Share This Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012, 8:50 p.m.

The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector notes that the federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be “poor” if its pre-tax income is below $37,900 — even with full medical coverage. The “poor” threshold is $42,500 in Oakland, Calif., and about $40,000 in Washington, D.C., and Boston. Leviathan's new face of “poverty” in America is shockingly close to America's 2011 median income of just more than $51,000 a year. ... Manhattan Institute scholar Robert Bryce notes that the environmental protection crowd — namely the Sierra Club — has been strangely absent in defending the environment from the excessive noise caused by wind turbines. It's yet another stark example of the difference between “environmentalism” and “conservationism.” ... One of the uglier “fiscal reform” stories circulating in Washington these days is that the Obama administration and/or Congress wants to fiddle with the tax deferral of 401(k) savings plans. Currently, money invested in such plans is taxed only when withdrawn. Washington being Washington, count on it to treat middle-class investors the same way it treats “the rich” — taxing them twice (or thrice) then complaining that nobody is paying his “fair share.” What's Washington going to do when it runs out of people to rob? Once upon a time, Americans fought a revolution over such tyranny.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.