I'm not making an assertion, I'm giving you a warning:
Look. I got burned using them twice--and then had to apologize to the guys I had been debating, who now think I'm an idiot.
Then I realized that they were the kind of people who would--out of the four years that Bush was President--choose to tell their readers about the year in which (a) their income was high because of royalties from _Millie's Book_, but (b) their taxes were more-or-less normal because they'd given the royalties away (and hence taken a deduction) *because* that year showed a much lower tax rate for the rich Bushes than the surrounding years.
WARNING: if you use them as a source of information without checking their assertions, then you run a substantial risk of humiliating yourself...
Brad DeLong