Sunday pops |

Sunday pops

The New York Times blames the lowest national voter turnout in 72 years on “apathy, anger and frustration at the relentlessly negative tone of the campaigns.” So, in typical “progressive” fashion, it suggests one of the cures would be even more liberalized voting rules that would invite the kind of fraud that “progressives” obviously need to prevail. … Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has endorsed a constitutional convention to rein in the power of the federal government. And while it sounds attractive, the prospective GOP presidential candidate and other supporters must realize that once the constitutional convention genie is out of the bottle, those with less-than-conservative intentions could do grave damage to our national charter. … The Piketty-Saez study on income inequality continues to receive lots of attention. It claims that between 1979 and 2007, the poorest Americans saw a 33 percent decline in income, that the “working class” saw a mere 0.7 percent increase in income and that middle-class incomes rose by a mere 2.2 percent. But as a new study in the Southern Economic Journal concludes (as detailed in a Wall Street Journal commentary), the Piketty-Saez study used incomplete data. And when all the data are considered, the numbers were, respectively, income increases of 31, 32 and 37 percent. Which changes the picture, markedly, when it comes to discussions of “income inequality.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.