Sadly out of focus (Score 2)

While his letter could easily be taken apart bit-by-bit for a case study in fuzzy, media-saturated political thinking, a couple of lines really drew my attention. Since other posters have admirably refuted his (Gore's?) 1% mantra, let's look at:

Get this -- in the USA, charitable giving by the rich is MORE THAN TEN TIMES as high as it is in Europe! Studies credit most of this difference to the inheritance tax, spurring the wealthy to use their money to buy fame and gratitude, rather than let Uncle Sam decide how it will be spent.

Now, assuming these studies are credible (unreferenced 'studies' are always dangerous quote generators), wouldn't this comment encourage us to repeal any taxes possible? If the 'wealthy' (conveniently undefined) would rather make their own decisions than let Uncle Sam do it, why not give them more money to do it with?

So long as most of the millionaires in each generation still have to earn it and their kids still go to college with our kids. In that case they'll keep intermarrying with us, instead of thinking themselves a different species.

What!?!?! No class warfare in this piece? What is this drivel? Elsewhere he claims to have no issue with people of wealth, yet his class bias clearly seeps through. It's like the guy at the bar who, when turned down by a beautiful woman, loudly proclaims her a lesbian. I don't have what it takes to belong to a certain group, so I must find a reason for their not including me. Besides, if I want to spoil my grandchildren with my wealth, that's my prerogative...IT'S MY MONEY!

People who have thrived immensely under the protection/support/subsidy of a great nation don't want to help pay to keep that nation prospering and growing, or to help poor kids rise up high enough to compete with them on an even playing field.

This is patently false. Even if you assume that such pure selfishness existed, if the wealthy want America to discontinue its prosperity, who would purchase the goods and services that reinforce their wealth?

Rather, the issue is the fairness of the tax cut itself. Gore's tax benefits are mostly credits, not cuts and are directed specifically to certain groups. This is blatant social engineering and allows him to claim that he is helping almost every person in the country. You're a one-eyed, peg-legged gay eskimo? Gore will design a tax credit for you. No, it won't make much difference in your life once you actually look at the details, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that Gore cares.

In contrast, Bush's tax benefits are mostly cuts, and primarily distributed across ALL classes, not just the segments that Mr. Brin favors. That means that the eskimo will benefit, just as everyone else benefits. And it's only fair that the top 1% get 30-35% of the tax benefits since they pay 32% of ALL taxes. I can't imagine anything more fair than that. Or is Mr. Brin only interested in "social engineering" that serves his own purposes?

ENOUGH If you really want to vote against social engineering, vote against Gore.