Candidate Barack Obama said to Joe the Plumber, spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody; he also said, I want to give those coming up behind the same chance you had. It sounds altruistic, caring, full of hope. But if Barack Obama turned and looked over his shoulder he might be surprised to see that there are fewer and fewer people coming up from behind. What he might see is the fear of reckoning for one hundred years of progressive policy and programs. Policy and programs that were sold to allay earlier generations’ fears coupled with the promise that the bill was easily paid and a long way off. But the bill collector is now at the door and the next generation is huddled in the corner with no sign of hope and no confidence that Barack Obama will change anything.

Destroying Public Schools

I had an opportunity to watch the documentary Waiting for Superman that chronicles the hopes of five school children desperately trying to get the education they have a right to from the public school system. Their hopes hinged on winning a lottery for a seat in a charter school.

Ponder these two statistics.

1. Fully 70 percent of eighth-graders are not proficient in reading, and most of them will never catch up. To parents, if their child is failing in their early teen years, it means failure for life.
2. Each year, more than 1 million high school seniors fail to graduate. Everyone understands the consequences of education failure, and this number quantifies that failure in black and white – Research from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation

Kids fall behind and drop out because the feel they are losing ground, they have no future, they have no hope. It is not necessarily because of individual teachers, but because of the system and the system is welded in place by the teachers’ unions.

One of the key elements is teacher tenure. The concept of tenure started in colleges and universities as a way to protect professors from dismissal for political views or controversial positions. It was that tenure would allow independent research and inquiry without fear and reprisal. It was hard for a professor to get tenure. It required years of teaching and surviving a tough vetting process. Tenure was copied by the teachers unions and in most schools all that it requires is to show up and keep breathing for two to three years to have a job for life.

Michelle Rhee, as superintendent of the Washington DC public schools, tried to offer an alternative. She proposed giving teachers a choice. They could choose to keep tenure and their contract would give them a modest raise. Or, they could forego tenure and be eligible for additional merit pay that could double their salary. The teachers union would not even let the proposal come up for a vote.

So  the first reason we need to redistribute the wealth is that we are rapidly producing an underclass that doesn’t choose not to take care of themselves, but is unable to take care of themselves because the progressive movement and teachers unions care more about keeping incompetent teachers employed and paying union dues ahead of educating the children. It is estimated that 80% of our public schools will fall short of the No Child Left Behind goals targeted for 2014. The Obama administrations answer for this is, naturally, to move the goal posts. The program has changed to Most Children Left Behind the Rest of the World. Billy Joel summed it up in one of his songs No Man’s Land:

 I see these children with their boredom and their vacant stares,

God help us all if we’re to blame for their unanswered prayers.

Minimum Wage

Okay so you can’t graduate high school. Maybe you can get an entry level job and learn the ropes from there. What’s  that you say? What the young adult brings to the table isn’t yet worth $7.25 an hour?  Too bad. That is the least amount of money you can be paid by law. It is called the minimum wage.

Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers.

The September teen unemployment rate hit 25.9%, the highest rate since World War II and up from 23.8% in July. Some 330,000 teen jobs have vanished in two months. Hardest hit of all: black male teens, whose unemployment rate shot up to a catastrophic 50.4%. It was merely a terrible 39.2% in July. – Wall Street Journal, Oct. 3, 2009

In the midst of the most prolonged high level of unemployment since the Great Depression a progressive policy is enhanced that costs 330,000 teen jobs, just as predicted. So first we destroy their education and then we tell them they can’t get a job because they are not skilled enough to earn $7.25. But that’s not all. Local bureaucrats join in the fun.

A 575,000 square foot armory in the Kingsbridge section of the Bronx in New York City was given to the city by the National Guard who no longer needed the space. The city tried to find developers for the space and finally succeeded, choosing Related Companies as the developer. The project was to develop retail space and other amenities, create 2200 jobs and invest $300 million in the neighborhood. However, because it came with $17 million in tax breaks to attract a developer it also came with the stipulation that no job could be offered in the space that paid less than $10 per hour plus benefits or $11.50 per hour without benefits. When it was clear that the developer couldn’t get any tenants to bite on the higher minimum wage, the project was killed. The progressives crowed that they stopped a developer who wouldn’t commit to paying a living wage but people in the neighborhood had a different view.

“It’s sitting here and it’s wasting space and a lot of people around here definitely need jobs,” said Joel Bekker, a teacher at Kingsbridge International High School. “We keep talking about raising taxes and paying for the poor, but here’s an opportunity for people to earn their own way.” – New York Post, December 12, 2010

There is another battle I will call the Wal-Mart Wars. Wal-Mart has tried unsuccessfully to open a store in New York City running up against the progressives and the unions every step of the way. Wal-Mart’s tag line is “Save money, live better.”  With all the hubbub about a living wage, you would think that allowing a company that eats, lives, and breaths low prices would be welcomed as a hero to help those living wages go further. But nothing could be further from the truth. Wal-Mart is non-union. Wal-Mart pays low wages but it also touts opportunities for advancement saying that 70% of its managers started out as hourly workers. But that’s not good enough to fit in the progressive mold despite being able to bring jobs to the city and lower prices to the community.

Reason number two for redistribution of wealth is a large number of unemployed, not because they don’t want to work, but because progressives have decided for them the parameters by which they can be hired. You can’t eat, but at least no one’s exploiting you. The progressives have made sure of that.

Crime and Drugs

If you drop out of school uneducated and can’t get a job what do you do? If your morals went the way of your dreams and aspirations you can always turn to crime. Go into the drug business, the money is good while it lasts if you stay one step ahead of the odds. You can walk around flush with cash and if you die young, so what. What else were your prospects?  If you go to jail, at least you get “three hots and a cot,” that is, meals and a bed and free medical care

If a life of crime is not for you, perhaps you can use some drugs as sort of a cheap mini-vacation from your dismal life. That is, of course, until you reach the point where you become addicted to your escape, and then you can check into a new hell hotel.

Reason number three for the distribution of the wealth. If you sign up with the government to redistribute your wealth you may have some level of control over how much that turns out to be. Otherwise you may be negotiating with people who have little regard for your life but a lot of lust for your belongings.

The Forgotten Man

While these and other progressive programs and union initiatives were put in place, who is left with the bill. For those pulling the wagon they are finding it harder because more and more people are riding on the wagon. The forgotten man is handed the bill but has little say in the negotiations. So, should the forgotten man accept this fate or should he fight back?

Education

One of the bargains the forgotten man did agree to was to provide tax dollars in return for a public school system. It benefits all of us if we have an educated work force not predicated on the ability to pay for a private education. But what the forgotten man did not agree to was to provide lifetime employment to teachers without regard to the quality of the education provided to the children in their charge.  

“Every morning in Africa a gazelle awakens knowing it must today run faster than the fastest lion or it will be eaten. Every morning a lion awakens knowing it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve. It matters not whether you are a gazelle or a lion, when the sun rises you had better be running. – African proverb

The forgotten man wants the teachers to wake up each morning running, not sauntering to the schoolhouse to put in their time.

Right to Work

Everyone should have a right to work and not have to be forced to join a union to hold a job or be told he can’t work for a wage less than some bureaucrat says is fair. It is called individual responsibility. The employer and employee should be able to negotiate over the terms and conditions of employment freely without government interference.

Crime

One of the striking examples illustrated in the documentary Waiting for Superman, was that for the cost of incarcerating a prisoner for four years, you could pay for twelve years of private school and still have money left over for college. It is not about money. It is about freedom. But freedom has a cost and to the unions that cost is stark. They stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in union dues. Here it is in their own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwxiRXqH_hQ

Educating our children before giving teachers a comfortable and unchallenged lifetime position is anathema to the teachers unions.

The issue is clear. Either surrender the wealth you have accumulated for your family through your hard work to the progressives, or turn the tide to make our future generations self sufficient and productive. Make no mistake it will be a battle. Are you ready for the fight? If so, let’s get to work.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

For years Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the most thoughtful and erudite public servants we have had, published a document New York and the Federal Fisc that described the flow of dollars from New York and the great imbalance on the return trip.  Steve Israel seems to have taken up that mantle but his votes in the House are baffling.

In an article published in Newsday today titled, “Rep. Israel: Poorer states take NY’s share,” he has this to say,

“Nobody should be paying more than they get,” Israel said. “The unfairness should not be based on where you live. That’s what really drives me crazy. It’s not necessarily the numbers; it is the discrimination against states like New York” that have more high-income earners.”

That statement opens up at least three contradictory positions that Steve Israel has taken and indicates how out of touch the progressives are with the majority of the American people.  Let’s look at the three issues:

1. Redistribution of Wealth – is it a good thing or a bad thing?
2. Why send money to Washington if it is only going to send it back, albeit with a healthy chunk of overhead removed?
3. If New York is discriminated against because it has high income earners – is increasing taxes on high income earners by making permanent the Bush tax cuts a bad thing or a good thing?

Redistribution of Wealth

Steve Israel votes with his party 98.7% of the time.  We all remember what Barack Obama said to Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”  He has voted for the very policies he complains about.  Let’s do some quick math.  Steve Israel voted for the $825 billion stimulus bill.  The stimulus, according to Recovery.gov, brought about $249 million into Mr. Israel’s district.  But based on the relative wealth of his district, his district pays about 0.4% of the nation’s individual income tax.  To make the number’s easier, if we assume that the stimulus borrowing will be repaid exclusively through individual income taxes, that means Mr. Israel’s district will have to re-pay $3.3 billion of the stimulus debt.  So he voted to send $3.3 billion to the rest of the country in return for $249 million for his constituents.  So what’s his argument?  His wound appears to be self-inflicted.

Round Trip Ticket for Your Tax Dollars

Mr. Israel has a 100% rating from the National Education Association, the teacher’s union.  Mr. Israel is part of the federal government.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress empowered to do anything about education.  Education has always been a local matter.  We have local school boards who run the schools, and the bulk of our property taxes go toward funding the schools. 

But we also have a Department of Education.  So what do we do?  We tax the same people who pay for schools through property taxes and state taxes and we send that money to Washington.  The Treasury takes a cut to pay for the added resources it needs to manage this revenue.  The Department of Education takes a cut to pay for their overhead, and then the money is sent back to local school districts as federal aid.  Why not abolish the Department of Education and keep 100% of those tax dollars locally to pay for schools rather than eighty cents on the dollar for the privilege of having the geniuses in Washington handle our money and tell us what to do?  On top of that, what guarantee do we get that a further portion of our tax dollars are not going to pay for another state’s education instead of ours?  If we don’t give the money to Washington in the first place, they can’t give it to someone else rather than returning it.  It is lunacy. 

The article then describes this bizarre exchange:

Israel said “the fairest” situation would have each state receiving the same share of federal funding that it pays in federal taxes. He was asked if states should just keep all their revenue instead.

“It’s priorities!” he said. “The federal formulas need to be changed. It’s not as simple as saying it should be 1-1; it’s the formulas that need to be changed.”

It’s the formulas?  Why in the world would you send tax dollars to Washington and then expect to get an equal amount back?  Why send it in the first place?  If Washington kept to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, most of this discussion would be moot.  The Founding Fathers created the federal government to deal with mostly national issues concerning defense and foreign nations. In carrying those out I want the military to decide where to place their forts, arsenals, naval bases and not to make sure that we have the same amount in every Congressional district. 

The Bush Tax Cuts

Steve Israel has a voting record on tax policy:

• He voted against retaining reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends (Dec 2005)
• He voted against making the Bush tax cuts permanent (April 2002)
• He voted for raising taxes on those making over $250,000 (Dec 2010)
• He received an 18% rating from the National Taxpayers Union meaning he’s a big spender (Dec 2003)
• He received an 83% rating from Citizens for Tax Justice, meaning he supports progressive taxation (Dec 2006)

How do you square these positions with the complaint that New Yorkers send more tax revenue to Washington than they get back?  He voted for those very policies.  He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and then complains that New York sends more to Washington because we have wealthy people living in New York. Exactly where does Mr. Israel think those tax revenues are going? 

Solving the Problem

The problem may actually solve itself.  Because New York also has high state taxes, high property taxes, high city taxes, and high sales taxes, those wealthy folks might move to Texas or some other state.  Then Mr. Israel and his fellow progressives can finally be in the enviable position of begging Washington to send more money to a bankrupt New York than New York sends to Washington in tax revenue.

That’s my opinion. I’d like to know what you think.  Please add your comments below.

a “wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”  — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I 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.”  — Barack Obama speaking to Joe “The Plumber” Wurtzelbacher and explaining the virtue of taxing successful businessmen and women more.

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.” “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”  — Joe Biden in an interview during the presidential campaign [emphasis added].

Now, tell me, which of the three quotations above move you?  Which of them speaks to you of the greatness of America?

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence speaks eloquently about freedom.  While recognizing the need for government he believed that that which governs least governs best.  Government’s main purpose is to “restrain men from injuring one another.”  So we need some basic laws for to protect freedoms of the minority while recognizing the right of the majority to govern.  For that we have the Bill of Rights.  We need some basic laws to be able to create and enforce contracts.  We need national defense to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic.  Some pretty basic things.  Other than that which is spelled out in the Constitution, stand back and let each man and woman live in freedom to pursue their own happiness.

Barack Obama

Obey

Contrast that to Barack Obama’s conversation with Joe Wurzelberger.  Joe asked him why, as he works 10 to 12 hour days with no guarantee of success or income to build his business and create jobs, candidate Obama, should he become president, would want to take more from Joe in taxes.  Obama says, it’s not that he wants to punish Joe, but he needs to take the fruit of Joe’s labor and give it to someone else so that they can be successful too.  He doesn’t ask Joe for the secret of his success.  He doesn’t ask him how he can keep going for 10 to 12 hours per day.  He basically says, this is going to be a new America and you keep working, Joe, but remember part of what you make, I take, and I give it to whom I decide needs it more than you do, because we won.

Joe Biden

Joe “Buck a Day” Biden, doesn’t even try to spin what they plan on doing.  He basically gets in your face and says he is going to take money from those who are successful and put it in the pocket of the middle class and then tries to shame the audience by saying it would be un-patriotic to object.  This comes from a millionaire who gives about $1 per day to charity from his own pocket.  He doesn’t define who the middle class is, that is for the political class and his cronies to decide, most likely based on where the most votes are to keep them in power.

The Decline of America

When you consider the heights of principle from which this country was founded, with ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, to the depths we have sunk today, with little more than bag men going around shaking down legitimate businesses and citizens to pay for a massive expansion of government and control over our lives, with the smug, pompous politicians in Washington directing the smallest detail of our lives.  It is truly sad.

Lady Liberty weeps.

The neatly dressed man from Washington, tapped Joe the Plumber on the shoulder and said, “Good news, sir, you’re part of the stimulus program.”

“How, so?” Joe asked.

“Well, you’re a plumber, right?”

“Yes.”

The man from Washington grinned and snapped open his attache case and pulled out a contract.  “We need to have the Community Pool repaired.  It’s a ‘shovel ready’ project that will get the country moving again.  But we need to start right away.  So sign here.”

Joe’s business was a little slow so he looked over the contract, felt confident he could meet the requirements, signed on the dotted line and said, “I’ll get started right away.”

A Few Weeks Later

Joe was walking around the project with the building inspector, getting the final approval on the project.  As they completed their circuit, the man from Washington showed up.  “How’s it going?”

“It’s looks like we passed the inspection,” Joe said, “and we’ll be cleaning up now.”

“Great,” the young man said pulling two envelopes out of his attache case.  “Here, you go.”

Now Joe recognized what looked to be a check so he opened that first.  “Wow, that was fast.”  Smiling, he folded it over and put it in his shirt pocket.  He then looked down at the other envelope, and glanced quizzically at the government man, who was looking at the pool, “What’s this?”

“That? Oh, that’s your tax bill.”

“Tax bill?  What tax bill?”  Joe ripped open the envelope. “$19,000!!! What the hell is this?”

The Washington man looked sadly at Joe.  “Well how did you think the stimulus package got funded?  The Federal government gets its money from taxes.”  Getting no reaction from Joe, he burst out laughing, “Did you think Uncle Sam was sitting on some massive inheritance? Do the math: $800 billion bailout, 3.5 million jobs, that’s $228,000 per job.  Since you only got one month’s work out of this we divided it by 12, thus $19,000″

“How am I supposed to pay for this?”

The Washington man looked genuinely insulted.  “Don’t worry about it.  There’s no time limit.  What you can’t pay, your kids will pay, and then your grand kids.”  He snapped closed his briefcase, shook his head as he turned to walk away and muttered, “What an ingrate.”

For all the Bush bashing that has gone on since September 11, 2001, it is a pretty sure bet that when he leaves office on January 20, 2009, part of his legacy will be that he kept us safe for the last seven years.  The fundamental difference between the polices of the Bush administration and those of Clinton and Carter was that Bush saw it as a war, Clinton and Carter as crimes.  On a war footing, you take the battle to your enemies with the objective of destroying them.  On a law and order footing, you investigate the crime after the fact, arrest suspects, give them their Miranda rights, put them on trial, and if you are lucky, they may spend some time in jail.

Law and Order

In 1979, where it all started, Iranian “students” took over the U.S. Embassy and held it for over 400 days.  Jimmy Carter tried to negotiate a settlement, sponsored a botched rescue, and saw the hostages finally released his last hour in office.  The Iranians didn’t want to be holding American hostages when Ronald Reagan was president.  Reagan would have seen the taking of the U.S. Embassy as an invasion on U.S. soil, which is what our Embassies are.  He would not have tolerated a ragtag bunch of radical students occupying U.S. soil.

From that, and Somalia, Osama bin Laden saw the U.S. as a paper tiger that would cut and run if hit hard.  Clinton’s law and order approach can be seen in the response to the first World Trade Center bombing and the constructing of a “wall” between the CIA and the FBI.

War Footing

President Bush saw the attacks on the U.S. as a war.  He mobilized the country and struck back hard.  By going on offense rather than hanging back playing defense, he has kept the enemy pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan, while simultaneous rooting them out aggressively wherever they went.  Those captured on the battlefield were sent to Guantanamo, where they were interrogated and held.  Lawyers in the U.S. began to complain that these prisoners were being held without being charged and that was unconstitutional.  Again, that is seeing it from a law and order perspective.  On a war footing, the enemy that is captured on the battlefield is held until the end of hostilities, like we held Japanese and German prisoners during WWII.  If it takes 50 years until the war is won and hostilities ended, then they should be held for 50 years.

Rooting Them Out

In trying to prevent another attack at home, Bush also aggressively sought to disrupt their operations.  Part of that process was to intercept their communications and learn what they were up to.  This caused an uproar over eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant.  However, the program was designed to intercept international phone calls, even if one end was in the U.S.  For example, if an Al Qaeda terrorist is captured or killed on the battlefield but their cell phone is recovered and their cell phone has an address book in it, the administration would set up all the numbers in the address book to be monitored and calls listened to. The purpose was to keep all Americans safe.

Many on the left believe that people in the Bush administration should be prosecuted for this practice.  They call this activity criminal.

Who Are Your Enemies?

President Bush tried to prevent our enemies, those who wished to kill as many of us as possible, from doing us harm.  He knew our enemies to be deadly and ruthless.

And then you have Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber.  Joe the Plumber had the audacity to ask Barack Obama a question about how Obama’s policies would affect people like Joe.  Pretty dangerous stuff, no?  Since that chance encounter, Joe the Plumber has been investigated by six Ohio state agencies.  Did you see the ACLU representative on the evening news demanding what the Obama campaign knew about this and when they knew it?  Did you see Chris Matthews slamming his hand on his desk and saying, “This is AMERICA, not the Soviet Union!  We don’t investigate citizens because of their political beliefs.”?  Did you hear Senator Dick Durban rise in the senate to decry what happened to Joe the Plumber and compare it to the Nazis, the Soviet Gulags, and Pol Pot?

Neither did I.

[the Warren Court] “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” — Barack Obama interviewed on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM September 6, 2001

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama may be standing before Chief Justice John Roberts, place his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office of the President of the United States and pledge to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”  Can he take such an oath with a clear conscience?

Obama’s View of the Constitution

Steven G. Calabresi writes in the October 28th, 2008 Wall Street Journal, describing how Obama’s philosophy is that justice should not be viewed by our courts in a legal sense, but rather in a social sense.  Social justice means just what he said to Joe the Plumber, spreading the wealth around is a good thing.  Not only is it a good thing, but it should be guaranteed by the constitution.

What this means is that he believes that if an individual goes to court and has a hard luck story to tell, the judge should rule in that individual’s favor, regardless of the legal merits of the case. As Mr. Calabresi writes, “Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.”

The Threat to Liberty

How does this impact our individual liberty?  Well, liberty is defined as freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.  So if a homeless person, breaks into your house and eats your food, he should not go to jail or be punished.  Perhaps if he vandalizes your house, he may be punished, because that wasn’t necessary.  However, if you were his former boss and you laid him off or fired him, then maybe the vandalism is okay.  If you have food and can afford to buy more, then the homeless have a right, constitutionally protected, to take yours.  Now you may well say, that will never happen!  Maybe so, but then you will see the next best thing, the government will take the equivalent of your food in the form of your wealth and give it to the homeless person.  And just what is the difference between a criminal with a gun, and the government with the power to throw you in prison when the goal of both is to take your wealth.

What Did the Founders Think?

The reasons the founders incorporated what Obama calls “essential constraints” into the Constitution was their deep seated distrust of a powerful government.  They knew the power of a government that paid little heed to their liberty.  They threw off that government with the Declaration of Independence.  They were fearful of putting a similar one in its place.  They felt that individuals should be free to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that government is necessary, but should be minimal.

Listen for yourself:

Obama Redistribution of Wealth

Ever since Ronald Reagan was president we have heard our friends on the left berate “trickle down economics.”  The idea that a tax break applied uniformly to all taxpayers, was somehow unfair because the dollars saved at the lower income levels were dwarfed by the savings at the upper levels.  They always point to the glass being half empty rather than half full, meaning that they will never talk about how much these same individuals still pay in taxes, after the tax cut.  Barack Obama said in the debates that John McCain wanted to give wealthy individuals a tax break of $700,000.  What he doesn’t say is how much that individual still pays after the break.  If they are saving $700,000 they are probably still paying several million in taxes.

Our country was founded with these words from the Declaration of Independence:

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed…”

Let’s parse these words in the context of Senator Obama’s tax policies.

All men are created equal .  A tax cut of a constant percentage applied to all taxpayers would treat them equally, providing a benefit proportional to the size of their tax bill.  If their tax bill is $1,000, a 10% tax cut would give them $100.  If their tax bill is $7 million, a 10% tax cut would yield $700,000, which is an enormous difference.  But, the amount of taxes the former would end up paying is $900 and the latter is $6.3 million.  Do you think they would want to swap tax bills under the guise of fairness?  Senator Obama’s unequal plan is to raise taxes at the top and cut them at the bottom.

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” – it’s the Pursuit of Happiness, not Happiness.  It is not government’s role to make you happy.  Government’s role is to allow you to live your life, free from arbitrary or despotic control (Liberty), and free to pursue your happiness, whatever that means to you.  In your pursuit we’ll all be pulling for you, but it is not the collective responsibility of your fellow citizens to deliver it to you on a tasseled pillow.

“Deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed” — this points to accountability and it should be the guiding principle behind any program or proposal.  Since the President of the United States is the only office put to a vote of all Americans, the president should ask him/herself, does this program or proposal benefit all of my constituents (i.e., all Americans; the Consent of the Governed)?  If asked, would they consent?  From time to time tough, unpopular decisions will have to be made, but they should be made in the spirit that it benefits the country as a whole.  I believe such consent would be granted on the question, do we need the Armed Forces?  Providing for the national defense is a fundamental Federal responsibility.  Could the same be said of a bridge to nowhere?  How about most tax loopholes?

In Senator Obama’s, now famous, encounter with Joe the Plumber he told Joe, “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.”

So, it’s mean, stupid, evil, and unfair to free up a lot of capital, the lifeblood of the economy, at the top.  But it is a jolly good idea to give relatively small amounts to individuals where it will probably be consumed rather than invested and that the benefits will trickle up to everyone else?

It is contrary to the Declaration of Independence to spread the wealth around, by taking from one individual to give to another.  It was Karl Marx who said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”  From Joe the Plumber according to his ability, to someone else according to his needs!

Private giving to help one’s fellow man is perhaps the most noble and honorable thing a person can do.  What is wrong is using government force to steal from one group to give to another.