The American Spectator : Stuck on 'Fairness'

Text Size

Stuck on 'Fairness'

Obama on capital gains: Everybody is supposed to lose.

"If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes," asserted President Obama in his State of the Union speech.

For those with predominantly investment income, that would effectively double their capital gains tax rate from the current 15 percent rate, producing a triple negative impact on U.S. economic growth and job creation by reducing the incentive for domestic investment, increasing the incentive to move more jobs and capital overseas, and directly reducing the amount of capital available in the private sector by way of greater transfers of income to the government.

It's not hard to understand the disincentives to job creation in Mr. Obama's proposal. If the government wants more people to quit smoking, it increases taxes on cigarettes. Similarly, if the government wants more people to quit investing, the appropriate policy is an increase in taxes on investment income. And if the government really wants to kill job creation and new investment, it should double the tax on capital gains.

So where's the common sense in this call for more roadblocks to investment, more disincentives for the financing of companies and start-ups in the private sector, when 12.8 million Americans by the government's calculations are already out of work, and millions more aren't counted as unemployed because they've given up looking for work and left the work force, and millions more are working at reduced pays or reduced hours.

Currently, over 10 million part-timers are looking for full-time employment and can't find it. None are included in the government's unemployment number.

Add it all up and the current jobless rate is 17 percent, double the official unemployment rate of 8.3 percent.

So why would President Obama be pushing for such a counterproductive policy, a tax hike that's likely to slow economic growth when we're already growing too slowly, cut job creation when we're already breaking records in terms of long-run unemployment, decrease American investment and productivity when we're already reeling from increased global competition, and reduce government revenues when we're already hemorrhaging trillions in red ink?

The answer, it seems, is that President Obama is stuck on "fairness," so much so that he gives short shrift to any negative consequences that will predictably flow from his repeated attempts to produce more economic leveling, more redistribution of wealth and income, and more "shared sacrifice."

A clear illustration of how Mr. Obama assigns top priority in his thinking to what he judges to be "fair" over what is effective in terms of economic growth, job creation, and deficit reduction was on full display in his reply to a question in a presidential debate during the 2008 campaign.

Candidate Obama was asked by Charlie Gibson from ABC News why he supported an increase in the capital gains tax rate, given an historical record that repeatedly shows the government losing revenue as a result.

Replied Obama, "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

And so, above all else, it's "fairness" that matters, defined as confiscating more money from "the rich," even if means bigger deficits, less revenue for government programs, less investment, less job creation, and longer periods of joblessness for the unemployed.

As a postscript, Gibson was on firm ground in linking tax hikes on capital gains to subsequent drops in government revenue. A study by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress in June 1997, "The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation," highlighted the inverse relationship:

The historical evidence suggest that capital gains reductions tend to increase tax revenue. When capital gains tax rates were lowered in 1978 and again in 1981, revenue climbed steadily. Conversely, when the tax rate was increased in 1987, revenue began declining despite forecasters predictions it would increase. For instance, capital gains tax revenue in 1985 equaled $36.4 billion after adjusting for inflation, yet $36.2 billion was collected in 1994 under a higher tax rate. In other words, tax revenue in 1994 was slightly less than it was in 1985 even though the economy was larger, the tax rate was higher, and the stock market was stronger in 1994.

As a second postscript, the unending criticism of the 15 percent tax rate on long-term capital gains ignores that taxpayers are required to pay capital gains taxes on illusionary gains because the income is not indexed for inflation. If inflation, for instance, totaled 50 percent over the period of the investment, the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains is really a 30 percent tax rate on the real, inflation adjusted, gain -- and that's not counting state taxes or the double taxation that occurs on investments by way of the corporate income tax.

About the Author

Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment

drudge ette obama| 2.13.12 @ 6:48AM

Poor little Barack who has Northern Trust manage his funds. Let us see his portfolio and all those tax exempt bond funds that probably litter his account.

I still believe that we are all waiting patiently for the 2012 election. Waiting for this hell to be done with.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 10:43AM

He doesn't care. It's not that he "Doesn't Understand". He does. He understands perfectly.

He is "The One we've been waiting for".

Answer this: Who is easier to Control? People locked up in a Super Max? Or people running around at a State Fair?
People standing in long lines, to get Cheese, and maybe, some Meat, at a Government Store? Or the throngs in Times Square?
People who have LESS? Or those who have MORE?

He "Understands" just fine, thank you. He understands Marx and Engels. He understands Lenin and Stalin. Castro and Chavez. Mao and Pol Pot.

He also understands: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer".

He understands what it takes to be a Dictator. How to Cross every line in the sand, until they stop you. He understands that the RICH love their Money, and the POOR love whatever they can get for free.

He understands that both are easily Controlled.

Threaten the Rich' Money, and they will Tow The Line. (Witness his Extortion of the Banks)
Offer the Poor ANYTHING, and they will go in to the Streets, for you.

Look around. The RICH are fine. In fact, they're getting Richer. The Poor are doing all right, too. Every time you turn around, he's throwing something else their way.

It's the Middle Class, who's being Foreclosed upon. The Middle Class, who's homes are Under Water. They are Unemployed. They are Bankrupt. They are the 300,000 plus, going to the Unemployment Office every week, to sign up.

Who suffers, when the Muslim puts an Illegal Drilling Moratorium, in the Gulf? Who suffers when he tells Canada to stick their Pipeline up their ass? Who suffers when his EPA goes after Coal Mines, The Fishing Industry, Farmers out West, and Miners of Metal Ores?

You see, to Fundamentally Transform something, you first have to TEAR DOWN what is already there. And, what is the American dream, if it's not the ability to reach The Middle Class?

Obama's War, is with the White Middle Class. He has already admitted it, when his Campaign declared that they would "No longer pursue the White Working Class Voters". He no longer just has a "BLACKS ONLY" Justice Department. Now, he has a "MINORITIES ONLY" Presidential Campaign.

They are his Friends. The Whites are his Enemies. And, what did he tell La Raza, not so long ago?

"We REWARD OUR FRIENDS, and PUNISH OUR ENEMIES."

Indeed.

Wake up, White People.

Before it's too late.

Russel| 2.13.12 @ 10:45AM

Waiting as well . I'm up to here all this evaluating the boob . He steps in every pile whenever he turns around . It's so easy to see how a great speaker with a small mind can dupe the dopes , and Hitler sure comes to mind .

SUBVET| 2.13.12 @ 8:08PM

Adolph Hitler......."What luck for the rulers that men do not think".

Appleby| 2.13.12 @ 7:03AM

Wait until Obama realizes that the Olympics awards only three medals among fifty contestants in marathon running! And that Americans are not guaranteed even ONE of those medals!

Has anybody told Obama that NOT ALL BASEBALL TEAMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS? And that ONLY ONE TEAM WINS THE WORLD SERIES? Who's going to break the news to him that the Giants have won two Superbowls and whoever they played (I don't care about football) has NOT WON EVEN ONE?

And has anybody told him that some women give birth to triplets while some never have any children at all?

Does he know that some people have four cars and some have none? That some girls have 25 pairs of shoes and some have two? That in Utah some men have Five Wives and some men have NONE?

Oh, the Inequality! Where do we begin?

Doctor_X| 2.13.12 @ 7:41AM

What I hate is when Buffet says that his secretary has a higher tax rate than he does. I don’t know what Buffet’s secretary’s tax return looks like but I can tell you that I pay a lower rate than Buffet does.
I have a high 5 figure income, but I pay a federal income tax rate of about 6%. That is my effective tax rate after deductions and exemptions. I have a mortgage and pay property tax, I’m married and a have a child under 16, I have student loan interest and educational expenses (thank you RMU), I give to charity (about 7%) , and I have high medical costs. All of this reduces my taxable income thus lowering my effective tax rate.
I have no proof, but I suspect that most middle class couples don’t take the standard deduction and pay an effective tax rate that is 15% or less.
Let’s start using REAL numbers I’d like to know what the average person really pays a percent of their earnings as income tax.

Bob K.| 2.13.12 @ 8:13AM

Excellent argument for making the income tax a flat tax. Then one can add the FICA, State, County, Municipal, School and Sales Taxes one pays on top if it to get their real tax rate!

Indy| 2.13.12 @ 7:54AM

This is his campaign strategy, class warfare. Long forgotten in the tax discussion was the debt commission's recommendation to reform the tax code to reduce rates and deductions so that the tax base is expanded. Obama's DNA is class warfare, meanwhile, Buffett reduces his taxable income by making large donations to the Gates Foundation and other charities so even Buffett believes non-government entities spend his money better than the government that is when he even pays his tax bill.

xiphos| 2.13.12 @ 7:54AM

Obama is appealing to those who are the takers in this country. The ones I often hear saying "Obama is looking out for the little people, unlike the Republicans who are bent on destroynig America."
Obama knows exactly what he's doing. As long as he and his ilk are in charge, things will get worse.

steve talbot| 2.13.12 @ 8:11AM

Why should one kind of income be taxed at a different rate from other kinds of income? You do not address this question. Instead, you give the same tired old argument that all economists give, we need to stimulate investment. What you really say is that we need to subsidize investment.
Wrongo. all income should be taxed at the same rate. But do not raise cap gains rate, lower the ordinary rate, or lower both the cap gains rate and the ordinary rate to 10%.

David W| 2.13.12 @ 9:05AM

Capital gains, which are taxed at a lower percent, are based upon a company's profit - after tax profit. Thus the money that someone receives as part of a dividend or other distribution has already been taxed once - at the corporate rate of 35%(?). Thus the desire to tax capital gains at a lower rate - it has already been taxed once by the federal government (in other words, they've already gotten their money). Taxing it again when I or someone else receives the piddling amount is in effect double taxation. Which also isn't fair, but who's counting, since it apparently is unfair that I have any money to invest.

This fact has been stated over and over again, but apparently many people still do not understand this basic fact.

I too support a "flat tax". When you have a tax code that runs into thousands of pages and no one, and I repeat NO ONE, knows with 100% surety what it all means, then you have a system that is out of whack and truly messed up....

Bob K.| 2.13.12 @ 9:26AM

Money isn't being taxed. People are being taxed. The government doesn't care if the money they got was previously taxed.

beebop2| 2.14.12 @ 5:51AM

A better question might be this: why is some income taxed TWICE? Is that "fair?"

JAWilson| 2.13.12 @ 8:13AM

What is constantly lost in these fairness arguments is that a significant number of taxpayers are paid negative taxes as in they are paid a stipend from other tax payers to be alive. Is that fair?

tsd| 2.13.12 @ 8:24AM

Same crap on a different day.... this guy just changes the color of his BS to fool the fools.

R Martin| 2.13.12 @ 8:24AM

This fairness thing is really beginning to annoy me. Obama’s strategy oozes populist class warfare and he is selling it hard, because it certainly has not been an issue in American politics or economics until now. When Vanderbilt revolutionized transportation and made it affordable to the masses or Carnegie and Ford did the same with steel and autos or when Rockefeller made inexpensive oil available to everyone (how many whales did that save?) there was no cry that those guys were becoming too rich in the process. Their efforts and innovation benefited everyone.

Obama’s strategy needs to be addressed and refuted by Republicans. First, although “fairness” is an issue that seems right and proper, who decides what is “fair”? The government? More important, the concept is subjective. How much of the differential between “rich” and “poor” should be closed before fairness triumphs? A strong argument could be made that “fair” is no differential.

And that’s the problem. Fairness becomes equality, and equality is what leftists seek. We all know that societies and economies throughout history which have prioritized that goal have been utter failures. We should fight the concept tooth and nail.

beebop2| 2.14.12 @ 5:54AM

If the republican candidates don't get a handle on framing this argument, he will win. We are a nation of laws that govern everyone. To institute policies that take from only one group in America and to support those that only benefit one group is so anti-America as to sear the soul. When do we return to justice, rights and lawful?

Von Mises Jr.| 2.13.12 @ 8:51AM

The redistribution of wealth is NOT from the rich to the poor. The redistribution of wealth is from the MIDDLE CLASS to the rich and the poor. Fairness to socialist means that they are our Enlightened "Superman" class, and everyone else is a "Noble Savage" in their social experiment.

Buffet, Blankfein, Immelt and the Wall Street cronies are all doing just fine. Pelosi, Kerry, McCaskill and Boehner all apparently made nice profits insider trading. Romney invested offshore legally and Newt made money from Freddie Mac. Perhaps some rich are being screwed if they are both not connected and stupid; but it is the MIDDLE CLASS that misses out on the deals, not the wealthy.

Obama, like the Clintons and Gore, simply wanted to be rich and did so by giving hard working American's money to their friends and low income Democrats for votes.

Bob K.| 2.13.12 @ 9:42AM

Right again!

The rise of the middle class has been a problem for the rich since the age of Aristocracy disappeared with the rise of European and Western democracies and the new freedoms with their associated political changes that came with them. It has been a tug of war ever since.

When the middle class is weakened individual freedoms become endangered.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.13.12 @ 11:03AM

If you read Mises economics, or Burke and Tocqueville's analysis of the French Revolution; the "Enlightenment" philosophers were a reaction to the "Industrial Revolution."
Prior to the end of serfdom, there was defined and impenetrable class heirarchy. You were part of the Monarchy, a Noble, a guild socialist or a serf. The end of serfdom undermined the justification of tallies, quitrents and other taxes that went to the Monarchy and Nobles. The regressive party on the left, whether it was the likes of Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche or Marx; or Obama, Pelosi and the Clintons; have been pissed ever since.

David W| 2.13.12 @ 9:11AM

the Democrat answer to "unfairness" is to tear down those who "have" to bring them to the same level as those who "have not." There is rarely any true effort to build up those who "have not" so that they can become "haves."

Would we rather have a few really rich people and a healthy middle class and few truly poor people, OR no rich, a struggling middle class, lots of poor, and an elite composed of absolute morons like Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Boxer, Soros, Occupy Wall Street protestors, etc.?

AllenWest4Pres| 2.13.12 @ 9:36AM

There is redistribution of wealth everywhere there is government involvement. It's just what Democrats do. In health care, money goes from privately insured patients to government dependent folks. In education, money goes (through federal loans and grants) from those who can afford tuition to the "disadvantaged" (this means skin color too).. The list goes on and on, but why? First of all, they refuse to accept the fact that some people are ambitious, intelligent, and driven to succeed. Many have the benefit of caring parents who teach them to work hard, and to behave. There will always be a segment of society that lacks some or all of these attributes. They will not be successful, and Democrats think we must do something about it, to "even the playing field." Or they SAY these things to buy votes.

Lyneuss Fields| 2.13.12 @ 10:41AM

The Bill O’reilly argument, concerning taxation of capital gains, has been the clearest and most concise. That is, capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate because of risk. When you work for wage of salary it is guaranteed, but when you invest there is the possibility you may lose. Therefore, you should pay a lower tax rate on capital gains.

George S| 2.13.12 @ 2:58PM

O'Reilly may sound smart, but the Constitution -- prior to the 16th Amendment -- did not allow the Congress to tax individual income or investment gains. Justification is different from thoughtful.

Al Adab| 2.13.12 @ 3:33PM

There was a reason why the founders Constitution did not permit taxes on incomes. They understood all too well the temptation for government to decide who had too much and too little and to make it fair or "level the playing field" if you choose. When the progressive era gave us income taxes (along with direct election of Senators) it opened the door to all the schemes which we have experienced since. When office holders can buy votes with other peoples' money, they will do it.

Lyneuss Fields| 2.13.12 @ 7:31PM

In my opinion, Bill O'reilly rarely sounds very intelligent. His arguments are usually preceded by the statement, “I’m just a normal guy”. His tactic is many times nothing more than interruptions and shout-downs. But I thought he was effective in this case.

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 1:07AM

Risk/reward. You invest at risk, you profit as reward. A double reward of 1/2 of less in taxes is not honestly earned, but only corruptly stolen.

If O'REALLY were really honest, why wouldn't "HARD WORK" be rewarded with 1/2 the tax rate?

Because O'Reilly is really o fraud, like most of the 5%

Von Mises Jr.| 2.14.12 @ 8:23AM

fck Ed,
OWS is attacking the 1%, Obama's budget attacks the top 2%, now you have it up to 5%.
Let's be honest, fck Ed, the target is the top 50% in socialism. And in the end, all but the 1% of politicians and crony capitalist live like the bottom 1% in the previous productive capitalist society.

cicero| 2.13.12 @ 11:56AM

The aristocracy of the beaurocracy rides again! They will most certainly impose fairness on the country. It is only fair that they all have good, high paying jobs, with benefits that allow them to retire at about age 50, with close to full pay. They have spent their lives serving us. Of course, someone will have to pay for this, and it is only right and fair that it be us, who have benefited from their hard labors.
It is not the taxes, but the spending. The only way to achieve real fairness is to have everyone earn what they are worth - the marketplace. This will entail having only that much government that a sane population is willing to pay for. Would you really voluntarily pay for the EPA, the Dept of Transp, the Dept of Education, Commerce, etc. Maybe, we as a republic should have the opportunity to vote on these things - oh, yes, we do. We must gain control of the House andd Senate, and people it with legislators who will defund and dismiss all Departments not necessary to the people, with sufficient majorities to override any veto cast by an egomiacal President.
But, we had better hurry, as in pretty short order, the Fairness Crowd (those who take without contributing), will outnumber those who contribute, and will outvote us everytime. From there, it is only a short step to anarchy. Greece comes to mind.

derpdevil| 2.13.12 @ 12:01PM

Since I recently did what Ronald Reagan might have called the “hard work of freedom” by plowing through all of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, I thought I should share some of the troubling things I learned – troubling especially as we watch the Community-Organizer-in-Chief’s re-election strategy start to unfold.

For those of you who haven’t dug into this, Alinsky was a neo-Marxist radical who developed the concept of “community organizing” as a vehicle for fomenting revolution from within the American political system. He started out “organizing” in the slums of Chicago in the 1930s, and from his base there he built a national organization he called the Industrial Areas Foundation. He and his IAF comrades then traveled the country, setting up shop and “organizing” what he calls the “Have-Nots” in places like Oakland, Cleveland, Rochester NY, and NYC. He wrote two books, Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971), which are essentially the Old and New Testaments of the community organizing bible, though Alinsky surely would resist that description: Rules for Radicals actually begins with a shout-out to Lucifer, who Alinsky calls “the very first radical.” Alinsky died in 1972, but his ghost obviously lurks in the White House today.

As most everyone knows, after graduating from Columbia in 1983, and then warming up with a job at New York PIRG, BHO headed to Chicago to take a job as head of a community organizing group called the Developing Communities Project, on Chicago’s South Side. Less well known is that he not only ran this group, but actually taught community organizing for an outfit called the Gamaliel Foundation (still in existence, look it up). The point is, there’s no way you can lead a community organizing group – and certainly no way you can teach community organizing – without knowing, understanding and ascribing to the principles that Alinsky espouses.

Now, recall Michelle Obama’s lines from the speech she delivered at the 2008 Democrat National Convention in Denver: “Barack stood up that day and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is’ and ‘The world as it should be.’ And he said that all too often, we accept the distance between the two, and settle for the world as it is – even when it doesn’t reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like.”

With that backdrop, let’s see what Alinsky thinks fairness and justice and opportunity look like, and the tactics he recommends to achieve his vision. All quotes are from the Vintage Books 1989 paperback edition of Rules for Radicals.

The very first sentence of the book, which BHO, as quoted by Michelle in 2008, was referencing, is: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.” Nice. (p. 3)

The Have-Nots “hate the establishment of the Haves with its arrogant opulence, its police, its courts, and its churches. Justice, morality, law, and order, are mere words when used by the Haves, which justify and secure their status quo.” (p. 19)

“A major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man’s illusion that his own welfare can be separate from that of all others. . . . We now live in a world where no man can have a loaf of bread while his neighbor has none. If he does not share his bread, he dare not sleep, for his neighbor will kill him. To eat and sleep in safety man must do the right thing, if for seemingly the wrong reasons, and be in practice his brother’s keeper.” (p. 23)

After laying out his revolutionary goals, Alinsky turns to the nuts and bolts of how to achieve them through community organizing. “The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose.” (p. 103) Thus we see “Hope and Change” in its original (and creepy) context.

Alinsky spends a lot of time on the relationship between means and ends. With regard to means, Alinsky exhorts his followers to ignore their own consciences: they should be prepared to say anything, regardless of its truth or falsity, and do anything, regardless of its legality or morality, that is necessary to achieve the end, because that end (revolution) is the apex of morality. Here are a few tidbits from that section:

The organizer “does not have a fixed truth – truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” (p.11)

“The practical revolutionary . . . does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter.” (p. 25)

“The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.” (p. 29)

“The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” (p. 36)

“It is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason – this is a fight with a windmill. The organizer should know and accept that the right reason is only introduced as a moral justification after the right end has been achieved, although it may have been achieved for the wrong reason – therefore he should search for the wrong reasons to achieve the right goals.” (p. 76)

Having established that his revolutionary end is so important, so self-evidently moral, that virtually any means is justified to achieve it, Alinsky gets to the specific tactics necessary to achieve that end. This is the part of the book that sounds like the blueprint for BHO’s reelection campaign, and the class warfare that has become its central feature.

“Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition is 100 per cent on the side of the devil. [The organizer] knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.” (p. 78)

“The organizer . . . must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent; provide a channel into which the people can angrily pour their frustrations.” (pp. 116-117)

“The thirteenth rule [of tactics]: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” (p. 130). By “freezing the target” Alinsky means disregarding the fact that the target is not solely to blame for the problem at issue. “When you ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all the others [who are] to blame.” (e.g. “Wall Street” – not Fannie, Freddie, and Clinton-era housing policy – is to blame for the so-called foreclosure crisis). “With this focus comes a polarization.” (p. 133)

Alinsky’s fifth rule of tactics is, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” (p. 128). In the same vein he says, “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.” (p. 129-130) Think “fat cat bankers,” “corporate jet owners,” “you’re on your own economics,” the “ethic of greed,” “millionaires and billionaires” who make 250K a year, and, at the other end of the enemies spectrum, the “bitter clingers” to guns and religion, with their “antipathy to people who aren’t like them. Lastly, Alinsky says, “The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” Ironically, he refers to an organizer’s success in baiting the establishment as getting his “birth certificate.”

At the end of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky acknowledges that organizing the Have-Nots hasn’t even remotely achieved his goal of revolution from within. He says, “[w] are belatedly beginning to understand . . . that even if all the low-income parts of our population were organized . . . if through some genius of organization they were all united in a coalition, it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes.” He announces, therefore, that the next phase of organizing must focus on the middle class, who he calls the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores, because “that is where the power is. . . . Large parts of the middle class, the ‘silent majority,’ must be activated; action and articulation are one, as are silence and surrender.” (p. 184, “The Way Ahead”).

Welcome to Obama/Biden 2012.

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 1:00AM

AND what part of this did Karl Rove NOT implement in his RED menace strategies? The part that ... uh... ~S~ grins ~

Rove ADDED deceit and crackpot yellow journalism, "it's not fraud if it's omission" honesty and The dictrine of half truths to the text of 'Rules for Radicals'.

1ConservativeUSA| 2.13.12 @ 12:21PM

Not only does Obama's urge to "tax the rich" present a clear danger to our prospects for economic growth, but his premise is based on false reasoning.

Surprised?

First, this totally ignores the fact that most people who make $1 MM per year already pay a higher rate than 30%.

Second, this arbitrary percentage ignores the fact that people with investment income have already had their capital previously taxed at either the corporate or individual rate of 35%.

So, Obama picks a percentage, 30%. That is now his opinion of your "fair share" if you earn over $1 million. What's the percentage for those who make $999,999? How about his pal Buffet, who makes well in excess of 1 million?

Further, once he blows through the 30%, what becomes his new opinion of "fair share"? Does he now come after those who make less than $1 MM per year? I think so, based on his tax plan that labels those making $200K per year as “millionaires and billionaires”.

Most important, Obama's unfortunate and vacuous argument, once again, totally ignores the real problems we face as a nation, those being profligate government spending and overreaching government regulation and intrusion into the private sector.

In addition to holding Obama in contempt for making such a disingenuous argument, I place shame on the media for ignoring these issues, while parroting the policy of the Obama administration.

Just because a despot like Obama has no respect for our labor and resulting private property, it doesn't mean we should blindly throw tax dollars at him and his utopian welfare state dreams.
Though we have given Obama a platform, one that he has used to his advantage, tyrannical leaders have not had success in the United States. This is why we have fought, and this is why we fight today.

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 1:04AM

What is the NET EFFECTIVE TAX RATE? 90% of the tax code deductions and credits, while all most all citizens are 'eligible' for them, only 7% actually "QUALIFY TO CLAIM THEM" tells the whole truth of the story.

The answer is a 2 tier tax system. The Republicans can have all the deductions and credits they want AFTER the Democratic voters are QUALIFIED to use them. The Democrats can have the rates the see fit, if they are willing to pay them themselves.

1ConservativeUSA| 2.13.12 @ 12:24PM

One more thing:

Charlie Gibson would have impressed me if, after Obama siad he would raise the tax on capital gains based on "fairness", if he would have said to Obama, "That, sir, is idiotic".

Buck Ofama| 2.13.12 @ 12:45PM

this g0ddamned niggerCocksucker.

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 12:45AM

i guess there's no defending the RED party Racism today is there?

George S| 2.13.12 @ 3:04PM

Is it fair that those who pay more taxes receive the same government services as those who pay less or nothing? That's why 'fairness' has no business in public policy -- there is no such thing as a universally accepted definition of fairness. Those who espouse it are really saying that they should be exempt from earning a living and others should labor so they don't have to. The essence of liberalism is envy. Envy sells and is always -- always-- the precursor to revolution resulting in dictatorship.

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 12:55AM

"Carried interest and dividend earners DO NOT work for ANYTHING EVER!!! I agree!!! they shouldn't get welfare at the expense of the 92.6% of us who WORK for a living and invest in Social Security.

it's time for the FICA ceiling to be revoked and for ALL americans to pay their fair share, at the same rates for everyone!!! When EVERY Elected Official is investing 6.7% or whatever into AMERICA's future, the Social Services Safety net will function as it was intended to.

But since bribery (contributions) is business as usual for RED Party America, of course a solution to the problem will NEVER be enacted.

J Robert Giles| 2.13.12 @ 4:16PM

We're perilously close to the edge of the cliff. Jerk the wheel back to the right before we Sheen ourselves! Please read & share the following article. Silence is tyranny.

http://jrobertgiles.blogspot.c.....wheel.html

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 12:50AM

"The driver’s side wheels of our country are racing along the quickly eroding edge of a cliff. It’s time to jerk the wheel to the right before we Sheen ourselves." your thinking flawed from the very first word and the rest of what you wrote is not worth perusing. It is obvious that rhetoric is more important to you than wisdom, fact or substance.

If the driver's sides wheels are perilously close to the edge of the cliff, you are either driving in the wrong lane or on the shoulder. if you jerk the wheel to the right, you will either cartwheel or have ZERO traction.

Oldefarte| 2.13.12 @ 9:49PM

Obama's term of FAIRNESS is philosophically kin to his instructing Joe the Plumber about WEALTH RESIDTRUBUTION. It's amazing that people are still trying to explain this man's actions, when it should be obvious to any fool with a fifth grade education that he is in fact a SOCIALIST. He believes in taking/taxing/stealing/redistributing the wealth that income earners have made [due tot their hard work, intelligence, education, etc] legitimately/legally and giving same to those who have sat on their lazy backsides and acted STUPIDLY in their personaly lives. Obama wants to reward this latter class of indigents further than they have already been rewarded from governmental welfare benefits by giving them even more of the hard earned income of other's wealth [who have a right to same and to not have the government steal/redistribute it from their wallets]. Why should these indigents be rewarded for their laziness and stupidity? Simple for VOTES FOR DEMOCRATS that granted same governmental welfare to them at election time. Is that the lessen to be learned here---to sit on one's backside, reject school, live a life of drugs, crime, laziness and dependency and then to have the government tax income earners to death to financially support these people? A viable solution to this socialistic FAIRNESS of WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION would instead be to force the government to seriously decrease/eliminate all forms of governmental welfare [except to the truly needy eldersly, infirmed etc that are unable to perform any meaningful work activity] and therefore to force these government welfare recipients to seek and obtain available work in order to survive financially. If illegal immigrants can come to this country and work in farm crop fields, perform janitorial labor etc; then why shouldn't Americans on welfare be forced off of same and to replace these illegals at this work? Why, because governmental welfare provides more to them than having to do so, and therefore they lazily choose to not work in such employments. Welfare needs to be stopped now!!!!!!

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 12:45AM

Christ was a socialist, and he faced people like you and beat them with the truth. Fortunately for you though, he was murdered by the RIGHT WING of the Jewish church and the Roman Government, but according to legend, he did it for YOUR personal sins Farte.

Mike 3/505| 2.13.12 @ 9:59PM

Until we get rid of the Federal government's ability to withold taxes from paychecks and the ability to freeze/impound bank accounts absent a CONVICTION in court, we will be helpless. get rid of those two things and then we have a chance at fighting back.

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 12:43AM

Eliminate the national cash flow of witholding taxes and the Government becomes insolvent in net 90 days you frigginidiot!

fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 12:41AM

A) When cap gains taxes get cut, people cash out of investments, that explains the rise in revenue.

B) Are you and advocate for UNFAIRNESS? Man up!!

C) Income is income, other than tradition, why are passive incomes less taxable then Earned incomes? Why are wage dollars 'more valuable' for taxation than dividend dollars, when 3 of either are needed to buy the same gallon of gas.

you have taken the foolish stance that your readers believe EVERYTHING you print, regardless of how shoddy your examples are. You really think Mitt Romney deserves 'carried interest' tax bonuses? I suppose you favor offshore banking for the select few so they can dodge taxes completely. I think we should EXPAND Guantanimo especially for off shore tax cheaters.