Shared Sacrifice, Defense Cuts, and Wimpy New Yorkers

Dear Mark: In several speeches promoting his debt reduction plan, President Obama often talked about the need for "shared responsibility" and "shared sacrifice" to solve the nation's fiscal problems. We all benefit from what our government has to offer, so why shouldn't we all sacrifice in order to straighten out the mess we're in? — Fair is Fair in Fairfield

Dear Fair: First of all, Obama took his "Share the Responsibility" tour to college campuses and Facebook with marshmallow-soft audiences. The president intentionally chose these venues so he could indoctrinate, I mean, lecture to a bunch of students who don't have a clue with regards to taxes much less Medicare and Social Security. When it comes to saving for the future, most in attendance only cared about cash for the next kegger.

Referring to his debt solution, Obama said to one of his audiences, "And I believe the right way to do it is to live up to an old-fashioned principle of shared responsibility. That means everybody has to do their part." Funny how no one asked Obama where that principle came from. Would that be socialism or communism?

Secondly, "shared responsibility" and "shared sacrifice" are vastly different in the eyes of liberals versus the eyes of conservatives. Apparently, liberals believe sharing the sacrifice means tax the rich; or in the case of Obama, tax anyone earning $200,000 or more a year. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in the true definition of sharing, which is to divide, apportion or receive equally.

According to the IRS, 45 percent of tax filers paid absolutely no federal income taxes for 2010, and yet President Obama attacks the rich for not paying their fair share.

Seems to me that if Obama wants to meet his own standard of everybody doing their part, he would raise the taxes of that 45 percent in order for more of the country to "share the responsibility" of paying down the debt. Knock, knock. Is anybody home at the mainstream media?

Dear Mark: I appreciate President Obama's trying to tackle the national debt issue. He seems to take direct aim at the Defense Department, even mentioning specific savings from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but he is very vague about where else he would cut. Why? — Harvey the CPA

Dear Harvey: Because the Defense Department is the favorite whipping boy of every dope-smoking 60s hippie who ever drove a VW bus — not to mention the current occupant of the White House and his associates.

The reason Obama is vague about cuts to other departments is that he doesn't want to upset his liberal base, which worships the EPA, the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. Heck, who am I kidding? Liberals pretty much worship every federal agency contributing to big government except for defense and immigration. Look for Obama's vagueness to continue through the 2012 elections.

Yo, Mark: New York just instituted new rules about its summer programs, basically eliminating Wiffle Ball, kick ball and dodge ball because they supposedly are too dangerous for kids. How embarrassing for my state. Am I dreaming, or what? — Bronx Bob

Dear Bronx: The wimpifying of America continues. The New York State Health Department put together a list of recreational activities, including freeze tag and Frisbee, that pose significant risks of injury. I guess people who manage to get hurt playing tag eventually become bureaucrats.

Dear Mark is a public platform for your enrichment and entertainment. E-mail your questions to marklevy92@aol.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM