Sherman Frederick Obama's plan: Eat the rich, chain the poorPosted: Jan. 29, 2012 | 2:05 a.m. President Obama is right about one thing: Because we live in a marvelous country with unmatched opportunities, all citizens must to do their "fair share" to support her. There are only two hitches: The president doesn't really mean it, and there's no consensus on what is "fair." When the president rails about tax equality and fairness, he does it not in the context of a serious debate on tax reform, but as a 2012 re-election tactic. You know this because the president has plenty to say about the unfairness of billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries, but he goes mute on the unfairness of letting half of American citizens escape without paying a dime in federal income tax. In that regard, Obama policies have become the democratic threat Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 1830s: "A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it." And therein lies the great divide for the 2012 presidential election. We all want equality, but those who lean toward free enterprise want equality foremost in liberty, and those who lean toward socialism want equality foremost in servitude to the entitlement state. So when President Obama says he wants everyone to pay his or her "fair share," listen up. What usually comes next is a profoundly unfair plan that gives large numbers of citizens a free ride at the expense of the so-called "rich." In 2011, the income tax broke down like this: The rate for the poor was 10 percent, the rate for the middle class was 25 percent and the rate for the rich was 35 percent. But after tax credits were applied, that translated into the top half of Americans paying 97.3 percent of the federal income tax burden and the bottom half paying 2.7 percent. There's no fairness in that. Of course, the income tax is just one tax. The bottom 50 percenters certainly paid into the system via other taxes, primarily the payroll tax. But so did the upper 50 percenters through capital gains, among others. And that's the underbelly of Obama's rhetoric: He advocates an acceleration of this imbalance. This is not to say that the U.S. tax code isn't a complicated mess. It is. We desperately need a good, sane discussion on tax reform. (A little discussion on spending wouldn't hurt, either.) But sanity and fairness are not what Obama is angling for. He's looking to grow a constituency who look to him and his party for a free lunch, just as de Tocqueville warned. Reform means that we look at the whole system, loopholes and all, and try to come to a national consensus on what "fair share" really means. It certainly cannot mean that 50 percent of Americans get to pay virtually nothing in income tax for the privilege of living in this country. The starting point for an honest conversation would be the principle that everyone should pay something in federal income tax. And yes, that means "the poor." When President Obama stands before the American people, like he did last week in the State of the Union address, and invokes that supercilious tone to preach to us about hard work, success and the American dream, his policies of class warfare expose him as a politician of style, not substance. If we're going to create an "economy built to last" everyone should pay a "fair share"? Zero, Mr. President, is not fair. Sherman Frederick, former publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, writes a column for Stephens Media. Read his blog at www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm. |
Monday, January 30, 2012
Obama's Plan: Eat the rich, chain the poor
Gingrich's Damn the Torpedoes Morning in America - 2012 Decoded
Gingrich's Damn the Torpedoes Morning in America - 2012 Decoded
As for Romney's supposed managerial talents, "every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it." The 23 foreign bank accounts that weren't reported. The abortion services covered under the Massachusetts health law. His board membership with a company that got "the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud."
"I want to talk about big issues," Gingrich suddenly interjected at one point. He mentioned housing, jobs and entitlement reform in passing, and offered a one-sentence explanation of his Social Security proposal to let young Americans choose a personal Social Security account (in the stock market) instead of an account handled by the government.
Big issues were then officially over and Gingrich was back to the difficulties of being assaulted by Romney's "carpet-bombs with Wall Street money"; asserting that Romney will "hang out with his establishment friends, managing the decay" of a declining America; and bemoaning that his record of tax-cutting and balanced budgets as House speaker "is wiped away by Romney's totally phony history, which he maniacally continues to repeat." Also, Romney is "fundamentally dishonest" and trying to hide "his liberal record in Massachusetts.
The ratio of complaints and attacks, as opposed to what exactly he'd like to do as president, aside from being visionary, was quite remarkable. It may be that this was what Gingrich wanted to be talking about -- that it was his deliberate strategy, perhaps his only option, given that polls suggest Romney is well ahead of him in Florida.
Romney accused Gingrich of making excuses, just like President Obama. On the other hand, the Romney campaign also unfurled a series of character affidavits from big guns -- two governors (Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bob McDonnell of Virginia); two House members (Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida), and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Chaffetz said Gingrich's "desperate" campaign had devolved into "character assassination." Pawlenty said Gingrich had gone "over the line" and "way out of bounds."
The avalanche of praise -- the Romney campaign seems to have gone to the thesaurus to find synonyms for "impeccable" -- suggested a certain degree of anxiety, a campaign that simply counters every attack, or both.
First the Republicans skirmished over capitalism. Now it's character. Remember when snarking that someone was "likeable enough" or too green to be trusted with a 3 a.m. crisis call was considered a low blow? Clearly we're not in 2008 anymore.
Gingrich's Damn the Torpedoes Morning in America
ShareWhatever happened to the old politician's trick of answering the question you wanted to be asked, instead of the one that you actually were asked?
If you assume Newt Gingrich wants to talk about his plans for America, he managed to do that maybe twice, and briefly, in a 17-minute appearance Sunday on ABC's This Week. For the most part he aired his grievances against Mitt Romney and Romney's establishment buddies in the kind of subtle language for which he's famous. It was no Reaganesque Sunday Morning in America. It was more like damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
To summarize: Gingrich said the articles and attacks against him have been "breathlessly dishonest." Romney has run "a campaign of vilification." He has been "relentlessly negative," not to mention "blatantly dishonest" by giving "just plain false" debate answers. Which were also "just plain not true" and "just plain actually false." And made it impossible for Gingrich to give a good debate performance Thursday night. If you assume Newt Gingrich wants to talk about his plans for America, he managed to do that maybe twice, and briefly, in a 17-minute appearance Sunday on ABC's This Week. For the most part he aired his grievances against Mitt Romney and Romney's establishment buddies in the kind of subtle language for which he's famous. It was no Reaganesque Sunday Morning in America. It was more like damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
As for Romney's supposed managerial talents, "every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it." The 23 foreign bank accounts that weren't reported. The abortion services covered under the Massachusetts health law. His board membership with a company that got "the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud."
"I want to talk about big issues," Gingrich suddenly interjected at one point. He mentioned housing, jobs and entitlement reform in passing, and offered a one-sentence explanation of his Social Security proposal to let young Americans choose a personal Social Security account (in the stock market) instead of an account handled by the government.
Big issues were then officially over and Gingrich was back to the difficulties of being assaulted by Romney's "carpet-bombs with Wall Street money"; asserting that Romney will "hang out with his establishment friends, managing the decay" of a declining America; and bemoaning that his record of tax-cutting and balanced budgets as House speaker "is wiped away by Romney's totally phony history, which he maniacally continues to repeat." Also, Romney is "fundamentally dishonest" and trying to hide "his liberal record in Massachusetts.
The ratio of complaints and attacks, as opposed to what exactly he'd like to do as president, aside from being visionary, was quite remarkable. It may be that this was what Gingrich wanted to be talking about -- that it was his deliberate strategy, perhaps his only option, given that polls suggest Romney is well ahead of him in Florida.
Romney accused Gingrich of making excuses, just like President Obama. On the other hand, the Romney campaign also unfurled a series of character affidavits from big guns -- two governors (Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bob McDonnell of Virginia); two House members (Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida), and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Chaffetz said Gingrich's "desperate" campaign had devolved into "character assassination." Pawlenty said Gingrich had gone "over the line" and "way out of bounds."
The avalanche of praise -- the Romney campaign seems to have gone to the thesaurus to find synonyms for "impeccable" -- suggested a certain degree of anxiety, a campaign that simply counters every attack, or both.
First the Republicans skirmished over capitalism. Now it's character. Remember when snarking that someone was "likeable enough" or too green to be trusted with a 3 a.m. crisis call was considered a low blow? Clearly we're not in 2008 anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)