Fwd: Leonhardt Dismisses How Almost Half Pay No Income Tax, Calls For Higher Rates

Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times
Wednesday April 14, 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT

Krugman the Global Warming Prophet Howls: 'Utter Catastrophe' Possible
Paul Krugman, once an economist, then a left-wing talking-points purveyor, and now an expert climatologist: "Sea levels would rise, with the impact intensified by those storms: coastal flooding, already a major source of natural disasters, would become much more frequent and severe. And there might be drastic changes in the climate of some regions as ocean currents shift. It's always worth bearing in mind that London is at the same latitude as Labrador; without the Gulf Stream, Western Europe would be barely habitable."

Reid's Liberal Amnesty Promise Makes It to Print - But His Reversal Only Makes It Online
Julia Preston's celebration of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's promise to push for amnesty for illegals "this year" made Sunday's print edition. Yet Reid's reversal three days later was relegated to nytimes.com.

Leonhardt Dismisses How Almost Half Pay No Income Tax, Calls For Higher Rates on Those That Do
The NYT's voice on fiscal policy wants higher taxes on everyone but most importantly, the rich: "The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups." He also called higher taxes on the rich "an American tradition."

---

Krugman the Global Warming Prophet Howls: 'Utter Catastrophe' Possible

"Building A Green Economy," columnist Paul Krugman's cover story for the Times Sunday Magazine, is meant to reassure Times readers that despite "the relentless campaign to discredit" global warming doomsayers, they are in fact correct. The good news, from his perspective, is that we can indeed afford to combat "climate change," with higher taxes and regulation.

Krugman warned that if we take no action, in the form of regulations and higher taxes, then by the year 2100 "sea levels would rise" and "coastal flooding, already a major source of natural disasters, would become much more frequent and severe." The modern-day Jeremiah howled that "utter catastrophe does look like a realistic possibility."

If you listen to climate scientists -- and despite the relentless campaign to discredit their work, you should -- it is long past time to do something about emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. If we continue with business as usual, they say, we are facing a rise in global temperatures that will be little short of apocalyptic. And to avoid that apocalypse, we have to wean our economy from the use of fossil fuels, coal above all.

But is it possible to make drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions without destroying our economy?

Like the debate over climate change itself, the debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change -- one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them -- can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost. There is, however, much less agreement on how fast we should move, whether major conservation efforts should start almost immediately or be gradually increased over the course of many decades.

Krugman, in his usual pompous manner, presents as fact what is just liberal conjecture, especially "if you look at the evidence the right way" (?)

This is an article on climate economics, not climate science. But before we get to the economics, it's worth establishing three things about the state of the scientific debate.

The first is that the planet is indeed warming. Weather fluctuates, and as a consequence it's easy enough to point to an unusually warm year in the recent past, note that it's cooler now and claim, "See, the planet is getting cooler, not warmer!" But if you look at the evidence the right way -- taking averages over periods long enough to smooth out the fluctuations -- the upward trend is unmistakable: each successive decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the one before.

Second, climate models predicted this well in advance, even getting the magnitude of the temperature rise roughly right. While it's relatively easy to cook up an analysis that matches known data, it is much harder to create a model that accurately forecasts the future. So the fact that climate modelers more than 20 years ago successfully predicted the subsequent global warming gives them enormous credibility.

Yet that's not the conclusion you might draw from the many media reports that have focused on matters like hacked e-mail and climate scientists' talking about a "trick" to "hide" an anomalous decline in one data series or expressing their wish to see papers by climate skeptics kept out of research reviews. The truth, however, is that the supposed scandals evaporate on closer examination, revealing only that climate researchers are human beings, too. Yes, scientists try to make their results stand out, but no data were suppressed. Yes, scientists dislike it when work that they think deliberately obfuscates the issues gets published. What else is new? Nothing suggests that there should not continue to be strong support for climate research.

And this brings me to my third point: models based on this research indicate that if we continue adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we have, we will eventually face drastic changes in the climate. Let's be clear. We're not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we're talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades.

Krugman warned that climate models were getting more pessimistic (never mind that those same models failed to predict the earth's current cooling trend):

At this point, the projections of climate change, assuming we continue business as usual, cluster around an estimate that average temperatures will be about 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher in 2100 than they were in 2000. That's a lot -- equivalent to the difference in average temperatures between New York and central Mississippi. Such a huge change would have to be highly disruptive. And the troubles would not stop there: temperatures would continue to rise.

Furthermore, changes in average temperature will by no means be the whole story. Precipitation patterns will change, with some regions getting much wetter and others much drier. Many modelers also predict more intense storms. Sea levels would rise, with the impact intensified by those storms: coastal flooding, already a major source of natural disasters, would become much more frequent and severe. And there might be drastic changes in the climate of some regions as ocean currents shift. It's always worth bearing in mind that London is at the same latitude as Labrador; without the Gulf Stream, Western Europe would be barely habitable.

Krugman turned up the volume:

You might think that this uncertainty weakens the case for action, but it actually strengthens it. As Harvard's Martin Weitzman has argued in several influential papers, if there is a significant chance of utter catastrophe, that chance -- rather than what is most likely to happen -- should dominate cost-benefit calculations. And utter catastrophe does look like a realistic possibility, even if it is not the most likely outcome.

Weitzman argues -- and I agree -- that this risk of catastrophe, rather than the details of cost-benefit calculations, makes the most powerful case for strong climate policy. Current projections of global warming in the absence of action are just too close to the kinds of numbers associated with doomsday scenarios. It would be irresponsible -- it's tempting to say criminally irresponsible -- not to step back from what could all too easily turn out to be the edge of a cliff.

Reid's Liberal Amnesty Promise Makes It to Print - But His Reversal Only Makes It Online

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed one of the Times pet issues over the weekend -- amnesty for illegal immigrants -- it got big play in the print edition. But when he reversed himself just three days later, it was nowhere to be found in print, only online.

Congressional reporter Carl Hulse "Caucus" post on Tuesday afternoon, "Reid Hits Pause Button on Immigration," found the embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backing away from the very amnesty push he promised in a rally before 6,000 cheering supporters, mostly immigrants, in Las Vegas on Saturday.

According to a Times report, Reid told the cheering crowd: "We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now....We need to do this this year."

Just three days later, Reid said never mind. From Hulse's Tuesday online filing, which didn't make the Wednesday print edition of the Times:

Senator Harry Reid retreated today from having the Senate move quickly on immigration law changes, saying any overhaul would have to wait.

"We won't get to immigration reform this work period," Mr. Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, told reporters after the private weekly luncheon of Democratic senators.

Over the weekend, Mr. Reid raised the hopes of immigration advocates by suggesting at a rally in Las Vegas that he was ready to put immigration on the legislative front burner now that health care legislation was out of the way and Congress was returning from a two-week break.

"We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now," he said in a speech to more than 6,000 people, mostly immigrants.

While Hulse's story didn't make the print edition, Julia Preston's original Sunday piece on Reid pushing one of the Times pet issues -- amnesty for illegal immigrants -- took up the top half of page A21 in the Sunday paper, a 980-word story including two large photos from Saturday's Las Vegas rally: "From Senate Majority Leader, a Promise to Take Up Immigration Overhaul."

Reid certainly didn't hedge in his fiery speech:

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, told an exuberant crowd at an immigration rally Saturday in Las Vegas that Congress would start work on an immigration overhaul as soon as lawmakers return this week from a recess.

"We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now," he said in a speech to more than 6,000 people, mostly immigrants, gathered downtown.

"We need to do this this year," Mr. Reid said, drawing cheers from the crowd, which included many Latinos. "We cannot wait."

Mr. Reid surprised immigrants and advocates with his direct commitment to moving forward with legislation on the volatile issue, with the Senate already divided by the passage of a health care overhaul. Also, as a result of Justice John Paul Stevens's announcement last week that he would retire, the Obama administration and the Senate will have to focus this summer on winning confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee.

So Reid's push of a liberal pet issue was worthy of big play in the print edition. Yet when he reversed himself three days later, it was relegated to a post at nytimes.com.

You can follow Times Watch on Twitter.

Leonhardt Dismisses How Almost Half Pay No Income Tax, Calls For Higher Rates on Those That Do

In his Wednesday Business Day column, David Leonhardt, the Times' conscience on economic matters, defended the current skewed tax system, in which almost half of U.S. households paid no income taxes last year, and even argued that those now paying the highest rates should be paying even more: "Behind The 47% Talking Point."

Leonhardt never addressed the underlying point of conservative opposition: The free-rider problem, as half of households pay nothing for services that (theoretically) benefit them all, like public education and national defense. Citizens with no "skin in the game," safe in the assumption they will never have to pay federal taxes, have little practical incentive to oppose programs that will lead to higher taxes, like Obama-care.

Forty-seven percent.

That's the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

....

The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.

Leonhardt eventually admitted that "The 47 percent number is not wrong," but claimed the figure is misleading, because that 47 percent do pay other kinds of federal taxes, like payroll taxes, and he dismissed the argument that those should be excluded from the discussion since they pay for benefits on the back end. To defend the figure, Leonhardt unwittingly demonstrated Social Security and Medicare are a lousy deal for people with the bad luck to die before age 70.

I realize that it's possible to argue that payroll taxes should be excluded from the discussion because they pay for benefits -- Social Security and Medicare -- that people receive on the back end. But that argument doesn't seem very persuasive.

Why? People do not receive benefits equal to the payroll taxes they paid. Those who die at age 70 will receive much less in Social Security and Medicare than they paid in taxes. Those who die at 95 will probably get much more.

Does this mean that African-American males, whose life expectancy is slightly less than 70 years, should oppose Social Security and Medicare as a raw deal?

Leonhardt vaguely raised another conservative point, only to dismiss its importance, and called higher taxes on "the wealthy" the American way of life:

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group's over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly -- which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

CNN's Christine Romans got more specific on the April 8 edition of "American Morning," emphasizing "Ten percent of earners pay 73 percent of all the federal income tax revenue."  

Leonhardt claimed not to see a principled argument against the current progressive tax system, arguing that opposition was just self-interest on the part of conservative talk show hosts:

So why are those radio and television talk show hosts spending so much time arguing that today's wealthy are unfairly burdened? Well, it's hard not to notice that the talk show hosts themselves tend to be among the very wealthy.

You can follow Times Watch on Twitter.

Click here to support TimesWatch.org!



TW Latest Headlines RSS feed

 

Fwd: Networks Fail to Report on VAT Tax Since Volcker Call for Tax Increases

			Apr 14, 2010 Vol. 6 No. 15

Networks Fail to Report on VAT Tax Since Volcker Call for Tax Increases  As taxpayers rush to beat the IRS deadline, a new tax is rumored to be coming down the road. White House adviser Paul Volcker said on April 6 that value-added taxes are 'not as toxic an idea' as they had been. The networks remained silent, but some online news media praised the consumption tax as 'efficient' and the 'only option.' If Obama Succeeds, Ignorance Will Have Made it Possible Class warfare and wealth redistribution rely on slothful ignorance. Media Declare South Has Risen Again Journalists, left paint tea partiers, conservatives, party of Lincoln as rebels or even 'terrorist' sympathizers.

You can also find Dan Gainor's commentary on The Fox Forum. You can also check out BMI's editorial cartoon: Bottom Lines by Glenn Foden. Follow BMI on Twitter: @DanGainor @MattPhilbin @BizMediaJulia @JPoor007

Important Note: Many e-mail programs consider newsletter subscriptions as spam.  Please add bmi@mail.businessandmedia.org to your safe sender list.

Fwd: MRC Alert: CBS Gives Tea Partiers Top Billing, But Sees 'Inconsistency' in the FNC-Watching, White Gun Owners

 

A daily compilation edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert items are drawn from daily BiasAlert posts and distributed by the Media Research Center's News Analysis Division, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

 

Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Thursday April 15, 2010 @ 09:57 AM EDT

1. CBS Gives Tea Partiers Top Billing, But Sees 'Inconsistency' in the FNC-Watching, White Gun Owners
"A CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight finds 18 percent of Americans support the movement," Katie Couric announced at the top of Wednesday's CBS Evening News as the newscast provided a surprisingly neutral summary of the findings in the new survey, though reporter Dean Reynolds couldn't resist asserting "there is some inconsistency in the Tea Party viewpoints. For example, for all their anger at what they see as ever-expanding government, 62 percent of them think Medicare and Social Security are worthwhile programs, perhaps because 75 percent of them are over 45." Or, since they aren't anarchists, maybe they've just made judgments about government programs and find many others less worthwhile than ones they've been forced to pay into for their entire adult lives. Reynolds realized "they chafe at critics who characterize the movement as extremist or racist for its opposition to the President," then he recited numbers to show they are mostly male, white, conservative watchers of FNC.

2. Maher Insults Palin and Bachmann as MILFs: Morons I'd Like To Forget
Bill Maher and Chris Matthews, on Wednesday's Hardball, denigrated Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as merely "attractive" women with very little smarts with the HBO host even going as far to use a vulgar euphemism to describe them as he claimed: "They're attractive especially to the Republican Party, which is not known as a party that really does well with the opposite sex. Usually they're doughy white men and I think they look on Michele Bachmann and, and Sarah Palin, as you know, M.I.L.Fs and I agree, they're Morons I'd Like to Forget."

3. MSNBC's Mike Barnicle Smears John McCain: More Afraid of J.D. Hayworth Than of North Vietnamese
During a discussion of John McCain's drift rightward on Wednesday's Morning Joe, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle smeared the Arizona Senator as more scared of J.D. Hayworth than he was of his Vietnamese torturers. Barnicle mocked, "The ultimate sadness is that, here, in the 21st century, running for re-election, he shows more fear of J.D. Hayworth than he showed toward his captors in North Vietnam."

4. Meet Washington Post's Scott Wilson, Obama's Summit News Butler
Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson topped Wednesday's paper with a "news analysis" headlined "On world stage, Obama at ease as seminar leader." The word that came to mind wasn't "analysis." It was "unanimous." Everyone in Wilson's supine story praised Obama's command and personality. It's like Wilson was Obama's news butler at this summit: "'He's in charge, he's chairing the meetings, and this is where his personality plays a big part,' said Pierre Vimont, the French ambassador to the United States, who compared Obama's role during the summit to the way he led the bipartisan health-care meeting at Blair House in February. 'He does it very well,' Vimont continued. 'And he feels very comfortable doing it.'"

5. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touts McVeigh Special, Warns U.S. Is Seeing 'Upswing' in 'Anti-government Extremism'
Liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow appeared on the Daily Show, Tuesday, to promote her new Timothy McVeigh special and to compare, "The dark side of it is that [McVeigh] really did see himself as part of an anti-government movement in the United States...And, right now, I think we are experiencing an upswing again in sort of anti-government extremism."

6. NYT's Leonhardt Dismisses How Almost Half Pay No Income Tax, Calls For Higher Rates on Those Who Do
David Leonhardt, the New York Times' voice on fiscal policy wants higher taxes on everyone, but most importantly the rich: "The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups." He also called higher taxes on the rich "an American tradition" and refused to see a principled argument against the current skewed tax system, arguing it was just self-interest on the part of conservative talk show hosts.

7. CNN to Advertisers: We're the Only 'Non-Partisan' Cable Network
Stuart Elliott of the New York Times's Media Decoder blog reported on Tuesday that CNN, a network known for its consistent liberal bias, is now incredibly touting itself as "the only credible, nonpartisan voice left" on cable television. Elliott noted that this spin was being pitched by the network at a Tuesday morning event for advertisers at the Time Warner Center in New York City. The New York Times writer highlighted the meeting hosted by CNN executives, and their overall strategy: "In a presentation to advertisers and agencies on Tuesday morning, executives of CNN indicated how they plan to counter the growing ratings of — and buzz about — the rival Fox News Channel: play up their channel's identity as an objective source of news." Elliott quoted Jim Walton, president of CNN Worldwide, as using the "credible, nonpartisan voice" phrase, and tried to put the face on his network's poor ratings during the first quarter of 2010.

Fwd: Obamacare Taxes: Deep Impact

Obamacare Taxes: Deep Impact   During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged often and everywhere that Americans making less than $200,000 individually or families making less than $250,000 would not see an increase in their taxes. However, by signing into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010, President Obama has officially turned his back on that promise. The Scoop The Rollout of Taxes for Obamacare   The Obamacare Sales Pitch Paid for by Your Tax Dollars    Obamacare: Impact on the Family   Medicare and Medicaid Spending Will Rise with Increasing Health Care Costs   State Health Care Reform: An Update on Utah's Reform As the Heritage Foundation's Senior Tax Policy Analyst Curtis Dubay points out, the impact of Obamacare on taxpayers will spread wide and cut deep. Overall, 18 new taxes were slipped into this bill, raising $503 billion over a 10-year period to cement Democrats' dubious claim of budget neutrality. Chief among these taxes are: • 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans • Increase in the Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax • Payroll taxes on investment income • Mandates on individuals and businesses to purchase health insurance, enforced with penalties in the event of non-compliance In another move that smacks of politics as usual, Democrats have made sure these taxes and fees are not implemented until after their re-election campaigns. Almost all of these provisions take effect after the 2010 midterm elections, and the vast majority will not occur until after the 2012 presidential campaign, insulating Obama and congressional Democrats from the resulting political pressure. The greatest increase occurs in 2013, when Obamacare tax revenues triple from $12 billion to $36 billion, ultimately hitting $102 billion in 2019. Many of the new taxes will be targeted at medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, and even indoor tanning salons, all of which will be passed on to consumers. Many large employers have already gone public on how these new taxes will affect them, citing job losses, decreases in offered benefits, or jobs going overseas as the likely results. Other provisions, such as restricting how much Americans can set aside in their health savings accounts and flexible savings accounts, will increase the amount paid in income taxes by low- and middle-income Americans. Enactment of the new health care law will prove a steep price to pay for taxpayers, even though Democrat legislators and the President have done their best to protect themselves from the electoral fallout. As Dubay explains: "Over time, the hodgepodge of new taxes in effect now or in the future will substantially slow economic growth and affect taxpayers from all walks of life. This will become most apparent in lost wages and international competitiveness… These lost wages, largely out of the pockets of low- and middle-income families, represent a huge cost of this legislation that does not show up in any official tables, but this cost is every bit as real. It reduces families' incomes just as surely as an income tax hike would and breaks the promise that President Obama made when he said he would not raise their taxes." forward message   or visit our website   The White House has launched a taxpayer-funded Web site to "reality check" credible criticisms and arguments. Problem is the Obama administration's videos "debunking" each "myth" are low on facts. Click here to see our response.   Facebook Twitter YouTube The Heritage Foundation - 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC Call us at 202 546 4400

Fwd: Analysis: Pres. Reagan would not start with today's Russia

Analysis: Pres. Reagan would not start with today's Russia   President Obama wants a world without nuclear weapons. So did President Reagan. The similarities end there. How we get to a nuke-free world matters. To mitigate the threat of nuclear war, treaty negotiators must understand what they are up against. This includes understanding how the other parties plan to use nukes, both as military assets and as foreign policy tools. Reagan knew that. But it's not clear that Obama's negotiators appreciate Moscow's evident intent to keep using its potent nuclear threat to advance its foreign policy interests.  Missile Defense News Heritage Analyst Peter Brookes on START   Medvedev: Russia Could Withdraw From Treaty   Iran's Mersad Missile Defense System   Obama Releases Nuclear Posture Review   Like Reagan, Obama believes America must lead the way to nuclear disarmament. Unlike Reagan, he believes this requires an assertion of "moral" leadership, which ought to be demonstrated simply by reducing our nuclear stockpile and refusing to modernize the U.S. arsenal. It's a false premise. In the post-Cold War era, U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles have atrophied, yet the nuclear threat has increased. Today, there are many more nuclear-armed states, and some are far less stable -- and far more irresponsible -- than the U.S.S.R. Reagan recognized that the ultimate goal of arms negotiations is to make the world safer, more stable and more free. To eliminate the need for large nuclear arsenals, he worked to eliminate the dependence -- both ours and others-- on massive nuclear attacks as the guarantor of security. Thus, the first items on Reagan's agenda were building up U.S. conventional forces and introducing missile defenses. This allowed his negotiators to approach arms control agreements from a position of strength. Obama has it backward. He started by cutting back on defense funding-- especially in acquisition programs. Bye-bye, F-22. He also cut missile defense funding, starting with systems that protect the homeland. But even that wasn't enough to make the Russians happy. "The problem is our America partners are developing missile defenses," objected Prime Minister Vladimir Putin last December. "Our partners may come to feel completely safe." That sounds like a leader who still thinks that maintaining the threat of nuclear attack is a good idea. If not, why is it a "problem" for Americans to feel safe? Reagan understood his adversaries. Obama does not. Russia wants an arms control treaty to solidify its position as a preeminent nuclear power, one on par with America. Atomic diplomacy is a cornerstone of Russian foreign policy. Iran and North Korea have no use for arms treaties. But our eagerness to enter a pact with a lesser power like Russia only signals to them that America is indeed a declining power. And it gives them reason to think that, by continuing their nuclear weapons programs, they can become even more powerful forces on the world stage. Just last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad displayed the "nuclear bully" mind-set Reagan understood so well. "You should know," Ahmadinejad bellowed, "that the more hostile you are, the stronger an incentive our people will have, it will double. ..." In his mind, this treaty reveals a weaker America, one less likely to back its rhetoric of freedom with action. Perversely, a wrongheaded treaty that embraces nuclear disarmament while eschewing nuclear defense and improvement of conventional forces actually encourages a new nuclear arms race-- or worse. Reagan's sound vision for "rendering nuclear weapons obsolete" started with ensuring robust defenses, then reducing the nuclear stockpile appropriately. Obama has taken a "reduce first, beef up defense later (if ever)" approach. It's a path that leads to even greater danger, not to "zero." Doubtless, President Obama is motivated by the very best of intentions. But in a world of proliferating nuclear power, we should remember where a road paved only with good intentions leads. James Jay Carafano is the Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. forward message visit 33minutes.com   The safety and security of our country has and will always be a top priority for all Americans. The Heritage Foundation's NationalSecurity.org provides accurate and timely information. Sign up for email updates.   Facebook Twitter YouTube The Heritage Foundation - 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC Call us at 202-546-4400

Fwd: Times Polls Tea Partiers, Finds Them Educated, But Also Angry and Inconsistent

Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times
Thursday April 15, 2010 @ 03:17 PM EDT

Michelle Obama, New Jackie O and Sole Savior of the Fashion Industry
Some more of that hard-bitten Times reporting: "Often called the First Lady of Fashion, Mrs. Obama has a sense of style, as we all know by now, that rivals Jackie Kennedy's. She has boosted the spirits of the American fashion industry..."

Gail Collins Doesn't Get It Either: Expects Tea Partiers to Celebrate 47% Who Pay No Taxes
Columnist Gail Collins ironically asks when anti-tax groups will hold "rallies to thank the president for doing so much to reduce the burden on the half of the country least able to pay." Apparently conservatives are expected to protest only in their own selfish interests, not for what they see as the greater good of all (lower taxes for everyone)

Times Polls Tea Partiers, Finds Them Educated, But Also Angry and Inconsistent
The Times lead story by Kate Zernike on its new poll of Tea Party protesters: Good start, questionable finish: "Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits. Others could not explain the contradiction."

Reporter Uses Poland's Tragedy to Deride 'Crass' Post-Communist Capitalism
The Times' Eastern Europe correspondent Dan Bilefsky can't deal with the "crass commercialism" taking over Europe after the fall of Communism: "Learning the lessons of capitalism; profit nudges grief aside."

---

Michelle Obama, New Jackie O and Sole Savior of the Fashion Industry

After a hiatus, the Times is back to adoring first lady Michelle Obama. Fashion writer Eric Wilson's Thursday piece in the Styles section, "Don't Get Gravy on Her Gown," celebrated  first lady Michelle Obama as a literal "fashion plate" -- she's being featured on one of those tacky porcelain commemorative plates.

That rather dubious honor didn't stop Wilson from extolling "the First Lady of Fashion."

First Lady Michelle Obama is now officially a fashion plate.

Not that there were any doubts before, mind you. Often called the First Lady of Fashion, Mrs. Obama has a sense of style, as we all know by now, that rivals Jackie Kennedy's. She has boosted the spirits of the American fashion industry with her unconventional mix of avant-garde newcomers and off-the-rack Talbots, and claimed a Council of Fashion Designers of America style-icon award along the way.

In January 2009, the headline over fashion writer Guy Trebay's story also hailed the first lady as the sole savior of the fashion industry: "U.S. Fashion's One-Woman Bailout? In Michelle's approach to dressing, a faltering industry sees hope."

Gail Collins Doesn't Get It Either: Expects Tea Partiers to Celebrate 47% Who Pay No Taxes

In her Thursday column, the non-ironically titled "Celebrating the Joys Of April 15," Gail Collins wondered why Tea Party protesters weren't happier. After all, according a new study by the Tax Policy center, 47% of U.S. households (including many Tea Party protesters) didn't owe any income tax last year.

Collins found herself puzzled by that. But isn't it generally seen as a good thing to be fighting against one's own perceived best interests and for the greater good? Apparently Collins expects conservative protesters to selfishly guard their own perceived economic interests.

The Internal Revenue Service needs to get way better at marketing.

Somehow the government tax collectors have let the country get locked into the idea that April 15 is a day of sorrow and misery, the culmination of the dreaded filing of the income tax form.

But, in fact, most people who file get money back. (Cue the horns and balloons.)

And according to one much, much-quoted study by the Tax Policy Center, 47 percent of American households didn't have to pay one cent of income tax for 2009. (Marching bands, confetti.)

Thanks to the tax credits in President Obama's stimulus plan and other programs aimed at helping working families, couples with two kids making up to $50,000 were generally off the hook this year.

Naturally, anti-tax groups held rallies to thank the president for doing so much to reduce the burden on the half of the country least able to pay. Not.

Like economics writer David Leonhardt on Wednesday, Collins evidently can't conceive of a principled conservative movement. And she got at least one fact wrong:

According to the Gallup polls, 45 percent of Tea Party supporters have incomes under $50,000. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, Tea Party activists are virtually the only segment of the population in which a majority feels its tax burden is unfair. Clearly, these are not the kind of folks who would cancel their anti-tax rallies just on account of not being taxed.

"We're here to take our country back," said a former Missouri House speaker at a Tea Party rally at the State Capitol, where nobody appeared to be grateful for the good news about the bottom 47 percent at all.

Actually, the NYT/CBS poll shows that a majority (52%) of Tea Party members think their income tax burden is fair, compared to 42% who think it's unfair. That's n the same solar system as the rest of the population, where the figures are 62% fair -- 30% unfair.

Collins kept celebrating the fact that half of U.S. households pay no income taxes on federal programs that (theoretically, anyway) benefit all, leaving them free to support expensive programs like Obama-care in the knowledge they won't be paying for them.

Times Polls Tea Partiers, Finds Them Educated, But Also Angry and Inconsistent

Thursday's lead New York Times story on a new poll of Tea Party members (a joint effort by the Times and CBS News) got off to a promising start with a headline that probably truly qualified as news for the paper's liberal readership: "Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated."

The story by Kate Zernike and Megan Thee-Brenan also began on an upbeat note (Zernike has evidently taken L.A.-bound reporter Adam Nagourney's place on the poll-watch beat):

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as "very conservative" and President Obama as "very liberal."

But by paragraph four, the Times began to portray the movement as "angry," paranoid, and possibly anti-black.

And while most Republicans say they are "dissatisfied" with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as "angry."

Especially when a pollster asks them if they are angry, as the Times did.

Tea Party supporters' fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

But is the Tea Party movement really about getting the government to "help the rich"? Isn't it more about trying to get the government to leave everyone alone, rich, middle class, and poor alike?

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites -- compared with 11 percent of the general public.

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

....

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

"That's a conundrum, isn't it?" asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. "I don't know what to say. Maybe I don't want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security." She added, "I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind."

MRC's Brent Baker noticed that CBS News, the other poll sponsor, also couldn't resist knocking the Tea Party movement for "inconsistency."

Here's a snide aside from the original nytimes.com posting that didn't make it into the print edition:

Tea Party supporters are also more likely than most Americans to believe, mistakenly, that the president has increased taxes for most Americans.

Following is a sample of poll questions. Notice how the Times injected its own favorite description of the Tea Party movement -- "anger" -- into the poll, and not surprisingly ended up with a lot of self-described Tea Party members agreeing with the characterization. (You can read a .pdf version of the poll here.)

24. Which comes closest to your feelings about the way things are going in Washington -- enthusiastic, satisfied but not enthusiastic, dissatisfied but not angry, or angry?

The results of Question 49 may have surprised, though Zernike didn't make much of it. When specifically asked if Obama was moving the country toward socialism, most respondents, not just Tea Party members, answered in the affirmative. (Admittedly it was a leading question, just like the one about "anger.")

49. Some people say Barack Obama's policies are moving the country more toward socialism. Do you think Barack Obama's policies are moving the country more toward socialism, or are his policies not moving the country in that direction?

Here was the response:

General Public:    Toward socialism 52% Not toward socialism 38%

Tea Party Members: Toward socialism 92%  Not toward socialism 6%

Question #104, asked "for background only," suggested liberal paranoia on the part of the Times:

104. "Do you or does any other member of your household own a handgun, rifle, shotgun, or any other kind of firearm?"

The last questions worked the hypocrisy angle, asking Tea Party members if they or a family member benefitted from Medicare, Social Security, or public schools, as if Tea Party members would not be entitled to withdraw benefits for a program they've been legally obligated to pay into.

You can follow Times Watch on Twitter.

Reporter Uses Poland's Tragedy to Deride 'Crass' Post-Communist Capitalism

Eastern Europe correspondent Dan Bilefsky seems obliged to make anti-capitalist cracks whenever he can fit them in, and did not falter on Thursday. Writing from Warsaw, Bilefsky used the plane crash death of Poland's President Lech Kaczynski to mourn "crass commercialism" in Poland: "Vendors Turns Poland's Calamity Into an Opportunity."

The text box: "Learning the lessons of capitalism; profit nudges grief aside."

Candle sellers reaped handsome profits as mourners bought thousands of brightly colored candles -- about $2 each -- creating an instant memorial throughout the capital.

Poland's calamity has unified the country and spurred a genuine outpouring of grief and solidarity seldom seen since the death of Pope John Paul II, five years ago. For the past two days, a line of grieving mourners over half a mile long has assembled near the Presidential Palace.

Yet some Poles said the crass commercialism that also greeted the tragedy showed the extent to which Poland, 20 years after the revolution that overthrew Communism, had become a healthy capitalist economy, even as the free market was challenging the Roman Catholic Church as the new religion.

Others who knew Mr. Kaczynski, an advocate of social justice who railed against the excesses of the market economy, said he would have recoiled at the sight of T-shirts bearing his image.

Ryszard Bugaj, Mr. Kaczynski's senior economic adviser before the president's death, said he was not surprised that some were trying to profit from the misery of others. "It's a natural thing that such traumatic events are followed by extreme behaviors, both very good ones and, like in this case, the worst ones," he said in an interview. "I find it sad that people are exploiting other people's grief. This kind of behavior is typical of capitalist morality, when people don't care about what's appropriate anymore and are blinded by the sheer prospect of financial gain."

You can follow Times Watch on Twitter.

Click here to support TimesWatch.org!



TW Latest Headlines RSS feed