Monday, September 20, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, September 20, 2010


A bit of a late start today...

(*SMILE*)

And now... Today's Obama Theme Song!
Posted by at

3 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/547713/201009171932/A-Presidential-Tax-Cut-For-Liberal-Elites.aspx

How did the president and his party ever get the idea that $200,000 to $250,000 is a "middle class income?"

* GREAT QUESTION!

The U.S. Census Bureau breaks down reported household income into quintiles (five divisions). In 2007, the income range for the middle quintile was $36,000 to $57,660.

If we want to define middle class more broadly and include all three middle quintiles, the upper range still only goes up to $91,705...

* YEP! AND $91,705 AIN'T $200,000 - LET ALONE $250,000!

Some television news anchors have recently commented that $250,000 a year does not go very far in New York City or West Los Angeles. Putting aside the issue of whether it makes sense to define "middle class" by what it takes for some people to live comfortably in Manhattan or Beverly Hills...

(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*) (*SNICKER*) (*APPLAUSE*)

* THIS IS PERHAPS ONE OF THE BEST IBD EDITORIALS I'VE EVER READ!

...a study co-authored by Princeton psychology professor and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that the impact of income on lifestyle satisfaction peaks at $75,000, almost regardless of the local cost-of-living. If this figure is not a practical definition of a middle class income, what is?

In trying to fathom an economic rationale for stretching the definition of middle class income to $200,000/$250,000, some go back to the 2008 presidential campaign, when then-candidate Obama promised that no individual or family earning up to these amounts need to worry about tax increases from his administration. But this retrospective look only begs the question. How did candidate Obama come up with these upper limits in the first place?

* To be continued...

September 20, 2010 at 5:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/547713/201009171932/A-Presidential-Tax-Cut-For-Liberal-Elites.aspx

* CONCLUSION... (Part 2 of 2)

The answer does not become obvious until we recall something the late Irving Kristol observed in his 1995 book on "Neo-conservatism." He detailed the rising political power of what he called a "new class" of highly educated workers: "scientists, teachers and educational administrators, (therapists), those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners (and) the staffs of the larger foundations."

Kristol conceded that these well-paid professionals are necessary in a modern capitalist society, but warned that a majority do not sympathize with the values of capitalism. Their incomes tend to flow from seniority-related salaries and fees, not from performance bonuses, stock options, or capital gains.

Today the cream of Kristol's "new class" has morphed into the controlling elite of the Democrat Party: the regional leaders of teacher and other public employee unions, tenured professors at Ivy League colleges, high-level federal and state employees, directors of prominent environmental and other left-leaning think tanks, politically-connected lobbyists, attorneys, and consultants.

Interestingly, this group fares quite well under the president's proposed $200,000/ $250,000 exemption from higher taxes.

This is not to suggest that the earnings potential of the "new class" is capped at $250,000. But much of the compensation beyond this level is either psychic — a job title conveying intellectual and moral superiority to the rest of us, the regulatory authority to impose one's beliefs — or is conveniently non-taxable.

Items in second category include generous health care coverage, equally generous employer contributions to retirement plans, recession resistant jobs, long vacations, multiple provisions for compensated time off, subsidized conferences at first class facilities ... in other words, the same cost drivers currently blowing up public sector and university budgets.

President Obama likes to argue that his targeted tax cut is designed to make the most affluent Americans assume their "fair share" of the nation's obligations. On closer inspection, it really seems designed to exempt the liberal elites who define those obligations from as much of the burden as possible.

September 20, 2010 at 5:36 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/asia/21afghan.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Britain withdrew the last of its Royal Marines from the violent Sangin District in northern Helmand Province [Afghanistan] on Monday...

* GOOD FOR THEM...

...handing control in that Taliban stronghold to American troops.

* NOT SO GOOD FOR US.

More than 100 British soldiers died in Sangin, nearly a third of that country’s casualties since 2001.

* AND NOW IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

September 20, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)