One thing’s for sure, Barack Hussein Obama is unrelenting in his effort to break the back of free enterprise. His Labor Day stimulus welfare, part deux didn’t get a rise, so now he’s rolling out the big guns.
On Monday, Obama brandished that favorite weapon of “useful idiots,” class warfare. Classism (discriminating against a minority class of citizens on the basis of income) is like racism (discriminating against a minority class of citizens on the basis of skin tone), except for the fact that the former is acceptable to Leftist hypocrites (but I repeat myself), while the latter is not.
In a speech proposing $1.5 trillion in new taxes, ostensibly to reduce his rapidly accumulating deficit and debt, Obama claimed, “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. … We can’t afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. … Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires.”
Obama flatly stated that mega-millionaires pay less tax and a lower tax rate than average American earners.
That might be “wrong” if it were true, but Obama is wrong and it’s not true — nowhere even close to factual. The red meat, however, certainly resonated with his wide-eyed sycophants. Here in Realville, the top 1 percent of income earners pay a whopping 38 percent of all tax revenues collected, while the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay less than three percent of all tax revenues collected. The remaining 60 percent of tax collections are confiscated from “the rich” between those brackets. And, of course, there are no “special lower rates for the wealthy.”
Still, Obama isn’t one for letting facts get in the way of a good three-pointer, particularly in thepolitics of disparity game. Moreover, some 30 percent of Americans are already generational dependents of the state, which is to say they’ve been too dumbed down to distinguish the most basic facts from fiction, and will thus support Obama regardless. (If you think 30 percent dependency is a problem, just wait until ObamaCare kicks in…)
Here is what Obama’s adoring masses took away from his speech: Tax increases should be implemented “in a way that is fair” to “make it fairer” so “the wealthy” will “pay their fair share.” Obama used that last phrase ad nauseam — no less than seven times.
But surprisingly, here is what Obama’s oft-adoring media took away from his speech: The editors of USA Today concluded, “[T]he plan’s flaws are troubling. It pretends that enough money can be raised simply by raising taxes on the rich. It can’t. There aren’t enough of them.”
The Washington Post noted that Obama “replaced one gimmick with another,” and concluded that there is “absolutely nothing new here.”
For The New York Times, David Brooks wrote: “[Obama] repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives. … This wasn’t a speech to get something done. … We’re not going to simplify the tax code, but by God Obama’s going to raise taxes on rich people who give to charity! We’ve got to do something to reduce the awful philanthropy surplus plaguing this country!”
But Obama’s racketeering capos regurgitated the party memo.
Jack Lew, Director of Obama’s Office of Management and Budget, said, “We believe there’s a fundamental unfairness to have middle class people paying higher marginal tax rates than millionaires and billionaires. We’re not saying we should have a confiscatory tax rate; we’re saying it’s just not fair to have a world where it’s so unbalanced.”
Ratcheting up the classist rhetoric, Sen. Harry Reid blustered, “More than anyone else, these millionaires and billionaires benefited from Bush tax cuts and contributed $3 trillion to our deficit, to help plunge this nation into a financial hole.”
As for his calculation to pit one group of Americans against another, Obama remains defiant: “Now, you’re already hearing the Republicans in Congress dusting off the old talking points. ‘Class warfare,’ they say. … I wear that charge as a badge of honor.”
The most amusing part of Obama’s speech was his fallacious invocation of our nation’s Founding Father. Obama claimed, “George Washington grappled with the problem” of taxes. “[Washington] said, ‘Towards the payment of debts, there must be revenue, and to have revenue, there must be taxes. And no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.'”
This quote is from President Washington’s Farewell Address, and Obama might benefit from reading the remainder of the Address. As president of our young nation, Washington’s biggest debt concern was about dispensing with the costs of the revolt over excessive taxation. Obama and his socialist bourgeoisie would do well to remember that it was excessive taxation that gave rise to the American Revolution, and that is the same catalyst which gave rise to the present day Tea Party Movement and talk of a second American Revolution.
While quoting Washington, Obama failed to mention that a tax on incomes was expressly prohibited in our Constitution. The taxes Washington spoke of were limited to those in Article I, Section 8, Clause I, “taxes, duties, imposts and excises … but all duties, imposts [customs taxes], and excises [consumption taxes] shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
What else did Washington say about taxes and debt? Most notably, he insisted, as did all our Founders, that our Constitution “which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
Regarding sacred obligations to abide by our Constitution, Obama shamelessly admonished those members of Congress who have pledged to reduce taxes and government spending: “[T]he last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution.”
(I hope you were sitting down when you read that sardonic citation.)
Obama built his last presidential campaign, and is building the next, around the “change” theme, a euphemism for replacing free enterprise with Democratic Socialism: “This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time.”
In a public address prior to his aspirations for national office, Obama asserted that the Constitution “is a document which, uh, reflects some deep flaws,” and consequently, he expressed disappointment that activist judges have not broken it “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” He then went on to complain, “The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” Say, for instance, “bring about redistributive change.”
What is most “deeply flawed,” however, is Obama’s world view. This manifests itself via his abject disregard for Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution, and his advocacy for the rule of men under the so-called living constitution.
Obama, et al., are not required by law to abide by their solemn oaths to support and defend our authentic Constitution and thus they have no sense of that obligation. The whole body of our elected and appointed officials in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches must be legally required to abide by their oaths. To that end, we introduced a measure to enact a legal mandate either through the courts, or, if that fails, through the legislature.