Was Scott Brown's Comment Sexist? No - and It's a Disservice to Everyone to Describe It That Way!

                            Image via Wikipedia

Scott Brown's "Thank God" rebuttal to Elizabeth Warren two days ago amused some and offended others.  But to me, the most striking element of the entire exchange was the immediate reaction by many that Brown's comment was sexist.  

The MA Democratic Party circulated an online petition demanding Brown apologize for his "sexist remark."  TheWashington Examiner's Phil Klein agreed the comment was sexist and argued that no Democratic senator could have same the same thing about a Republican woman.  The president of the National Organization for Women accused Brown of a "sexist misogynistic attack" and should withdraw from the 2012 race.   The blogosphere blew up with similar comments.

There was nothing sexist in Senator Brown's comment.  Juvenile?  Certainly.  Unnecessary?  Probably.  But not sexist - that's critically important.  Merriam-Webster defines sexism as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex."  What part of Senator Brown's statement differentiated between men and women?  If Rush Limbaugh, for example, had challenged Brown from the right and had made similar comments, do we really think Brown wouldn't have fired back the same way? 

We can have all the arguments we want about whether his comment was constructive for this race.  Many of us probably believe neither his comment nor Ms. Warren's provocation was fitting of a Senate campaign.  But we shouldn't go around calling such comments "sexist" when they aren't.  It cheapens the meaning of the term, and, worse, it disrespects those who've faced true sexism. 

What will the next 5% surtax pay for?

Atlantic's Megan McArdle has a great piece in her blog about the proposed 5% tax surcharge on those earning incomes of $1M or greater to fund the jobs bill.  Her gist (and I think she's right): let's grant the premise that you want to move towards this more progressive tax system.  If true, what's next after this?  If this 5% surtax pays for a program that we don't even have yet, it still fails to address the long-term structure issues facing the U.S. budget.  This additional charge represents a transfer of wealth from top earners to lower-income ones.  It would do nothing directly to shore up the entitlement programs (there could be smaller second- and third-order effects), and it would leave us no better off than we are today.

So, is there a 10% tax boost waiting in the wings to address the bigger issues we're facing?

Understanding Obama's mistakes...

John Feehery at the Hill has an interesting take: it didn't all begin with ObamaCare.

His list includes the Beer Summit, an early dalliance with cap-and-trade, and David Plouffe's new role.