creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Roger Simon
Roger Simon
25 May 2012
Businessmen Make Lousy Presidents

My experience with vulture capitalism is limited. A vulture could not make even a snack out of my capital. I don'… Read More.

23 May 2012
Is Mitt Romney Count Dracula?

In the end, it won't be about who raises the most money. It won't be about who ate a dog or kept one on the … Read More.

18 May 2012
Poll Results Are “Massaged” Before They Are Released

I promise you this is not another one of my columns about how polls suck. Point One: You already know polls suck.… Read More.

Eat the Rich

Share Comment

When were the good times for Barack Obama? When were his last good days? Spring. Ah, spring. In spring he killed Osama bin Laden. No negotiations. No attempt at bipartisanship. Just two shots to the head.

"I think we all can agree this is a good day for America," Obama said back then. "There is nothing we can't do."

But it turned out there was plenty we could not do. Like create enough jobs. Or stop the foreclosures. Or keep American spirits from plunging. Nearly three out of every four Americans now feel the country is on the wrong track, the worst number of the Obama presidency.

And then there were the little things: The debt-ceiling debacle — "I got 98 percent of what I wanted!" House Speaker John Boehner crowed to CBS News — the Solyndra deal, books and articles devoted to dysfunction in the White House, and professional political performer James Carville advising Obama to "panic."

A far more sober, and more chilling, analysis came from Obama's chief advisor David Plouffe. "We understand the very perilous situation we're in," Plouffe told Dan Balz of The Washington Post on Saturday. "We don't think we have much margin for error."

The salad days of Obama's spring had turned into the bitter herbs of an endless summer.

But had he not passed historic health care legislation? Did he not save the U.S. auto industry? Did he not prevent the collapse of the global economy?

Well, yes, but that all seems so ... yesterday.

And the New York Times editorial page is fed up with all his talk of unity and healing and bipartisanship. "He has wasted far too much time trying to puzzle out how he can shave policies down far enough to get the Republicans to cooperate," it said Sunday. "The answer has long been clear: He can't."

Solution: Go for it. If you can't win their hearts and minds, at least you can kick them in their groins.

And President Obama began kicking Monday. In a speech filled with "I'm not going to allow," "I'm not going to stand for," "I will not support" and "I will veto," Obama stood under a cloudy sky in the Rose Garden and attacked the "tax cuts for multimillionaires and billionaires" that are ruining this nation.

"Everybody, including the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, have to pay their fair share," he said. And farmers! You think farmers are Ma and Pa Kettle, these days? No, many are giant agribusinesses. And Obama pledged to "reform agricultural subsidies — subsidies that a lot of times pay large farms for crops that they don't grow."

And those despicable Masters of the Universe on Wall Street? "We also ask the largest financial firms — companies saved by tax dollars during the financial crisis — to repay the American people for every dime that we spent!" Obama said.

If there was one take-away principle guiding the new Obama plan, it was this: Those who have oodles of money today shall have less of it in the future. Because that's only fair.

"And that's why this plan eliminates tax loopholes that primarily go to the wealthiest taxpayers and biggest corporations — tax breaks that small businesses and middle-class families don't get," Obama said.

"It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

I couldn't tell for sure, but Madame Defarge may have been sitting off to one side of the stage and knitting "The Wealthy" while cackling to herself.

"This is not class warfare," the president promised. "It's math."

Well, sort of. Though the rich do benefit enormously, the poor and middle-class benefit from the current tax code, too. About half the households in America pay no income taxes at all, because the tax code says they don't make enough. And middle class taxpayers get a large break by being able to deduct their home mortgage interest. (Want a true third-rail in American politics? Try suggesting the elimination of that last one. Obama didn't on Monday.)

In truth, the tax code gives too many breaks to too many people.

"All told, federal taxpayers last year received $1.08 trillion in credits, deductions and other perks while paying $1.09 trillion in income taxes, according to government estimates," wrote Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post Sunday. "Only about 8 percent of those benefits went to corporations. ... The bulk went to private households, primarily upper-middle-class families that Obama has vowed to protect from new taxes."

Oh, well, so what? Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money was. And Barack Obama will protect the middle class because that's where his votes are.

To find out more about Roger Simon, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

6 Comments | Post Comment
I've given it a lot of thought and I just can't think of a way to make the rich taste good.

Don't get me wrong. If the combined efforts of our illustrious republican and democrat rulers actually do manage to collapse the dollar and/or pull our country into abject poverty, I'll rethink the matter.

But right now, I don't believe that there is enough Grey Poupon in the Universe to make a single rich person palatable, much less support a diet of rich folks. I'm sorry to seem negative, but the whole concept was too rich for my tastes in the '70's and doesn't seem any better now.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Ken from WI.
Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:16 PM


Read Mona Charen's article "Open Letter to Open Minds" in the Spokesmman Review. It was a very good article.

Am reminded of an interviews that I heard on the radio once. It was with a Cuban exile. It was after Fidel Castro defeated Fulgencia Batista and shortly after Fidel Castro revealed that he was a Communist. The exile was asked why the Cuban people didn't evolt after they found out that Castro was a Communist. The exile said the people didn't really have a choice. They just hoped the next ruler of the country would treat them better than the last one did.

Many times it is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

I'm not much of a fan of term limits, especialy in a Democracy, but some kind of term limits for dictators would be a good thing. I don't know how many of the protests in the Middle East will turn into a Democracy but they could help generate enought political reform to be beneficial.

Carl H. Dahlberg

Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Comment: #2
Posted by: Carl H. Dahlberg
Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:12 AM
I've often wondered if there's a causative relationship between liberal tax policies and their general dislike for firearms. That may seem strange, but hear me out... if you like and enjoy firearms, then you probably are well aware of many rules of safety concerning them. One of the most important is to always be aware of your backstop. Your bullet will only put a small hole in a paper target, but anyone standing behind your target may well be seriously injured. Liberals like to think that the rich have so much money that a little more tax won't hurt them (and that if it *does* hurt them a little, they probably deserve it for being rich). And to a certain extent they're right. If you're making $50 million a year, paying an extra $100K in taxes probably won't make a significant impact on your lifestyle, much as a bullet only makes a small hole in a paper target. But that $100K will make a huge difference to the gardener you can't afford to keep on staff anymore, or to the entrepreneur you no longer have the spare money to be an angel investor to, or to the car manufacturer who doesn't get to sell you a new car this year. The place where this analogy starts to fail is that liberals, unlike marksmen, have the audacity to turn around and blame their targets for the damage that they themselves have done.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Joe Patterson
Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:29 AM
Excellent article.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Ventura Capitalist
Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:16 AM

TO: DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS - FOR OVER FIVE (5) DECADES and for whatever it's worth, the $6.2 trillion reduction in spending over the next decade IS NOT ACCEPTABLE-IMPERATIVE TO DO THESE CUTS IN NEXT TEN (10) DAYS! $14 trillion (and counting) you spend like money grows on trees; therefore, $14 trillion must be cut immediately! At no time, have Taxpayers heard the words "We're going to cut our salaries, benefits, and retirements!" As for all politicians, for what you've done to America, time is of the essence to sell all of you a one-way ticket to GITMO (or to the foreign countries you've sold America out to), take all your assets to pay off the trillions you've blown to wind, and send along everyone on the take along with you! Government involvement in the private business sector; that is, drug, insurance, auto, banks,and manufacturing companies must come to an end! By the way, the latest article someone wrote about America is a 'SERVICE COUNTRY!' I wonder if they know the only thing America is servicing is 'Social, Welfare, Unemployment and the incompetent, corrupt and greedy politicians!'

Read more: YOUR VIEW Bigger government is creating more debt not jobs
Comment: #5
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:36 AM
Re: Joe Patterson

This is an excellent example of what Dr. Thomas Sowell calls "second order effects." Politicians get stuck on the FIRST order effect--raise a tax, get more money. But they fail to consider the consequences of those effects. In this case, the firing of the gardener. As Dr. Williams states, they fail to see the elasticity in reality. Decisions have consequences. All the good intentions in the world can't bypass those consequences.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Ric Crouch
Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:57 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Roger Simon
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

4 Feb 2009 Gingrich Sees 'More Pain' in Our Future

29 Aug 2008 Bill Clinton Mending Fences

1 Apr 2009 A Failing Firm May Fail. Imagine That