Pearlstein featured this article in the Washington Post yesterday.  I have some thoughts to share & will include in my next blog entry with my letter to the editor of Post.  Please share comments on this article.

Our Inequality of Outcomes
By Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, August 27, 2008; D01

Hey, good news on the income front: The Census Bureau reported yesterday that median earnings for full-time male workers rose by $1,653 last year, to $45,113, after adjusting for inflation.

Another year like that, and maybe the typical male worker will finally catch up to where he was in 1973.

Truth is, despite the squishy nature of income data, things haven't been so great for the middle and working class for some time. Every now and again you get a good year like last year, when wages and household incomes increased. That's usually at the tail end of an economic expansion.

But over the past 35 years, the typical American household has managed to eke out only a 15 percent increase in its pretax income. During that same period, the productivity of the American worker — the value of the goods and services produced per hour worked — has increased by 90 percent.

So where did all that money go? Read the rest of this entry »

I came accross this article in the NY Times relflecting on the women's events at the convention.  Please read and share with me your comments. 

By ELEANOR RANDOLPH, DENVER

Eighty-eight years after American women fought their way into the voting booth, some latter-day activists here are having trouble adjusting.

They saw Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as their reward, a final acknowledgement that it was worth all the bras burned and lawsuits filed and marches on an all-male Washington. But Mrs. Clinton failed to win what may be her only shot at the Democratic nomination, and these women are trying to get used to the fact that a new generation is taking center stage here: one represented by Michelle Obama.

On Monday night and throughout Tuesday's series of women's events, Mrs. Obama displayed the kind of grace and female strength that political consultants love and many Americans yearn for in a first lady.

Her convention speech touched all the necessary bases: we come from modest stock; we worked hard; we earned fancy degrees, yes, but then we went back to help the community and raise a family - a really adorable family. Read the rest of this entry »

WOMEN:  WAKE UP!  88 YEARS AGO TODAY, YOU WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE!

You are SO powerful.  You make up 54% of the electorate.  Your vote is THE most important in the country!  Yet, many of you don't even vote.   Why?

Hilary Swank powerfully plays the role of Alice Paul in the movie, Iron Jawed Angel.  If you haven't seen this move, rent it.  On November 17, 1917 the warden at Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there — because they dared to picket in front of Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote!  They even tried to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized.  But in the end, Hilary Swank is only playing a part, whereas these inspirational women actually lived it.  The sad fact is, it's not just a movie; these courageous women actually did have to go through these things in order to procur the right to vote for women.  Read the rest of this entry »

Neese Challenges House Majority Leader on Workplace Flexibility

Terry Neese, a Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, says a four-day work week proposal from U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) won’t help most Americans. Hoyer has asked the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to analyze the transition to a four-day work week for federal employees.

“There are 1.8 million federal employees and 154 million workers in the U.S.,” Neese said. “That means there are about 152 million people who, because of arcane labor laws, don’t have the same opportunity for a flexible work week.”

To contact Terry Neese, call the National Center for Policy Analysis at 972-308-6481.

In response to the August 14 editorial, "Obama's War on Women," there are many flaws in Sen. Obama's plans, which include changes that worsen the situation in New York where, as you point out, the nominal tax rate on some two-income families could move beyond 54%.

Women make up more than half the national electorate. Women will be watching to see where the two leading presidential candidates stand on issues that effect their earning power, and their families' economic status. Marriage penalties hurt working women and hurt the economy. Existing tax laws, and Obama's "new" plan, favor single-income households and punish dual-income couples. The second earner has little incentive to work because she keeps so little of her earnings. Read the rest of this entry »

This article was published, as follow up in response to an article that was published on Aug. 14th.  See previous blog post for full print article.  Please post your comments and share your thoughts on this response.

Obama's War on Women, II

"Absolutely outrageous" is how Senator Obama's economic adviser, Jason Furman, described our editorial of Thursday, "Obama's War on Women," about the effect the Democrat's tax plan would have in penalizing highly educated married women who work outside the home. Mr. Furman was asked about it (not by us) in a conference call of the national press corps. Read the rest of this entry »

I came across this article in the New York Sun on Thursday about "Obama's War on Women."  I couldn't agree more with this editorial.  Please tell me your thoughts by posting a comment.

The Obama campaign has at long last lifted the veil of mystery that has surrounded the Democratic presidential candidate's tax increase plans. Mr. Obama's two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, have an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal, and it isn't pretty. To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he'd impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%. Because Mr. Obama proposes to put the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 20% even for the "rich" - a mere 33% increase over the current 15% rate - expect to see plenty of high earners scurrying to find creative ways of structuring their income as capital gains or dividends rather than as earned income.

Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: "His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000." It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.