So Many Silly Wingnuts, So Little Time

I chuckled when I saw this next piece, because it actually occurred to me while I was Fisking the George Newman Op/Ed to wonder why the WSJ didn't just get a Club for Growth hack to put his name on the article instead of using some who-dat fake economist from the eighties.

In the end, I assumed that the WSJ had made a considered judgment that someone less tainted by past moronity would be a more credible messenger for their howling misstatements, but it was a bit strange - putting out ridiculous pseudoeconomic gobbledygook during election season is the Club for Growth's entire raison d'etre.

As it turns out, a more probable explanation is that the Club for Growth already had something in the works with the National Review, which appeared today in the form of an article by antigovernment maniac Pat Toomey.

To Fisk Toomey's article would be redundant - it's basically the same dick in a box with a different bow.

I was particularly tickled by this part, though (emphasis mine):

Hoover’s Revenue Act of 1932 raised the top marginal income tax rate from 25 percent to a whopping 63 percent and imposed new and increased excises taxes.

[...]

Obama has vowed to inflict much of the same damage.

Toomey is referring to Obama's plan to raise the top marginal income tax rate from 37.9 percent to 39.6 percent, an increase of 1.7 percentage points. Hoover raised the top marginal income tax rate by 38 percentage points.

These two acts are about as similar as drinking water from a drinking fountain and shooting yourself in the face with a fire hose.