WARNNG: This article contains some actual reporting: “Romney Defines ‘Middle-Income” as $200,000 to $250,000 and Less in Annual Income.”
For example, the article mentions that Obama too sets middle income as up to $250,000.
But the article does more than state numbers. It gives context.
Romney’s comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
“No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers,” Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.
“Is $100,000 middle income?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,” Romney responded.
His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income — the midpoint for the nation — is just over $50,000.
People are all over this as indicative of Romney’s being out of touch with everyday incomes. That looks like a reasonable observation, but Obama’s hardly a member of the middle class either. Living in a political world is not the same as living in the real world, now is it?
Upon reading this though, what jumped out at me was the way Romney phrased his response. Instead of answering that, yes, $100,000 was middle class, but the bracket includes those making up to $250,000, he said, “No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.”
That sounded quite odd to me. So when was $100,000 removed from being less than $200,000 to $250,000?”
And then there’s his campaign’s explanation that he meant household income, not individual income. That makes what he said all better, now doesn’t it? Last time I picked up a calculator, half of $200,000 was $100,000, the number Romney said was not middle class.
But, hey, I admit to being a pedant. I expect comments by people, candidates included, to make sense.
Yes, this is trivia, but trivia adds up quickly in political life.
Cassandra
Uncommon Scolds 