Limbaugh and O’Reilly are rivals, so you find it surprising that one might have contempt for the other?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?_r=4&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

And you think the New York Times is a “fair and balanced” source for information about O’Reilly or Limbaugh?

The comparison with Ted Baxter is unfair. If you think the comparison is fair, please cite specific instances where the comparison is valid.

That said, isn’t this the way our governing selection process is supposed to work? Each person supports the primary candidate of their choosing using their money, effort, and even position to give their candidate the boost they deem will work best?

http://www.kansas.gov/ethics/Commission/Staff/index.html.

The Executive Director of the Ethics Commission chooses not to send him to Wichita to investigate this matter, likely due to the cost.

Lack of enforcement only invites more abuse. Why are some Kansans expected to comply with the ethics regulations, and others are given a free pass?

http://cjonline.com/stories/061608/loc_291314136.shtml
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/061208/loc_289489187.shtml

The Kansas City Star supports almost all tax increases, and does little to promote government accountability or transparency. Where do you address the main points of my posting? What points are you responding to?

It may be true that 79% of upper-income taxpayers have some income from business, but Gillespie’s definition of “small” business actually includes big accounting firms, law firms and real-estate partnerships, and “businesses” that are really only sidelines – such as occasional rental income from a corporate chief’s ski condo. In fact, tax statistics show that upper-income taxpayers get far more of their income from salaries, capital gains, stock dividends and interest than they do from small business.

By twisting statistics and over-hyping, Republicans are spoiling for themselves what would otherwise be a perfectly serviceable argument: lowering taxes on the most affluent Americans does indeed lower taxes on many small businesses, and thus creates more jobs. But not nearly as many as Gillespie and some other Republicans are claiming.
It is undisputed that that many small-business owners report profits from their companies on their personal income-tax returns and not on corporate returns. It’s also true that small business is a major source of new jobs, and economists generally agree that lower business taxes eventually tend to produce more hiring. So cutting the top tax rate probably does stimulate some small-business hiring. But how much? Nothing close to 80%, it turns out.

The 80% claim originated last May with a report by the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, where it was prepared as ammunition for the debate over the second Bush tax-cut bill which eventually became law later in 2003.

That report concluded that 79% of the highest-income Americans have some business income. Then the report made a huge leap, claiming “These small business owners would receive 79 percent of the … tax savings” from cutting the top tax rate. But wait a second – very few of those “small business owners” are really running dry-cleaning stores. A Republican committee staff member confirmed to FactCheck.org that their report is counting anybody who made even one dollar of profit from a hobby business as a “small business owner” if they reported that income on Schedule C of their federal income-tax returns.

Their method also counts as a “small business owner” any member of an investment club — someone who put $50 a month into a pool to buy stocks with friends and then reported a few dollars of dividends and capital gains on a K-1 form from the partnership at the end of the year.

And that’s not all. Also counted as “small business owners” would be:

–A corporate executive who made $500,000 in salary and bonuses, and who also had $3,000 in income from renting out his yacht.

–A TV anchorwoman making $1 million in salary and reporting $25,000 in speaking fees as Schedule C income.

–A partner in a national accounting firm who has no side business at all, but who gets a big chunk of his income as a share of the giant partnership’s profits.

It’s silly to call any of these “small business owners,” but Gillespie went even beyond what the report said. He said 80% of the tax relief went to “small businesses,” (as opposed to “owners”). Not even the Republican staff report can back that statement.

So how much of the benefit really goes to small business? According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, done at the request of FactCheck.org, business income accounts for just over 22% of the income that will be reported this year by the most affluent American households. Those upper-income taxpayers actually get more from interest, dividends and capital gains than they get from business income, but Gillespie said nothing of the tax benefits on that score.

Both the Republican study and the Tax Policy Center focused on the same group of elite taxpayers — those paying the top income-tax rate. (That’s the rate which dropped to 35% this year from the previous level of 38.6% under the most recent tax cut.) In an earlier look at the same group, the Tax Policy Center found that roughly three out of four taxpayers paying the top rate got less than half their income from business. That’s a fact that some Republicans continue to ignore as they spin their small-business fable.

sasnak, I saw that exact same post in comments on the Lawrence JW website. Do you have a copy/paste problem?