rates, slower growth, little if any savings and big income tax increases to pay for the Obama administration's unsustainable deficits.
That's before thinking about the rising unemployment rate, which might hit the 10% mark in Q1, 2010. Unemployment might jump more depending on how the GM and Chrysler bailouts shake out.
What part about those looming realities suggests to this White House that people are feeling more hopeful today than this time last year?
Leading economists think that the vast majority of jobs created now are temporary in nature. What happens when the various projects are finished and the economy continues to stagger along? What happens when the Obama administration's tax increases and inflation suck money out of families' budgets?
What happens when people realize that the Obama administration's economic plan is more about smoke and mirrors than about sound economic principles? What happens if GM and Chrysler struggle through their troubles?
Renewable Energy: Using $27 million of Recovery Act funding, a public housing development in Washington, D.C., the Regency House, has undergone a green retrofit. As part of this upgrade, the building installed solar panels, a "green" roof, a rainwater collection system, energy-efficient lighting as well as water conserving toilets, showerheads, and faucets. The greening of this building will allow the Regency House to save money in energy costs, while lessening their impact on the environment.They're spending $27,000,000 on this crap? Please. This will jumpstart our economy? I wouldn't bet on it.
In Wilmington and Bear, Delaware, Amtrak is using $22 million in Recovery Act funding to restore two Superliner cars, three P-3 locomotives, and four Amfleet train cars.How will this jumpstart the economy? At best, the restoration projects will keep union people already working for Amtrak busy a little while. Because people understand that the money that's spent on this project is onetime money, the efffect will be limited. People that get this type of money understand that this money won't come in month after month.
It won't have the effect that creating private sector jobs will have because, unlike jobs created through increased entrepreneurial activity, the ARRA money isn't likely to be sustained.
Simply put, the Obama administration will attempt to spin this but people know what effect it's having on their lives.
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:26 AM
No comments.
Larry Haws On Education
In his end-of-session newsletter, Rep. Larry Haws made this statement:
That being said, as a supporter of the New Minnesota Miracle this session, I was disappointed that a framework for moving in that direction was not part of the final budget bill. This education funding reform would provide schools with stable, adequate and more equitable funding, with $600 million in net property tax relief. It would also have fully funded the state share of special education costs. Nevertheless, the legislation that we passed this year represented the best-case scenario for Minnesota's schools and students in these challenging economic times.I did a little digging into the New Minnesota Miracle. Here's what I found :
Over the next several years, DFL representatives and senators, along with a smattering of Republican allies, plan to ask for $1.7 billion a year in new money for schools. That's a total that dwarfs the last big school funding increase, approved in 2007, which allocated about $790 million in additional funds over two years.Because the Strib article cited is from April, 2008, I just checked with House Research on this proposal. Their figures range from $1.7 billion to $2.5 billion increases annually. They told me that the K-12 budget for the biennium just ending, 2008-2009, is $13.8 billion. A $3.4 billion increase in K-12's budget represents an increase of almost 25 percent this biennium.
I also received a pdf talking about the tax consequences of the New Minnesota Miracle if implemented. The Department of Education estimates that the House Democrats' plan would cost an additional $2.6 billion per year.
In order to raise $2.6 billion, House Democrats would have to raise income taxes by an average of 30 percent on all Minnesotans, not just the state's wealthy individuals and businesses.
- A family of four making $37,000 a year would see a 44 percent tax increase.
- A family of four making $68,500 a year would see a 37 percent tax increase.
- A single parent making $37,000 with one child would see a 41 percent tax increase.
What good does "permanent property tax relief" do if Minnesotans from all income tax brackets get hit with higher income taxes? According to the study, here's how much income tax rates would have to increase:
- The lowest bracket would go from 5.35% to 7.55 percent.
- The middle bracket would jump from 7.05 percent to 9.25 percent.
- The top bracket would jump from 7.85 percent to 10.05 percent.
- Would the NMM increase accountability. If yes, by what mechanism? If not, why not?Would NMM continue the Minneapolis-first bias in the funding formulas? If yes, why?Would NMM control rising costs? If it doesn't, why doesn't it?
- Why don't all outstate DFL legislators vote against the current formula?
- Why don't these legislators band together to force reform to the funding formula?
- If DFL legislators don't band together to fight for their constituents, is it because they aren't allowed to step out of line with the DFL leadership?
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:33 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 29-May-09 08:46 AM
I think I would like to add two more questions to your list.
1. Why do you want to send more money to the schools when a comparison of public school performance vs. Cost shows a very clear NEGATIVE correlation between the two? That is, the more we spend on a school, per pupil, the WORSE, on average, the student achievement is. By any sane approach, we should cut all school spending to improve results.
2. Given the above, there is something driving student achievement other than the amount spent on schools. Why is it unreasonable to simply mandate improved student achievement within the dollars already being spent?
Translating the DFL's Budget Spin
Much has been said and written about the DFL's storyline about Gov. Pawlenty not being willing to compromise. At this point, it's important that we state clearly what the DFL is saying.
Let's start with something Larry Haws said in his end-of-session e-letter update:
Since January, the only offers that came from the Governor included significant borrowing, which would have had to be paid back by our children and grandchildren. The House and Senate viewed this as fiscally irresponsible, and preferred a "pay-as-you-go" approach.Let's dismantle Rep. Haws's statement that Gov. Pawlenty's proposal only "included significant borrowing" by highlighting Cindy's post outlining Gov. Pawlenty's compromise :
Yesterday, Governor Pawlenty offered an olive branch to the DFL leadership on the budget. In a letter addressed to the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, the Governor said that he would relent on his opposition to two of the three main sticking points between the the Legislature and the Governor's office and he would cut in half his request for bonding. In essense he was giving in to the DFL on 2 1/2 of the 3 main issues that the DFL had with the Governor's budget. The DFL's response was quick and predictable. Calling it a "false compromise" and a compromise in "word and not in deed" the DFL leadership of the House and the Senated doubled down on their intent to once again drive the state toward a shut-down (as they did in 2005).That sounds like Gov. Pawlenty was willing to cut his borrowing significantly while conceding on two important DFL points. If Gov. Pawlenty was willing to compromise with the DFL on 2 of their key issues, it can't legitimately be said that he's unwilling to compromise.
This is where a little translation is in order. This is speculation but it makes lots of sense. I suspect that when the DFL says Gov. Pawlenty wasn't willing to compromise, they're really just not completing the sentence. I suspect what they really mean is that Gov. Pawlenty wasn't willing to compromise on the DFL's job-killing tax increases .
During our many conversations, King has often asked the theoretical question of what's the halfway point between right and wrong. Let there be no mistake: raising taxes while job creation is heading south is just plain wrong.
The other part that needs translating is Rep. Haws's statement that the DFL preferred a "pay as you go" system. That's translated into this:
"If we spend money, we'll balance it with tax increases."I'm betting that most people would think of pay as you go budgeting to mean that you'd cut some spending in one part of the budget if you want to spend more in another part of the budget. I'm betting, too, that people wouldn't think of pay as you go as meaning "Let's spend more & pay for that spending with tax increases."
Here's something else Rep. Haws said that needs translation:
Minnesota's ability to compete in the 21st century global economy will depend on a highly skilled workforce and an excellent system of public schools.As I pointed out in this post , Rep. Haws supports the New Minnesota Miracle. That means an additional $1,700,000,000 of new spending on education annually for this biennium. When Rep. Haws talks about a "highly skilled workforce", what he's really saying is that we need to spend more money.
That doesn't mean he's a proponent of reforms or prioritizing. He made that perfectly clear during the League of Women Voters Education Forum in Sept., 2007:
Let's start with some of the most memorable quotes from the Forum. The first memorable quote was from 'Grandpa Larry' Haws. Steve Gottwalt had just said that we needed to do a better job prioritizing education spending, prompting Larry Haws to say "Maybe we do need to prioritize ."I was in the audience that day. To say that the audience was stunned when Rep. Haws made that statement is understatement. People I watched had an 'I can't believe he just said that" look on their faces. I don' think it's a stretch to say that Rep. Haws's position on education is that just spending more money is the total solution.
While I'm certain that he'd pay lip service to reforms, accountability and prioritizing, I'm equally certain that he wouldn't act on those things . I further suspect that his DFL colleagues living in outstate Minnesota stake out similar positions without taking action.
The reality is that Rep. Haws can't go too far for fear that EdMinn wouldn't help him with his GOT efforts or make campaign contributions.
Finally, I'm betting that this paragraph from Rep. Haws's e-letter sounds familiar to people all across the state:
As the Governor continues his go-it-alone unallotment approach, please know that as your legislator, I'll keep working to ensure that the state supports our schools and students as best we can in the face of difficult economic times and a Governor who is unwilling to compromise.Statements of this type should be shot down quickly. The "go-it-alone" bit doesn't hold water. Here's something that Rep. Gottwalt sent to Randy Krebs, the editor of the St. Cloud Times editorial page that instantly dispels that DFL myth:
On May 16th, Rep. Matt Dean attempted to amend SF1566 to provide $100 million for hospitals in FY2011 to help cover GAMC losses. Rather than vote on it, Rep. Tom Huntley "continued" the bill and never took it up again, essentially killing the amendment.TRANSLATION: The DFL wanted the issue. They didn't want the solution. The bad news for them is that we won't let them play that game. MOBsters everywhere should be contesting these statements both in person at townhall meetings, in their posts and in LTEs. Put this information out with whatever method is available.
It's time to put the DFL on the defensive by exposing their spin. They're vulnerable to the truth. They've shown us their hand. It's a hand built as solidly as a house of cards. It isn't a house that can withstand any persistent resistance.
Simply put, it's a house waiting to be toppled with the facts.
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 1:58 AM
No comments.
Today's DFL: Nothing But Spin
This morning's St. Cloud Times has an op-ed from Rep. Michele Bachmann talking about the federal government's involvement in the Chrysler and GM bailouts. It's a well-written, impeccably researched op-ed that I strongly recommend every reading. Here's an example of the important information contained in the op-ed:
Take the actions of the Obama administration's auto task force. Government has kicked private business out of the board room and installed itself as CEO, CFO and board of directors of American automobile manufacturing companies. It is making decisions about who to hire and who to fire, how much to budget for advertising, and what car lines to continue to manufacture. And, the "Car Czar" has given rise to two of the most stunningly brazen takings of our day.I'm betting that few of the St. Cloud Times' readers knew the difference between secured and nonsecured bondholders. They would've needed to read King's post to learn things like that:
First, the task force turned basic American legal principles upside down, leapfrogging unsecured debts of the United Auto Workers ahead of secured debts of legitimate bondholders. Secured creditors get preference in bankruptcy because they loaned money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they would get back specific property. The administration may have considered its political promise to the UAW to supersede that contractual promise; but in doing so, it has set an ugly precedent.
Many bought the debt knowing that bankruptcy was possible. They did so under the expectation that the rule of law would apply in America, that their place in line under bankruptcy law was purchased with that debt. President Obama's ire over their unwillingness to give away that place in line, a place purchased by those endowments and foundations and pensions not for themselves but for students, pensioners and grant recipients, is an indication that the president thinks his noble ends are superior to theirs.These principles are so clear that even an attorney couldn't get them wrong. Let me rephrase that: These principles are so clear that it's possible that an attorney could get them right. I make that correction because an attorney on the Times Story Chat got this badly wrong. That attorney is former St. Cloud Mayor John Ellenbecker. Here's what Mr. Ellenbecker said that I find offensive:
Rep. Mrs. Marcus Bachmann, ...Let me get this straight, you voted against financial assistance for GM and Chrysler; had your side prevailed, GM and Chrysler would have been allowed to fail, meaning all GM and Chrysler dealers would be closed, putting thousands more out of work, along with hundreds of thousands working for the automakers and their suppliers. And now you are concerned about a few dealerships? Ironic.It's impportant to first note that John Ellenbecker's hatred of Rep. Bachmann is deep and quite possibly uncontrollable. What's worse is that Mr. Ellenbecker is an attorney. As such, it's impossible to believe that he could've passed the BAR without, at minimum, a modest understanding of bankruptcy law.
Since Ellenbecker stated that Michele Bachmann's vote on the GM and Chrysler bailouts was a vote that would've meant that "all GM and Chrysler dealers would be closed, putting thousands more out of work, along with hundreds of thousands working for the automakers and their suppliers", there's only two possible explanations fro his statement. Either he's intentionally telling an outright whopper or he's that ignorant of Ch. 11 bankruptcy law.
I'm leaning towards the option that he's 'telling a whopper' because John Ellenbecker is one of the people who is most afflicted with Bachmann Derangement Syndrome.
Another reason for John's spin is to distract people's attention away from President Obama's threatening GM and Chrysler bondholders. Unfortunately for John, he's losing on that front, too, because I'm exposing President Obama's threats to the bondholders.
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 2:30 PM
No comments.
Pinheads & Patriots
Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly smeared HotAir by insinuating that HA trafficked in hate speech. This is nonsense. His proof? A commenter to a post called President OBama by the name Hussein.
O'Reilly eventually offered a non-apology apology when it was pointed out that this wasn't from Ed or Allahpundit but from a commenter. Bloviating Bill went onto say that it isn't enough to say that comments don't reflect the views of the website, that websites have an affirmative responsibility to police their comments.
The bad news for Bloviating Bill is that bloggers don't take that type of bloviating sitting down. They investigate, something that Bloviating Bill only occasionally does. One such investigative blog is Patterico. Here's what Patterico found while policing Bloviating Bill's website :
Here's the text of the "blog posting":It's so refreshing to know that Bloviating Bill's staff do such a great job monitoring the hate speech on his website. (SARC)
NO HOMOS NO HOMOS now will the League arrest me for my right wing statement, perhaps i will be taken off the New Yuk slimes CHRISTMAS card list. what you do or dont do in your bed room is none of my business just dont tell me I am wrong if i say NO MARRIAGE FOR HOMOS NO MARRIAGE FOR HOMOS. Hay maybe you can have a vote and lose and have the courts overturn your vote. Well that cant happen in AMERICA now can it.
to any one whos name begins with an R REMEMBER NO MARRIAGE FOR HOMOS. Awaits to knock on the door from the lack of free speech AG. AND janet baby
Seriously, Bloviating Bill's not practicing what he preaches and his double standards while pretending to be the supreme moral arbiter makes Bloviating Bill a pinhead.
Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin, Patterico, Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit have pointed out Bloviating Bill's hypocrisy and double standards.
These bloggers are patriots for investigating Bloviating Bill's accusations and for highlighting the fact that he's two-faced blowhard.
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 3:05 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 29-May-09 05:44 PM
I know you and I have discussed this ad naseum but Bloviating Bill is only about doing what will get Bloviating Bill in good with the inside the beltway crowd. It's that simple.....it's all about Bill....
LL
Marginal Tax Rates Don't Matter?
Whenever I debate the liberals on the Times' story chat about cutting taxes, one of the things the liberals tell us is that people don't leave states because of tax increases. I now have proof that they're wrong. I always knew they were wrong. The difference is that I now have irrefutable proof of it, thanks in no small part to this article :
Maryland's "millionaires' tax" flopped. It was doomed from the start.Martin O'Malley can keep raising tax rates if he wants but it won't balance Maryland's budget. If he doesn't believe me, he can ask Ahnold how well California's tax hikes have worked. (Better yet, O'Malley should ask Gov. Gibbons should ask how California's tax hikes have helped Nevada.
Anyone taking Economics 101 could have predicted that those best able to avoid Maryland's new 6.25 percent marginal tax rate on income over $1 million would. They are the ones best able to choose where to live and to pay accountants and lawyers to lower their tax burden.
Market losses no doubt contributed to one-third fewer people filing taxes in that income bracket in Maryland by April 15, as supporters of the legislation say. So did those filing extensions. But they and the Republicans yelling "I told you so" miss a bigger issue: Everyone is leaving Maryland, not just the rich.
Drive south on I-83 during morning rush hour for evidence. Count how many Pennsylvania license plates adorn cars making their way south into Baltimore City in bumper to bumper traffic.
Move over to I-95, and add Delaware tags to the mix. I doubt there are enough Richie Riches to fill those cars, especially since 40 percent of the 6,000 residents earning more than $1 million each year live in Montgomery County.
At least a good portion of them have to be middle class people wanting more land, a bigger house and lower property taxes. Just talk to Baltimore City police officers who call Pennsylvania home.
And it's not just anecdotal evidence. The U.S. Census Bureau shows more people are migrating out of Maryland than moving in. The only reason Maryland is gaining population is from women in the state having babies.
Don't bother asking Charlie Crist about all the millionaires flocking to Florida. He's too busy breaking promises and signing tax increases .
If the Tax Day Tea Parties weren't proof enough that the American people are fed up with high taxes and out of control spending, then people need to wake up and see the people leaving states like Maryland, California and Michigan.
Martin O'Malley might be safe in Maryland in 2010 because so many right-leaning votes have left the state. Still, I wouldn't feel comfortable if I were the O'Malley campaign's strategist. This isn't a good environment for tax-raising incumbents, even in states like Maryland.
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 4:05 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 29-May-09 05:42 PM
You are a couple of days late with this story old friend - I wrote about it on Wednesday!
;-)
LL
Comment 2 by Wilbur at 01-Jun-09 11:59 PM
I'd say your definition of "irrefutable proof" is a bit lax. What Maryland bean-counters know is that the number of income tax returns with taxable income >$1M has gone down. Is this because people moved, or because the stock market tanked and no one had any capital gains this year? The MD folks don't know.
The only decent actual analysis of the preliminary data so far is at http://www.itepnet.org/MD_Millionaires.pdf . While this report isn't making any grandiose claims of the sort the WSJ does, it does point out that the income group right below the millionaires grew by just about as many returns as the millionaires fell by. This doesn't constitute "irrefutable proof" that what really happened is some millionaires got poor, but it sure casts doubt on the notion that they all left the state.
