It's been obvious for a while that the majority of the mainstream media is hopelessly biased and completely in the tank for Barack Obama. But with his unexpected "spread the wealth around" gaffe last week, the press has been forced to go into spin overdrive in an attempt to convince us all that Obama's socialist plans aren't so bad; they're compassionate and necessary. Rather than analyze where our notions of "fairness" go afoul of the Constitution (like Bush's $700 billion bailout of Wall Street), many folks seem to be of the opinion that we should simply keep slouching toward communism 'cause hey, we're already headed that way.
Yesterday, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal defending Obama's plan for refundable tax credits (i.e. handouts) for Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes. Today's Washington Post also attempted to defuse the outrage over wealth redistribution by erroneously praising our "progressive tax code" with the article, "The 'Socialist' Scare."
Similarly, in today's Dallas Morning News was an AP story titled "Spreading the Wealth Isn't New." The actual headline, as listed in the Chicago-Tribune (natch), was "McCain Decries Obama's Plan To Spread The Wealth, But US Already Does It Under Tax Formula."
WASHINGTON (AP) – John McCain is pouncing on Barack Obama's call for shifting more wealth from richer Americans to poorer ones, likening it to socialism. His remarks win applause at campaign events. But they ignore the nation's long tradition of redistributing huge amounts of wealth through tax-and-spending policies.
Placing a heavier burden on the wealthy has been a cornerstone of the federal income tax since its inception in 1913. Under its "progressive" formula, in which the wealthy pay higher tax rates, the richest 5 percent of Americans now pay well over half of all federal income taxes.
Forty percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all, although it is the government's largest revenue source. Meanwhile, they benefit from various social programs aimed at low-income households, another feature of a system that redistributes money.
Conservatives, citing such statistics, say the country needs no more top-to-bottom shifts of wealth.
McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has hammered the issue since Obama, talking to an Ohio plumber, said he would raise taxes on the wealthy and cut them for lower-wage workers, adding: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Many Americans think that sounds "a lot like socialism," McCain said in a radio address Saturday. "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency," he said, "redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington."
McCain accused Obama of "class warfare." But McCain is the perpetrator, argue Democrats, who contend he is trying to fuel middle-class resentment toward poorer people with inflammatory words like "socialism" and phrases reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's attacks on "welfare queens."
Yes, it's best if we simply ignore the rampant cases of fraud like the one cited by Reagan (by the way,
it was Chicago journalists, not Reagan, who originally named Linda Taylor the "welfare queen") –
She used 100 aliases in 12 different states, 31 addresses, 25 phone numbers, 12 Social Security cards (collecting on each of them). She collected veteran's benefits on numerous non-existing deceased husbands. She owned 3 cars (including one Cadillac), collected Medicaid, food stamps, and welfare under each of her names, defrauding the government of over $200,000.Isn't it nice how Democrats sidestep the issue they themselves create by demonizing corporations and high-paid executives and then using the rage of the lower classes to fuel their tax schemes. Both sides like to point out abuse of the system – Dems pointing at the rich exploiting legal loopholes, Repubs pointing at the poor commiting fraud – but only the Dems are looking to increase the taxpayers' burden. And only the Republicans are looking to allow workers to keep more of what they earn.
Sorry for the detour, back to the article...
In fact, Obama supporters note, the gap between rich and poor Americans has grown markedly in recent years as middle-class wages remained largely stagnant while corporate profits and high-earners' salaries soared. The nation's income inequality now ranks among the world's largest, reports show. The richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 a year; the poorest 10 percent make $5,800 on average.
Various economic and regulatory factors have fed that gap. But tax policies play a role, too, because some major revenue sources are far less favorable to low-income people than the income tax is.
Get ready for the "fairness" setup...
For most Americans, the biggest tax burden is the payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare. The tax rates are the same for everyone, and the Social Security levy does not apply to incomes above $102,000, a boon to the wealthy.
Moreover, Social Security benefits go to rich and poor retirees alike. That means low-income workers' payroll taxes are partly shifted to wealthier people, a reverse of the income tax's topdown construct.
Federal excise taxes on products including gasoline and cigarettes are more regressive still, as are sales taxes levied by many states.
Despite the nation's income disparity, McCain sees Obama's exchange with "Joe the Plumber" as a means to appeal to anyone who resents paying taxes to subsidize less wealthy people. His running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, criticized "Barack the wealth-spreader" in a campaign speech Tuesday in Reno, Nev.
Obama responded while campaigning in Florida. He said McCain, like President Bush, wants to "give more and more to those with the most, and hope prosperity trickles down to everyone else." He said McCain has accused him of being "more concerned with who gets your piece of the pie than with growing the pie."
After eight years of "Bush-McCain economics," Obama said, "the pie is now shrinking."
Yep, there's no chance for anyone in America to achieve unless the government steals progressively more and more money from the wealthy and redistributes it to the poor. Looks like these devotees of collectivism have never heard of "killing the golden goose."
Obama has proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and tax cuts for most other households. He would end the Bush administration's tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year, he says. He also would impose a new Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Currently, all annual income up to $102,000 is taxed at 12.4 percent for Social Security, with employers and workers splitting the cost evenly.
As for the claim that Obama might turn the Internal Revenue Service into a "giant welfare agency," liberal groups note that the number of Americans on welfare fell by more than 60 percent after a 1996 overhaul of the program approved by President Clinton.
Nice bit of obfuscation there, crediting Clinton while conveniently overlooking the fact that it was
Republicans who authored the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act as part of their "Contract With America." Republican reform of the system is what ended the unconditional and indefinite nature of welfare entitlement which was such a habitual opiate for low-income people.
For several years, a strong economy and social safety net programs helped many families avoid poverty. However, the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says the recent economic downturn "has coincided with a sharp increase in food prices, which has exacerbated hardship for many low-income families who also face high gas prices (and will face high home heating bills this fall and winter)."
The group's chief economist, Chad Stone, says the degree to which U.S. tax policies favor the poor over the wealthy "should not be a concern to people."
Yeah, those who continue to keep their hands out rather than seek employment should not be a concern to people. Those who exploit the poor in favor of expanding government and empowering themselves should not be a concern to people. We should all be thankful that the heavy hand of government doesn't take every penny we earn and then tell us what we're allowed to own and do.
Oh wait, I forgot, the Obamessiah is already doing that:
- We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
- "Our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation."
- "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody…I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
---
UPDATE: Just today, The One
defended his Freudian Marxist slip, saying:
- "That does involve us spreading around opportunity and it means that for people like myself, making a lot more than $250,000 a year, paying a little bit more so that the waitress who is surviving on minimum wage can put a roof over her head."
I always wonder why liberals who think this way don't simply get out their checkbooks and send more of their income to the government as a gift. Rather, they prefer to use the IRS to force everyone else to accept and fund their charitable impulses.
!
