On Monday, shortly after President Trump asked two employees at a suburban Cincinnati manufacturer to describe their plans for the $1,000 bonuses they had received, MSNBC's Katy Tur ridiculed them on Twitter. Tur considered $1,000 a pittance, and contended that the bonus money wouldn't genuinely help the employees involved achieve their stated goals. On Wednesday, Tur responded poorly to the outrage over her condescension by trying to change the subject.
I also noted on Tuesday that Tur's tweets used embarrassingly wrong statistics on out-of-pocket costs for childbirth (using a figure for what insurance companies pay), buying a home (presenting an average cost 68 percent higher than the median price of homes for sale in the area), and college.
Here is Tur's Wednesday response:
KATY TUR, MSNBC: On Tuesday (really Monday), the President highlighted a pair of workers in Ohio who were using their $1,000 bonus to save for some big-ticket dreams: starting a family, owning a home, and sending kids to college.
We applaud them. Every dollar counts, and $1,000 is a very big deal.
But along with cheering one-time bonuses, shouldn't we be pushing for long-term salary hikes, the kinds of sustained help that would transform big-ticket dreams into everyday realities? Because, think about it, starting a family, owning a home, sending your kids to college, these should be within the reach of every American, bonus or no bonus. Or does that make me seem out of touch? I'm just not sure.
(after introducing guests)
TUR: ... These one-time bonuses, Catherine. $1,000 is a big deal. Nobody's scoffing at $1,000. But is that where we should stop cheering, or should there be a push to change the system and get wages up so that workers can afford more of these everyday things?
CATHERINE RAMPELL, WASHINGTON POST: Obviously, we want permanent wage increases.
Tur, who sneered at the importance of $1,000 on Monday, clearly protested too much in saying that "$1,000 is a big deal" twice without apologizing for her Monday condescension. She instead dared viewers to consider her "out of touch" for thinking that "long-term salary hikes" are preferable.
- No one would be talking about bonuses or "permanent wage increases" if the tax-cut law, which MSNBC's hosts and leftist pundits serially lied about and bitterly opposed, hadn't passed in December.
- There has never been such a broad, immediate, and beneficial economic response to a tax-law change.
- Who is this "we" to whom Tur and Rampell are referring? It looks like they're advocating for the government to force wage increases on employers, regardless of affordability.
- Many companies employing hundreds of thousands have increased wages in response to the tax law.
- The tax law's stated goal is to increase workers' earnings by $4,000 to $9,000 per year in the next several years. That has a far better chance of working than the government (Tur's and Rampell's royal "we") exerting force.
The answer to Tur's "out of touch" question is still "yes."
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.