The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Print Email
Text Size

Political Hay

MoveOn’s Rich Lady in Yellow

By on 12.7.10 @ 6:09AM

Obama folds, as MoveOn.org remains silent on rich woman in its anti-tax cut ads begging the government to take her money. Is there such a woman?

(Page 3 of 3)

Never mind that the theories The Lady in Yellow appears to favor don’t work. Have never worked. Which is presumably why she is shy about writing a check. Never mind the sheer hypocrisy in all of it. Pay no attention to the fact that this is the worst post-recession economy since World War II precisely because the Obama administration has done exactly what MoveOn.org and their liberal buddies wanted him to do.

The Lady in Yellow has decreed. She wants to make a splash about giving her money to the government.

Just not today. So MoveOn.org has apparently moved to shield a wealthy donor by simply taking her hand and stepping into the Cone of Silence. President Obama appears to be trying to pull a Clinton-triangulation to salvage his presidency in 2012. A battle he is apparently willing to risk against a challenge from liberals like The Lady in Yellow and the funders of MoveOn.org.

But since The Lady in Yellow insists, and since MoveOn is making such a big deal of her insistence, it’s fair for the rest of us to bang on the virtual front door and ask of MoveOn.org:

Who was that lady?

When can we expect her check to the government? For how much? When will MoveOn.org produce the receipt that proves she is as good as her word — and the word of MoveOn.org itself?

Says Vice President Biden of the need for the wealthy to pay more money to the government: “It’s time to be patriotic… time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

OK.

So, when will MoveOn.org and The Lady in Yellow be patriotic?

Where’s her check?

What is MoveOn.org hiding?

Page:   1 23

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) |

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.7.10 @ 6:32AM

The thought process behind the Lady in Yellow is that the government is a living breathing thing which benefits the public and must be fed, especially by those who are wealthy, which is just retreaded class warfare.

The overbloated bureaucracies inside the beltway don't need more money. They simply need to be accountable.

A more accurate ad would show Department of Energy employees stopping energy at every turn, forcing energy prices ever higher. Couple that with dictatorship style capitalism found in mandated ethanol programs and you begin to see why the the Lady in Yellow is simply yellow journalism courtesy of Moveon.org.

The Lady in Yellow is simply a play off of Warren Buffett's often quoted statement that his secretary paid more taxes then he does.

In fact, the statement wasn't true. What Buffett was referring to was that he paid 17% in taxes on his income and his secretary paid 30%. Instead of calling for lower taxes for the working class, Warren Buffett, who has made billions off of public subsidies, called for higher taxes on the rich.

I echo Jeffrey Lord in asking why Warren Buffett doesn't immediately rectify the situation and voluntarily pay the difference? Most likely, the reason Warren Buffett and other liberal elitists don't act on their beliefs, beyond the obvious hypocrisy, is because they don't believe it. They may say it but they don't believe it. If they believed it they would act on it and they obviously don't.

To the roll call of hypocritical class warfare phonies you can add Al Gore (estimated wealth 100 million), the Clintons (estimated wealth 100 million), John Edwards, Senator and Teresa Heinz Kerry (180 millon), Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (2 of the richest men in the world.)

Don't bother telling me about Buffett and Gates charitable work. If they believe in higher taxes then they should do so voluntarily. They are all cheapskate blowhards. Example: Hillary Clinton donated $10 to the Pakistani Flood Relief while asking for donations from others. She's worth over 100 million. Her belief system is worth zilch.

ggoblue| 12.7.10 @ 6:48AM

my girlfriend, the beautiful and talented LAPD [her inits] says....lets send them [the gov.] a fruitcake!

yes, let them eat cake....

and let us all shove it up the libs' arses when the chosen one signs the tax bill right under george [i was right] bushs name....

Appleby| 12.7.10 @ 7:00AM

I have asked my liberal friends the same question -- if they believe in higher taxes or that The Less Fortunate, whoever they may be, are more entitled to their own money than they are -- why not sell up and give the money to them?

But no. No Sir. Hell no, sir.

Their desire is not to aid TheLessFortunate, or as they say in Canada TheMostVulnerableAmongUs, but instead to practice charity with that which does not belong to them. I just got a fretful message that warned me that unless I support Obamas tax on the Millionaires, I will not get into Heaven. From someone who could not pick me out of a lineup, yet who is positive Jesus hates me. My how Christianity has changed!

Oh, and by the way, Tolerance does not mean *Agree with me or die.*

Expel "The Ruling Class"!| 12.7.10 @ 8:08AM

Appleby, that fretful message you reeceived did not come from a Christian. A CINO (Christian In Name Only) hypocrite yes, but a GOD fearing Christian no. GOD loves the cheerful giver. The cheerful giver gives willingly without coercion from government or left wing moonbats. When force enters the equation GOD does not receive glory from giving. The moonbats on the left have so twisted what Jesus Christ said to the rich man who asked Christ what he had to do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven that they themselves have no clue what Christ said & meant. The left have no clue who or what a cheerful giver really is. Ignore people who tell you your place in Heaven depends on obeying foolish politicians & moonbat liberals. If the rich want to give from their heart to help others & glorify GOD they will do so without government & moonbat liberals robbing Peter to pay Paul through redistribution of wealth through excessive taxation. Take care Appleby & GOD bless!

YeloStalyn| 12.7.10 @ 10:12AM

Reminds me of the story of Jesus and the Rich Man. Everyone seems to think the story is only about how the rich will have a harder time truely realizing God's will (though, not impossible). However, it also speaks volumes about how we are to treat eachother with regards to what is right and wrong. Jesus WANTS the rich man to give his riches and help the poor and support them. However, he respects that the man's riches are, in fact, his property. Jesus does NOT act as the social justice government advocate many heretics today say He is. I realized, in this story, that while Jesus would have us live voluntarily and agreeably in a somewhat "socialist" manner (we give what we can, we accept what we need), he would have us govern as a capitalist state and respect the freedom of others to give or not to give. This story alone destroys the entire theory of collective salvation. If the apostle's salvation was dependent on this man doing good works and being saved, they would have been justified in taking from him and making him walk the path of righteousness (which is a whole other argument against social justice) for the salvation of everyone else.

Jesus lived like a communist (in economic theory, obviously not in the "no god(s)" ideology!) but would have voted like a capitalist.

Loshooilgan| 12.7.10 @ 4:58PM

You are obviously referring to the parable in Mark 10:17-25. “good teacher what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” What if he would have asked Jesus “How do I inherit eternal life?”

This parable is about Jesus asking the young rich man to give up the one thing that stands between him and truly knowing the love of God, and nothing more. This has nothing to do with any kind of socio-economic, or political ideological belief. If the young man loved (insert material item here), then Jesus would have asked him to give up all his (insert material item here). Where does your real wealth come from? Do you love money more than God? It is not that God wants you to be poor, but it would better to be poor in earthly wealth so that you don’t miss out on the true love God has for you.

Relationship > Religion.

Loshooligan| 12.7.10 @ 5:00PM

It is Loshooligan.....not Loshooilgan. Damn my fat fingers.

YeloStalyn| 12.7.10 @ 5:16PM

You are right... and that IS the point of the parable. BUT... it also offers us an example of HOW we are treat eachother, even those who may refuse to follow Christ. While Christ asks the man to follow Him, He lets the man be free and chose what to do with his own posessions. And while we should encourage those who have to help those who have not, we, too, should refrain from forcing him to do so... be it by theft (Robin Hood) or taxes (the left).

I was not attempting to state that the point of the parable was incorrect... only that it gives us more than just that parable.

Loshooligan| 12.7.10 @ 7:39PM

I understand your view and you are free draw from the word of God as you will. I just fear that we lose scriptural context too much and true intent. My appologies if I sounded ignoble.

mixplix| 12.7.10 @ 11:43AM

Are the less fortunate the ants or the grasshoppers?

John II| 12.7.10 @ 11:53AM

As usual, Appleby (terrific nom de internet, by the way--saves me the trouble of cooking up a diminutive in my irresistibly lighthearted response) . . . where was I?

Oh yes: As usual, Appleby, you've hit the target dead center. In the rarefied academic environment where I've worked for the past 40 years, almost everyone is a smug lefty, and I've noticed for most of those years (not all, but most--scholarly suspension of judgment, and all that) a remarkable coincidence of lefty political sentiment and personal stinginess.

The situation doesn't quite rise to the level of irony; it just makes horse sense, when you think about it. The lefty impulse is at root narcissistic, sometimes to the point of being murderous (Julian Assange), but always at least to the point of being personally tight and financially ungenerous.

Whenever some fool among my co-workers starts spouting this or that current trend in "social justice," I am reminded of the hapless Sonia Tolstoy, who remarked in a letter to her colossally egocentric genius of a (vagrant) husband: "You're the sort of man who loves humanity-- and thus despises real, individual human beings."

Alice| 12.8.10 @ 8:47AM

You forget the Dicken's heroine; Mrs. Jellaby. Her own children were in a handbasket. She wept tears and gave thought to only the poor children in Africa.

Jesus' and Paul's points seem to be that a goodly society must be built willingly, by the individual, from the bottom up.

Joedoc| 12.7.10 @ 7:07AM

I would imagine that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have an army of accountants and attorneys figuring out how to shelter their money while continually calling on the rest of Americans to pay more. I prepare my own taxes every year. Thanks to the government bureaucracy and ridiculously complicated tax codes it takes me more time every year and I pay more every year.
Americans are tired of it, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of paying for an $80 ,000 Cadillac so Conyers up in Michigan can feel important. I'm tired of the governmant paying off 90,00 black farmers (even though there are less than 30,000 who have actuallly farmed) in one of the most fraud wrought scams against the American people ever perpetrated. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE WASTE AND FRAUD . Tell Gates, Buffett and the rest of the elitists that it's time to put up or shut up. Get out your checkboooks and start writing checks. Until you do, SHUT UP!!

Nick| 12.7.10 @ 2:54PM

Excellent point, Joedoc.

For years, I watched stinking liberal celebrities come on "Politically Incorrect" and say that they could afford to pay more in taxes.

Not once did the conservative or Republican (not the same thing) ever ask the lib if he used accountants and tax lawyers to figure out his taxes? Did they take every available deduction the tax code allowed?

The conservative response to any stinking liberal who says they can pay more in taxes should be:
"Do you take the home mortgage deduction every year?"

Stinking Lib: "Umm...yes I do."

Mythical Conservative: "Why? If you didn't take all those deductions, you could pay a lot more in taxes every year. Why are you such a hypocrite? And, why do you hate the children?"

Or,

Stinking Lib (who knows he's just been caught in a trap) : "NO! I pay my fair share!"

Mythical Conservative: "Okay, then let's come back on this show tomorrow, and you bring your 1040's for the last 5 years."

Stinking Lib: "Well....umm....my situation is complex. I'm set up as a corporation. So, I don't file taxes the way hourly workers do."

Mythical Conservative: "Ah-ha! Why are you set up as a corporation? So you can pay less in taxes, that's why! Why are you such a hypocrite? And, why do you hate the children?"

beebop| 12.7.10 @ 3:18PM

Or write a check to a charity? What is the "record" for Al Gore? $300? The 0bamas weren't exactly throwing money at the needy in Chicago.

Occam's Tool| 12.7.10 @ 8:43PM

Dear Beebop,

It was worse than you know. Michelle Obama's greatest administrative achievement as an administrator at U of C Hospitals was to minimize U Of C's care for the indigent. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Ramon| 12.7.10 @ 7:14AM

The hypocrisy of liberals is astounding. Every time I hear one say, "we need higher taxes" I remind them they can send money to the Feds to reduce the public debt. Oddly enough, not one of them has said, "Gee, thanks! I will." Insted, they just look chagrined and shut up.

J Kelley| 12.7.10 @ 7:18AM

When Buffet was told he could mail a check to the US Gov.. He replied (I can not be sure the Gov would spend the money wisely). So the Gov. only spends tax money without waste. Buffet and the Liberal rich are phoneys.

JimP| 12.7.10 @ 7:46AM

Let's not forget to ask Buffett and Gates and the other billionaires the same thing. Put up or shut up, guys.

JP| 12.7.10 @ 7:56AM

I've never met or read about wealthy liberals (and thier numbers are legion) who do not mind parting with thier cash. Not one. From Goldman execs, the Hollywood big shots, to trust fund babies, owners of enterprises like Ben and Jerry's and Progressive Insurance are all good capitalists, and fight to keep as much money as they legally can.

beebop| 12.7.10 @ 3:20PM

Not to mention Geitner, Daschele ... Rangel? Seriously?

Tetzel| 12.7.10 @ 7:56AM

Now, Now,these people will give to the govt if you match their gifts.

John| 12.7.10 @ 8:00AM

There are two sets of standards; one for the elite and the other for the great unwashed. Geitner and Rangel have demonstrated how the elite avoid or evade taxes. They are representative of an entire class of people who know how to game the system. Of course they could send their money to the government. According to Joe Biden it is their patriotic duty. Will they? Don't bet on it.

Kishego| 12.8.10 @ 3:55PM

I wonder what Wesley Snipes must be thinking about Charlie and little timmy? On a side note, does anyone else get the strong urge to want to punch Geitner in the face when ever he appears on screen? I know it's not very Christian like but, boy it's hard to fight that urge.

Andrew B| 12.7.10 @ 8:02AM

I remember, back during the Clinton years, having a conversation on this very topic with a liberal friend. I pointed out that, although I made in the low $20 k ballpark, I gave more to charity than Vice President Gore. Not percentage-wise, but in actual dollars. In fact, if memory serves, I gave about 10 times what he gave in the year before assuming office. This, of course, at a time when his earnings were perhaps 10 times as great as mine.

My liberal friend, of course, had no reply. It was clear, however, that I was still--somehow--a cruel, wealthy plutocrat and Gore was a selfless, noble altruist. It was an important awakening for me. Would that Move On could have such an epiphany.

Louis Jenkins| 12.7.10 @ 8:22AM

In fact Andrew B, I too have given more yearly money than several of the top name liberals. Kerry, Gore, and Clinton (Mrs.) to name three. No, this is just window dressing. Anything that Miss Yellow Dress gives would be sucked up like a vaccum cleaner, and spit out as dust. Watch what they do, not what they say. They're fakes.

JP| 12.7.10 @ 8:26AM

Yes, but did you donate your briefs? The Clintons donated thier underwear to poor, needy children.

David W| 12.7.10 @ 9:22AM

Ah, you beat me to it. Though you could mention that they wrote off the cost of their used underwear on their taxes... I think it was something like $5 a pair.

Louis Jenkins| 12.7.10 @ 9:45AM

Unfortunately JP, I don't wear briefs. But I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once. Does that count?

Imagine, poor, needy children wearing Clinton's briefs. Staggers the mind.

Ned| 12.7.10 @ 12:44PM

Oh, great! Now how in the hell am I going to get THAT imagine out of my mind!?!?! TOTAL GROSS OUT!!

YeloStalyn| 12.7.10 @ 10:19AM

There have been a number of studies that show the richest states (this doesn't account for public debt, though. California and NY have more money than Alabama) are also the bluest. And they tax the most.

The poorer states are red states. They tax less. but they also have less.

... and you guessed it... they GIVE more. A LOT more.

Conservatives are happier people, more generous people, they steal less, they lie less, they cheat less, they take few soap bars and towels from hotels even. Yes, someone studied these things. At the end of the day conservatives ARE better human beings. Period. God, thank You for allowing me to be a conservative!

Curly Smith| 12.7.10 @ 8:30AM

Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the lady in yellow behind the tree!

William Wallace| 12.7.10 @ 1:34PM

"MP, MP don't arrest me. Arrest that leg behind that tree"

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Curly's post triggered an airborne flashback.

Poor Mike| 12.7.10 @ 8:41AM

I just went to the moveon website to see the ad. There is a place to post reasons to tax the millionaires, so I suggested that the rich lady might want to send me some money, since I have been unemployed now for six months. She would then avoid the high overhead of sending it through the tax system. Works for me!

MoeBlotz| 12.7.10 @ 9:08AM

In RE: The Lady in Yellow I quote HRH Mzz.Pelosi, "Are you serious?Are you serious?"

mames| 12.7.10 @ 9:36AM

So who's stopping her; write a check lady in yellow (you crazy broad :) ) Better yet send it directly to me.

Anthony| 12.7.10 @ 9:49AM

Assuming this woman is for real, and is not a political ploy of MoveOn's, by all means, let's relieve her of the terrible burden of her immense wealth.
Same with John Kerry, Jay Rockerfeller, Algore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, and the rest of the rotten hypocrites on the elite left.
Have you noticed how the MSM and the left are having the vapors over Obozo's "cave-in" to the extention of the Bush tax rates? Note: not tax cuts, as deliberately misapplied by the left, but extension of the exsiting tax rates.
Rush is right, compromise is only when Rs and conservatives cave to the left, never the other way around, even when they are dead wrong on policy as we are absolutely right!!
Keep your pitchforks handy folks, revolution is still an option to rid this country of the rot.

Steve A| 12.7.10 @ 10:03AM

Stop the press! Moveon.org is lying.

Al Adab| 12.7.10 @ 10:29AM

By what stretch of logic do we believe we can treat personal property differently on a basis of "too much is enough"? Who gets to decide what is too much? It makes no sense and is in fact counter-productive to penalize success when government policy should encourage and facilitate success and personal accomplishment.

We do ourselves and our nation a great disservice with class warfare and resentment. In 1924, then Presidential candidate John W. Davis, Democrat, said, "To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue to another is robbery." When did that change?

To treat personal property differently by amount or by class violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Why penalize and discourage (for political benefit?) the American Dream?

YeloStalyn| 12.7.10 @ 12:47PM

This is something I have been wondering for quite some time. Why hasn't the conservative mainstream ever tried to make the argument based on justice? It is NOT just to treat someone different. We don't do it based on race, we don't do it based on creed, gender, etc. Why do it on wealth? Are the rich not citizens too? Do they not bleed red when you cut them? Do they not hunger in the absence of food or shiver in the absence of heat? Where, oh where, did Lady Justice's blindfold go?
One of the first and foremost things conservatives need to do in order to create an enviornment for their arguemnts to begin making sense is to become the TRUE party of Equality. Equality under the law for ALL. Equality is not created by boosting the "equality" of some to equal the "perceived equality" of others. The rich should be held to the fire of law... and so should the poor and everyone in between.

idalily| 12.7.10 @ 2:17PM

I have often wondered this myself. Why are conservative leaders not calling this sort of thing what it is? Taking from one citizen the fruit of his labor to give to another without the former's consent is THEFT. It is UNFAIR, UNJUST, and MORALLY WRONG. There is no justice in forcing people to pay money to give to others deemed "more deserving." We all deserve to keep (or freely give) the fruits of our own labor. We are not free to take that which belongs to others. Robin Hood was a communist and he was no hero.

Al Adab| 12.7.10 @ 2:33PM

Yelo,
You may have hit on something there. By it's very nature the Progressive income tax treat different categories unequally. We have, by default, allowed The Left to define equality in terms of result rather than in terms of opportunity as the Declaration and Constitution do. It is equality in law not equality of condition that makes men Equal. The law should be "no respecter of persons" and it should apply equally to all regardless of condition or wealth. As you note it is unjust to do otherwise.

If we follow that logic it is unjust then, as Davis suggested, to treat differing levels of wealth differently. This is a policy Conservatives should embrace and formalize. As we know, "Moderation in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue".

YeloStalyn| 12.7.10 @ 3:48PM

Liberals, by definition, are results driven people. They are "ends justify means." They are also end focused. For example a poor person is poor regardless of WHY. Therefore, it is right and good, to a liberal, to alter that end by making the person un-poor, but again, without regards to WHY they are poor. They want to raise taxes because, like when you play SimCity, the revenue on the bottom of the ledger goes UP. Getting more revenue is not a bad thing for the government and I don't think anyone would say it is (HOW it's spent is a different argument). But... what happens when you click on cheetah speed with high taxes? People flee and you go broke. Again.. the WHY is important. It is, as the Merovingion (sp?) said in the Matrix, the most important thing... the WHY. Conservatives have allowed the results driven people on the left define all forms of public and private discourse. We no longer have an educated public that wants to know WHY. They see an increase in unemployment benifits and the result is more money in their pocket. But they don't know how it gets there.

Conservatives MUST, if they are to have any chance to radically change things, STOP argueing pragmatic arguments. We can't argue economics. We'll lose. The Dems are right... we want tax cuts for the rich and they want tax cuts for the poor. WHY do we want tax cuts for the rich? Because they're our homies? Our cronies? Or... is it because they are our equals? We MUST begin to argue RIGHT and WRONG not weither something works or not.

We need to ask the middle class if they want to keep what they earn. They say yes. We need to ask them if all American's should be treated equally under the law. They'll say yes. Then we need to ask them if they want to take something that doesn't belong to them and give it to someone else.

It's PRINCIPLE that will win. Philosophy. Right and Wrong. Just and Unjust. The Founders didn't write a pragmatic document... they wrote a philosophical one that also happened to include pragmatic rules on how to implement the PHILOSOPHY of freedom.

We're toast if we don't get back to that.
We need to argue the Constitution. If you don't have a pocket one, get one free from Heritage. When you talk to someone about S.S., medicade/care, progressive taxes, abortion, anything... just ask them to show you were that's legal. Right there on the spot.

Al Adab| 12.7.10 @ 4:54PM

You would be proud of the citizens in our little burg. Many of us carry that document and do just as you suggest. It drives them crazy and they are forced to admit the Constitution is not relevant to their thought process or political agenda. After all, to them the ends (equality of result) justifies the means. If only we poor benighted plebs would let them make all our decisions for us it would be a wonderful world. To them, as to the Marxist, condition matters more than liberty. The national government is to protect Liberty not impose results.

YeloStalyn| 12.7.10 @ 5:20PM

And what burg might this be? I may have to visit!!

The ironic thing is I got the idea from my VERY Democratic poli. sci. proff in college. I went to a private Christian university, so while somewhat liberal (he was very pragmatic, and thus leaned left, but wasn't a psycho... just never really consistant) he was also very religeous (wierd, I know!). He would do this very thing with "seperation of church and state" to his students.

Al Adab| 12.7.10 @ 6:59PM

And what alma mater is that? TCU? Anyway, I'll look forward to following your posts and continuing this conversation.

Occam's Tool| 12.7.10 @ 8:48PM

Hey, El Adab, lay off Texas Christian (a former holder of the Chancellor Scholarship, the highest academic award TCU offers, now worth $112K---when I was there in the 80s, it was worth $12K). It's a nice a place.

That being said, I took a lot of history at the school, and the head of the Poli-Sci Dept in the 80s was a Jewish guy, Alpert. (Liberal, too, I guess).

So, El Adab, just forget my comment. The head of the pre-med program was a prick anyway, in the 80s. Yeah, Manny, I'm calling you out!

Al Adab| 12.7.10 @ 10:52PM

Occam,
Don't misunderstand, I'm a big Horned Frog fan (other Horns too of course) and hope TCU does great in the bowl. Great school, You and I and Ken will have to compare Texas college notes some day.

YeloStalyn| 12.8.10 @ 9:26AM

No... nothing as large scale as TCU. Oklahoma Baptist. Small university. But my prof... a real piece of work. He's all involved in Democratic politics. I love the guy to death. He's a super human being, but he is just so incoherent about things it's funny. However, he was a challenge... every day, in your face... and what makes him so great is he respected you so long as you knew what you were talking about. If you didn't... he, rightfully so, didn't respect your opinion and let you know it.

jstwndring| 12.7.10 @ 7:06PM

"By it's very nature the Progressive income tax treat different categories unequally."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Have you also noticed who the "progressive" income tax is aimed at? The middle class. Why? Because Marxists put it in place. Marxists hate the middle class. The middle class, in their minds, must be eliminated in order for Marxist policies to be accepted. If you have too large a prosperous middle class, you won't have enough government dependants. The Democrat party is our Marxist/Communist Party in the U.S.. Their goal is to destroy the middle class and create as large a dependant class as they can. Then, we will "need" the DemocRat party.

George True| 12.7.10 @ 10:44AM

When he said that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did, Warren Buffet was comparing apples and oranges. Most of his income is unearned income while anybody who works for a wage has earned income. Earned income is taxed at a higher rate than unearned income from investments held longer than six months. Any passive investments that Buffet's secretary might hold would also be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate that her boss pays. So Buffet was engaging in a deliberate false comparison.

As the article mentioned, people like Bill Gates advocate estate taxes for us but not for them. They put most of their estates into non-profit foundations that will never be taxed. However, their children control the foundations, which allows them to have the lifestyle of the super rich without technically owning much of anything or paying taxes.

The Republicans have utterly failed for many years now to frame the argument properly. For the last ten years, leftists have spouted the outrageous lie that the Bush tax cuts were just a "tax cut for the rich". The reality was that "the rich" got a very modest reduction in their top tax rate, while the middle class got a huge reduction, and the working poor had their taxes eliminated altogether. Yet in all this time, I never heard even one Republican state this simple fact.

I have also never heard one Republican refute the obvious lie that "the rich" don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. The simple fact is that even if tax rates were the same for everybody across the board regardless of income level, "the rich" would still pay an order of magnitude more taxes. At a fifteen percent rate someone earning 50K per year would pay $7500. Someone earning 500K would pay $75000, or ten times as much.

But because of the graduated rates, the 500K earner is paying more like 17 time as much tax as the 50K earner. Yet I have never heard one Republican state this very simple fact on Fox or anywhere else. Talk about a failure of messaging! I have never understood why most Republican politicians are so illiterate when it comes to the spoken word. Words DO matter.

DebateRight| 12.7.10 @ 11:14AM

Sadly, you are correct.

buckeyeman| 12.7.10 @ 11:38AM

The Republicans do not rebuke socialism because they are themselves socialists.

Anthony| 12.7.10 @ 1:29PM

Every R politician should have a copy of your post in their pockets so they can pull it out and recite it, as most are too stupid, too timid, or too inarticulate to make the simple, yet eloquen,t statement you have just made.
Just goes to show, the people need to take back their government, not the hacks.

Al Adab| 12.7.10 @ 2:59PM

The Left confuses charity with government extortion. They confuse a personall Christian obligation with government mandates. It is why they give little to charity and expect government to redistribute on their behalf.

SoldGround| 12.7.10 @ 10:52AM

Shhhhh. Listen. Hear that? It's the (non) sound of every flush-with-cash left winger in the USA stampeding to send their money to Uncle Sam. Yes, people such as Sean Penn, George Soros, Oliver Stone, Bill Gates and the (probably non-existent) Lady in Yellow are firmly committed to tax contribution inertia. Enjoy the quiet, everyone!

SolidGround| 12.7.10 @ 10:57AM

The YouTube page has only a bit more than 11,000 hits and comments already have been disabled. Methinks MoveOn.Org ran into some heavy flak.

mixplix| 12.7.10 @ 11:49AM

How about that exemption for school loans for the children of staff members for our Congressman?

Redstateboy| 12.7.10 @ 11:51AM

"The argument against low tax rates is frequently made by rich liberals who seem curiously unwilling to take the medicine they prescribe for others" The essence of the argument with Liberals isn't it?? Where's Joe Biden's Check to the Government? How about all the effete Hollywood Liberal Elites? (who've gone amazingly silent lately) Where's Nazi Pelosi and her Husbands check - their Net Worth is 55 million dollars - John Kerry (264 Million) Diane Feinstein and husband (44 Million), Jay Rockefeller (64 Million) bunch of hypocrites who don't deserve to be listened to.

idalily| 12.7.10 @ 2:37PM

It isn't just in the area of money/taxes that liberals have cognitive dissonance, logic breakdown, and rampant hypocrisy. It is also true of their ACTIONS. A liberal friend and I were once debating Bush versus Gore, and I pointed out that Bush's Crawford ranch is more "green" than Al Gore's residence, making Gore a hypocrite. She didn't believe me. After Google proved me right about Bush's ranch she actually said to me, "Yeah, but unlike Bush, Gore is doing important things for the planet. It's not for himself. So of course he deserves the jet to fly around, the fancy house to fund-raise/entertain, because he's advocating for what will save our planet." I said, "So words speak louder than actions? Talking the talk is better than walking the walk?" And she refused to answer. She literally just shut her mouth and has refused to ever discuss it again.

Liberalism is a cult and the Lady in Yellow is an indoctrinated, brainwashed member. Whatever does not fit the cult's view must be discarded and ignored. It's the opposite of Holmes' deductive reasoning. We conservatives say, "If the facts don't fit the theory, the theory must be wrong." Hence, communism doesn't work--it's illogical, goes against human nature and fails wherever it's been tried. Liberals say, "If the facts don't fit the theory, ignore the facts." Hence, Communism would work great if it weren't for those horrible, greedy people who insist on keeping their money. Ignore that Communism DOESN'T WORK and NEVER HAS. Ignore that anyone at any time can just write a check to the US Treasury all on your own without any fanfare. Ignore that anyone is free to go down and volunteer at the soup kitchen, give to charity, and organize worthy causes in their community. It is liberals who view humans as bad, so to do good, they must be forced. Conservatives assume it's up to us as individuals.

jstwndring| 12.7.10 @ 5:43PM

"Liberals say, "If the facts don't fit the theory, ignore the facts.""
----------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Same with Darwinism. There is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record supporting his theory, yet, no effort is spared in defending his world view. And that's all that it is--a world view. It certainly isn't valid scientific theory, as it was disproven over 100 years ago. But, the Dims are nothing if not propagandists. Was it Hitler, or, Lenin that said, "If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it"? It really doesn't matter, they were both cut from the same collectivist cloth. And, of course, liars lie.

RCV| 12.8.10 @ 12:59PM

What gibberish. Take a course in evolutionary biology and learn something instead of mouthing nonsense.

skip| 12.8.10 @ 1:19PM

...said the poster boy for why liberalism is wholly lacking in intelligence and honesty. Has more self righteous nonsense ever been spouted by anyone than this idiot?

Liberalism:

Some are allowed to live.
Some of those allowed to live are not held accountable, take from others, and have opportunity for self-esteem removed.
The rest of those allowed to live must give to others, be treated unequally under the law, and have opportunity for success to the benefit of all removed.

R(eal)
C(hristian love)
V(alues abortion, inequality, self-loathing, the requirement all suffer, and instinctly knows the Bible is full of crap when it says 'a man who does not work ought not eat')

What an idiot.

idalily| 12.9.10 @ 12:06AM

At the risk of angering fellow conservatives, I have to say I am a Darwin believing conservative. I am also a believer in God. I do not find these two concepts mutually exclusive.

ConantheContrarian| 12.7.10 @ 12:41PM

The lady in yellow is George Soros in drag.

Stephen| 12.7.10 @ 1:11PM

You can see how much money people have sent to pay off the debt - it peaked at $3 million for the 2009 fiscal year.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....t/gift.htm

Doesn't look like too many people sent anything.

ncatty| 12.7.10 @ 1:54PM

Y'all are missing the point. MoveOn posits that because the lady in yellow wants her taxes to be raised, that this is adequate grounds to do so. By the same logic, my desire to pay lower taxes is equally valid. The IRS code should therefore be changed to allow for a box to be checked by the taxpayer next to his or her desired rate. Well done MoveOn!

Al Adab| 12.7.10 @ 3:01PM

ncatty,
Love it. A simple solution.

jstwndring| 12.7.10 @ 5:30PM

Right on. How many idots on the left would actually volunteer to be taxed more? Answer: None.

jstwndring| 12.7.10 @ 5:31PM

Well, maybe if they are truely idiots..........

The Lady In Yellow| 12.7.10 @ 5:07PM

Hi! I'm the Lady in Yellow and I know a lot of you remember when people like me were all over the news during the first half of the Clinton Administration - the last time the Democrats pulled this nonsense. Remember when teachers were asking kids to donate their change to bring down the deficit and there was that kid on Limbaugh who invented something and gave all his profits to the government? And then your tax form came out with a little box where you could voluntarily contribute to help pay down the national debt? Remember how NOT ONE Democrat went on record as doing this? Same thing now.

Roland | 12.7.10 @ 5:24PM

The American Left is a coalition of Heinz heiresses, Soros billionaires, & public employees that with their wholly owned Democrat Party cons the "poor" & "working class" into aiding them in their real struggle; which is to protect their privilege from those nasty self-made people.

The Left's arguments in the tax and much of the regulatory debate is nothing more than class warfare, but what few on either side recognize is that their real target is the class mobility inherent in a free economy.

jstwndring| 12.7.10 @ 5:25PM

Hypocrites. All of them. They LOVE voting for tax increases, yet, all of them pay the current maximum rate they are required to by law--a rate significantly lower than they paid under Clinton. They LOVE raising taxes on the rich, not understanding the DemocRat Party's definition of rich. I don't remember the precise number, but, if you make more than around $30,000/yr., you are in the top 7% of the world income-wise. So, when you hear a Democrat politition talk about taxing the rich, they mean all of us. Clinton proved it when he said he would only increase taxes on the rich.

Democrat voters are fools. They are all part of the collective. They all share the same brainwashed mind. Brainless twits. Go ahead morons. Take a hit for the team. Exercise your free will. Make the contribution. Just don't force me, or, anyone else to submit to your beliefs.

Dave| 12.7.10 @ 5:26PM

If only there were a virus that targeted only liberals. Something akin to the mental disease that is liberalism, but designed to save the planet rather than allow them to destroy it along with freedom.

What a great world this could be. *sigh*

jstwndring| 12.7.10 @ 5:33PM

Agreed. America's true enemy, the Democrat Party. The enemy within.

jstwndring| 12.7.10 @ 5:48PM

Wow. Those crickets are raging, aren't they?

Distant Smoke| 12.7.10 @ 8:20PM

News flash for all Liberals:

The U.S. Treasury Department accepts gifts, payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt. Just mail them to the attention of Department G, Post Office Box 2188, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-2188. Make a note in the memo section that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public.
Yes, really.
It’s all on the Treasury’s website, at the end of the list of frequently asked questions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....icdebt.htm

Occam's Tool| 12.7.10 @ 8:51PM

I was told once that Conservatives are more generous with Their money (more Conservatives contribute to charities than Liberals) while Liberals are more generous with Your money. Seems right.

Sandy | 12.7.10 @ 10:03PM

Y'all get to keep your tax cut and you're still complaining??? Most of you will get an extra tax cut, a 2% payroll tax cut. Exactly what will it take for you to be happy? So what if MoveOn is griping, they always gripe. What's your excuse?

YeloStalyn| 12.8.10 @ 9:31AM

It seems to me like you failed to understand that this is not an argument about practical outcomes but about ideas. The IDEA is that the tax cut was fought for so we could keep money. That seems to be what you hear, as well. The real argument is that the Govt. has no business in TAKING the money.

This is precisely why we can't compromise. The other side assumes that a compromise is about practical outcomes we both want to see. And our leaders act as if that's the case. Truth be told, what's happening is the left is having one debate with republicans on the Hill while conservatives across the nation are making a completely different argument... one that if it were taken up by our leaders publicly liberals would be decimated amongst the majority of Americans with any ounce of intellect.

YeloStalyn| 12.8.10 @ 9:33AM

The second sentence is wrong.
Should read:
The tax cut was fought for so we could KEEP money by republicans on the Hill.

More Articles by Jeffrey Lord

More Articles From Political Hay

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

May 21, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

It’s.The.Law

May 20, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

Holder’s Holdout

May 16, 2013 | Kaylin Bugos

Downsize the Liberals

May 1, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

The Reactionary Republicans

April 30, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/07/moveons-rich-lady-in-yellow

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.21.13

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 5.21.13

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 5.21.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.