Howard Kurtz finds tax increases on wealthy "onerous" -- so how "affluent" is he?
July 21, 2009 12:54 pm ET by Jamison Foser
I've criticized Howard Kurtz a lot in this space, and in my columns, but he sometimes does good work. For example, Kurtz occasionally makes the valuable point that the increasing affluence of high-profile reporters sometimes affects their coverage of political issues. Here he is during yesterday's online discussion:
As journalists have become more affluent -- a trend to which I don't necessarily object -- they are more likely to hobnob with the big shots, send their kids to the same private schools, and hang out at the same parties. This undoubtedly affects their view of the world and the people they cover.
We need only remember Charlie Gibson's embarrassing performance during the Democratic presidential primary debates last year to conclude that Kurtz is on to something here.
Now, with that in mind, let's look again at today's edition of Kurtz's "Media Notes" column, shall we? Kurtz:
And even though the administration has done a good job in, at the very least, neutralizing opposition from doctors and hospitals, it's still asking members of Congress to impose substantial pain, which politicians hate to do.
The trillion or so dollars to cover a major chunk of the uninsured has to come from somewhere. Some would be squeezed through lower Medicare and Medicaid payments from docs, hospitals and drugmakers, and they have political clout. The rest would either be drained by a surtax on the wealthy or taxing the most generous employer-provided benefits -- both of which are making many Democrats nervous.
Hmmmm.
More:
[TNR's Jonathan] Cohn may underestimate the difficulty of raising taxes on the affluent, especially since the added sting of losing their Bush tax cuts could push the top rate to an onerous 47 percent.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Kurtz's use of the word "onerous" certainly seems to tip his hand.
Now, given that Howard Kurtz says that journalists' affluence "undoubtedly affects their view of the world," and given that Howard Kurtz opines that potential tax increases on the wealthy would be "onerous," and given that Kurtz is one of the Washington Post's star reporters and hosts a CNN television show, it's impossible not to wonder just how affluent Kurtz is, isn't it? Perhaps Kurtz should disclose that information the next time he decides to criticize tax policy -- or at least keep his own statements about journalists' financial situations influencing their reporting in mind before he so opines.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
They've been smirking at the idea that those making 200k-250k are in any sense "rich", depicting those at 4-5 times the national median income as just struggling to get by and hopefully having enough left to altruistically "give" jobs to those who are less motivated and successful.
Now, with the health care debate taking place, I hear the same right wing yakkers whining that the "well-off" who are making 75k a year may be included in the statistics of the uninsured. I've heard more than one try to subtract these from the ranks of uninsured as people who can afford health insurance but choose not to.
I don't know how things are in the rest of the country, but where I live, 75k means you're renting, and if you don't have insurance, it's probably not just because you don't really feel like being insured.
The Republicans, led by Rush Limbaugh, have convinced a large number of "Joe-the-Plumbers" out there that $250,000 is still middle class, and that with a little hard work, they can all achieve that modest income. I'm sure that part of the problem is the frequency with which we hear what professional athletes and entertainers are making. Compared to what Rush Limbaugh makes, $250,000 does seem rather modest.
Truth is, most of us will slog through life settling for much less than that. It's just reality.
Translation of the thumbs down: "Stop pointing out how many different ways I'm being fooled!"
That's what I have to assume, in the absence of any argument.
What was the top rate back in the 50s? Much higher, to be sure. How was the economy back then?
Or so the wingnuts would like us to believe.
And if you bring their tax rates back up to where they were in the year 2000, they'll shut their factories, fire their workers, and move their production to Malaysia.
So please, lets do nothing that might harm the bottom line of these God-fearing, Flag-Waving Patriots.
Exactly how much does Kurtz make?...It would seem to be a pretty important disclosure for a reporter, especially one that comments on economic matters.
Maybe Media Matters should keep a database of what these elite journalists are making?