On the November 21 broadcast of his show, Newsradio 850 KOA host Mike Rosen mischaracterized a November 21 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) that he claimed was “about what the Democrats' agenda is going to be in January.” In fact, according to the Journal, the article presented "[a] sampling of Democratic thinkers' ideas for addressing widening economic inequality." Moreover, Rosen distorted Democratic positions on a number of issues by omitting important details contained in the Journal article, including the fact that some Democratic proposals addressing economic inequality have bipartisan support.

During the broadcast, Rosen stated, “In today's Wall Street Journal there's a story on the front page about what the Democrats' agenda is going to be in January when the next Congress convenes and the Democrats have a majority in both houses.” Rosen further stated, “One element of that agenda is going to do with what the Democrats are regarding as a serious national problem, and that's maldistribution of income. This has always been a hot topic of people on the left, people who fundamentally are sympathetic toward a more socialist role for government.” However, Rosen failed to mention that, according to the same Journal article, “Republicans as prominent as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently have warned in speeches of risks posed by widening inequality.” Rosen stated:

The Democrats now are taking a look at incomes, and they're concerned that upper-income people are earning a greater share of national income than has been the case in the past. And they regard that as a problem. Now, this Wall Street Journal story talks about some of the remedies that Democrats are proposing to mitigate that problem. And let me tack off a list.

At the top of Rosen's list, based on his reading of the Journal article, was his false assertion that Democrats “want to limit by legislation how much companies can pay chief executive officers.” However, the Journal actually reported that, rather than limiting executive pay, Democrats want more equality and transparency when it comes to issues like stock options and “golden parachute” payments. According to the Journal:

Limiting pay at the top has proven tough. A 1993 law that discouraged tax deductions for executive salaries above $1 million is widely regarded as a bust. “Executives responded by rewarding themselves with millions of dollars worth of stock options” instead of big salaries, lament former Clinton aide Bruce Reed and Chicago Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a key strategist in the Democrats' win, in their pre-election book calling for “a new social contract for the 21st century.” They go on, “This time we should approach the problem from the other direction and require companies that provide stock options to their executives to provide stock options to every worker.”

That's unlikely to become law. But Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat in line to chair the House Financial Services Committee, vows to push legislation that would force companies to provide more and clearer details of CEO pay, devise policies to recapture incentive pay if earnings are later restated, and require shareholder approval of “golden parachute” payments to dismissed executives. Mr. Frank says he plans hearings into a “fundamental” economic question: “How do you do a better job of sharing overall economic growth with the average worker?”

Rosen further claimed that Democrats are in favor of expanding pre-kindergarten programs, without noting that, according to the Journal, "[a] coalition that spans the political spectrum is pushing more government support of Pre-K education."

Additionally, Rosen stated that Democrats seek to “provide universal health insurance, which is another step along the way to socialized medicine.” Although, as the Journal reported, “some Democrats still drool over proposals for government health insurance for all, others prefer piecemeal approaches. Among them: Allowing businesses with up to 100 employees tax credits to buy insurance through a government-sponsored pool modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, which gives federal workers a choice of private health insurance plans.”

Below is a chart contrasting Rosen's statements -- which he credited to the Journal -- with what the Journal article actually reported:

Rosen:

WSJ article:

One element of [the Democratic] agenda is going to do with what the Democrats are regarding as a serious national problem, and that's maldistribution of income. This has always been a hot topic of people on the left, people who fundamentally are sympathetic toward a more socialist role for government.

Republicans as prominent as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently have warned in speeches of risks posed by widening inequality.

[T]hey want to limit by legislation how much companies can pay chief executive officers ...

Limiting pay at the top has proven tough. A 1993 law that discouraged tax deductions for executive salaries above $1 million is widely regarded as a bust. “Executives responded by rewarding themselves with millions of dollars worth of stock options” instead of big salaries, lament former Clinton aide Bruce Reed and Chicago Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a key strategist in the Democrats' win, in their pre-election book calling for “a new social contract for the 21st century.” They go on, “This time we should approach the problem from the other direction and require companies that provide stock options to their executives to provide stock options to every worker.”

That's unlikely to become law. But Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat in line to chair the House Financial Services Committee, vows to push legislation that would force companies to provide more and clearer details of CEO pay, devise policies to recapture incentive pay if earnings are later restated, and require shareholder approval of “golden parachute” payments to dismissed executives. Mr. Frank says he plans hearings into a “fundamental” economic question: “How do you do a better job of sharing overall economic growth with the average worker?”

Another issue: shortage of educated workers driving their wages above others. Now, if you're an educated worker this isn't a problem; this is good. Here are the remedies. Increase grants to low-income college students; cut interest rates on student loans -- that means subsidize student loans with tax dollars coming from other taxpayers; expand public pre-kindergarten programs.

A coalition that spans the political spectrum is pushing more government support of Pre-K education. The case: Low-income children are behind when they arrive at kindergarten and never catch up; spending more on them sooner would have a big payoff.

[E]rosion of on-the-job health care and pensions. Remedies: provide universal health insurance, which is another step along the way to socialized medicine.

Finding a politically palatable and affordable way to make health insurance universally available has been impossible, so far. Mr. Bush has pushed tax credits to help more people buy insurance on their own, and dangled rule changes and low-premium, high-deductible policies to encourage small firms to offer coverage. Although some Democrats still drool over proposals for government health insurance for all, others prefer piecemeal approaches. Among them: Allowing businesses with up to 100 employees tax credits to buy insurance through a government-sponsored pool modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, which gives federal workers a choice of private health insurance plans.

From the November 21 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: In today's Wall Street Journal there's a story on the front page about what the Democrats' agenda is going to be in January when the next Congress convenes and the Democrats have a majority in both houses. One element of that agenda is going to do with what the Democrats are regarding as a serious national problem, and that's maldistribution of income. This has always been a hot topic of people on the left, people who fundamentally are sympathetic toward a more socialist role for government. Taxation not just as a means of raising money, but taxation as a device for redistributing income from those who have more to those who have less. We already do plenty of that in this country, which is why we have a progressive income tax where people who make more money pay a greater share of their taxable income in federal income taxes than do people who have -- who earn less money. One example I give: After the Bush tax reforms of the -- of several years ago, in his first term, today a family of four -- husband, wife, and two kids -- with forty-thousand dollars in adjusted gross income, after the exemption for -- personal exemptions, after the standard exemption if they don't itemize, after child credits, and after the earned income tax credit, the federal tax liability of that family of four is zero. Now, they may pay Social Security taxes, FICA taxes, but their income tax liability is zero. The top 5 percent of income earners in the country pay about half of the nation's tax bill, and the top two-thirds -- excuse me, the top 10 percent -- pay about two-thirds of the nation's total tax bill.

I've talked about this many times. The Democrats now are taking a look at incomes, and they're concerned that upper-income people are earning a greater share of national income than has been the case in the past. And they regard that as a problem. Now, this Wall Street Journal story talks about some of the remedies that Democrats are proposing to mitigate that problem. And let me tack off a list.

Under the issue of widening pre-tax wage gap they want to raise the minimum wage, they want to limit by legislation how much companies can pay chief executive officers, and they want to strengthen union clout -- not surprisingly, because labor unions are one of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. We have had a sea change in the last half-century in this country regarding compensation for people in certain fields. People with college educations, people in the knowledge industries, tend to make more money; and people in assembly-line work tend to make less because that work simply doesn't have the market value that it did once upon a time and the unions aren't nearly as strong as they were once upon a time. And liberal Democrats would like to reverse that by increasing the muscle power of unions so unions can extract more money from the companies whose employees they represent. Unfortunately, that may not produce the desired result. So many unions in the past have priced their rank and file out of the market, so companies have simply shut down or moved manufacturing facilities overseas.

Part of the agenda also includes the problem of widening after-tax income gap. And here are the Democrat remedies: expand the earned income tax credit, roll back President Bush's upper-income tax cuts, raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. These are all part of the agenda.

Another issue: shortage of educated workers driving their wages above others. Now, if you're an educated worker this isn't a problem; this is good. Here are the remedies. Increase grants to low-income college students; cut interest rates on student loans -- that means subsidize student loans with tax dollars coming from other taxpayers; expand public pre-kindergarten programs. I've long argued that the primary beneficiary of a college education -- while there's some obvious benefit to society as a whole -- the primary beneficiary is that individual who has a college education, which he can then exploit to make more money throughout his career. And if he's the primary beneficiary, it makes perfect sense for that person to borrow money, later pay it back out of the increased earnings he makes, and not necessarily have other people who don't go to college subsidize his college education and, consequently, his enhanced earning power. Democrats, of course, don't see it that way. They love to give things to people at other people's expense, and they're going to make college less expensive for everybody who wants to go, even though the people who go are going to be the primary beneficiaries, and from their income they can pay back their loans, which are already subsidized.

Another issue: many middle class jobs no longer stable. This is regarded as a problem by Democrats. I think it's a virtue of a dynamic economy. You have no guarantee of job security. The flexibility of our economy is what's produced this unemployment rate we have of 4.4 percent right now. It's what's helped to produce 7 million new jobs in recent years, and it's why our economy continues to grow while so many of the European economies are stagnant. And these are economies that are burdened far more by socialist programs than our economy is today, but Democrats want to burden our economy with more of these socialistic programs in the name of what they call social justice. So, these are some of their ideas to mitigate this problem of middle-class jobs, which no longer are stable. Expand wage-loss insurance. That is, you take out an insurance policy that will pay you benefits if your wages are lower in the future than they are today. And, of course, the Democrats want to subsidize that program. Revamp the unemployment insurance system -- that is, making it more profitable to be out of work. Cover mortgage payments for displaced workers -- that means having other people subsidize the mortgage payments of somebody who's lost a job, or has had to change jobs for one that doesn't pay as much. Give cash to families whose incomes fall sharply -- another redistribution of income program. And, of course, the Democrats have done the political calculus on this. They know that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers only pay 3 percent -- just over 3 percent -- of the total federal income tax burden. So if you give the bottom 50 or 60 or 70 or 80 percent benefits at the expense of the top 20 percent, then you'll harvest far more votes from the 80 percent than you'll lose in the 20 percent. And the 20 percent even includes some rich people who are Democrats, like rich Hollywood stars who make a hundred million dollars a year.

Finally, erosion of on-the-job health care pensions -- excuse me, erosion of on-the-job health care and pensions. Remedies: provide universal health insurance, which is another step along the way to socialized medicine; allow small employers to buy insurance from government-sponsored -- from a government-sponsored pool, which means, of course, that those rates would be subsidized by taxpayers; provide universal 401(k) with government subsidies, and that speaks for itself: government subsidies -- that means more infusion. Every one of these programs ultimately requires more taxes, create new programs, more government spending, more transfer of income from a shrinking class of upper-income and upper-middle-income taxpayers to a growing class of people dependent on these income transfers and dependent on the politicians who are going to provide this largess to them at somebody else's expense. So that's part of the agenda. And then they get into some of the players here: Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel and others and what they intend to do in the next session of Congress.