Dems: OK to be 'bi' as long as it's not 'partisan'
By Michael R. Shannon
web posted December 20, 2010
The House Democrat Caucus is so furious with Obama, over his compromise with Senate Republicans that extended the Bush era tax cuts, they voted to demand to see his birth certificate.
Previously, when hypocritical Democrats voiced regret that bipartisanship was a thing of the past because Republicans were being Republican, right–thinking progressives assumed bipartisanship meant GOP members would come crawling, begging for forgiveness, confessing myriad sins and making a generous contribution to the fund that will replace the stranger's medals John Kerry threw over the White House fence.
If House Dems had even an inkling that bipartisanship meant the GOP would get something it wanted, expressing even insincere support would have been out of the question. As the McClatchy News Service described it, "The Senate was expected to pass the deal overwhelmingly late Tuesday or early Wednesday, drawing a breadth of bipartisan support previously unseen during Barack Obama's presidency."
And Nancy Pelosi's House wanted nothing to do with it.
For readers not up on their class warfare, the reason for the revolt is 'progressives' are enraged because Obama agreed not to raise taxes on those cruel overseers making over $250,000 a year and he is willing to compromise on how much grave robbing Uncle Sam does to your estate after you die.
For 'progressives' tax rates are another of those areas where the ratchet effect is evident. When tax rates are set those who make more, pay more. So much more, that the top 5 percent of earners pay 60 percent of all income taxes. That's a 'progressive' income tax regime. But when it comes time to cut taxes, leftists complain if refunds for wealthy taxpayers are proportionate to the amount of tax paid.
The estate or death tax is another example of 'progressive' thought at work. This tax is not levied on wealth some miscreant Scrooge has managed to squirrel away from the IRS and was only revealed during his lingering and painful death. It's money the deceased paid taxes on when he was alive, so most of it has already been taxed once.
Uncle Sam's idea of respect for the dead is to go through his pockets before the corpse is interred.
So who really is greedy? The individual or family who wants to keep his own money? Or the 'progressive' Democrat who wants to take money that does not belong to him and spend it to make himself look morally superior?
"We think you make too much money" is not adequate justification for confiscating legally earned income. God Almighty is content with a flat 10 percent — with no deductions — from everyone.
Liberty means we are not creatures subject to the government. The government exists to serve us and not vice versa. "Fairness" applied to earnings is simply another word for socialism on the installment plan.
Fortunately, as Obama has told us before, elections have consequences and one of the consequences of last November is the administration has to pay attention to Republicans for at least two years.
As a sidelight to the tax cut issue, the most remarkable story appeared last Sunday in the Washington Post. It literally attempted to generate sympathy by explaining to us lesser folk how much trouble families have making ends meet on 250K a year. After reading it my advice is take your tax cut and shut up.
The representative couple had two kids, two incomes, lived in the DC metro area and had too many bills. They were saving $8,000 a year for a college fund, living in a $750,000 house, paying $5,000 for maid service and running in the red.
My other advice: buy a smaller house, buy a vacuum cleaner and consider two years at community college.
Finally, before we finish discussing Obama's troubles: What does one say when Don Quixote beats the windmill?
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli won the first round of his case against Obamacare when Federal District Judge Henry Hudson ruled the requirement that every citizen buy health insurance from a government–approved company was unconstitutional.
When Cuccinelli filed the suit chin–strokers were calling him a reckless grandstander driven by the publicity gene. (Sounds like Chuck Schumer D–Narcissism to me.) Soon to be former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked if Obamacare's individual mandate was constitutional, screeched, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Now we know Cuccinelli is serious and his strategy is sound.
As Cuccinelli has said all along, this case is not about healthcare, it's about liberty. Otherwise if Obama can force you to buy insurance because it helps everyone afford health care — Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell can make you buy booze at the ABC store because it helps build roads for everyone.
Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He's a dynamic and entertaining speaker and can be reached at michael–email@example.com.
Send a link to this story
Send a link to this story
Get weekly updates about new issues