From the "Selective Use of Statistics to Bolster Our Case" comes this:

2003: The Rich Got Richer . . .
. . . And so did everyone else.

Caution: The above is from the Weekly Standard® A Rupert Murdoch Filter©2003

Read the whole thing, and parse the statistics.

This is a gem:

There is no question that statistical measures show a rise in inequality. The main reason: America welcomes more immigrants--legal and illegal--than all the other countries of the world combined. These newcomers typically start at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Exclude them from the statistics, calculates Easterbrook, and the increase in inequality disappears. Indeed, for the 9 out of 10 Americans that are native born, inequality is declining. And here is the reason that will surprise America's critics: The decline in inequality is due in good part to the rising affluence of African Americans.

Now, I do not know whether or not the U.S. takes in more immigrants on a purely numerical basis, although I think that this is true, but I'll bet that as a percentage of the total population that the U.S. isn't among the top countries in immigration.

If people nationwide did indeed get richer in 2003, all of that increase and then some was more than absorbed by the rise in the cost of food, fuel and housing.

The author, a Mr. Stelzer is guilty of doing exactly what the White House did in the run-up to the Iraqi war. Hand-picking information. He quotes Easterbrook extensively, but whilst Easterbrook shows trends of fifty years, Stelzer aims to show how one given year is a proxy for several generations of Americans.

I'd be willing to bet that 2003 was indeed a better year for most Americans financially, but only in relation to the two previous years.

Just imagine how much better off we'd all be if it wasn't for all those immigrants dragging us down?(heavy sarcasm)