Taking a break from His busy schedule as the world’s savior and redeemer, Jesus Christ found time two weeks ago to immerse himself in United States Presidential politics, endorsing Obama’s tax plan on wealthy earners. Or at least the President believes he did. At the National Prayer Breakfast, he invoked the Christian savior in order to sell his tax reform plan to a more religious audience, saying, “For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

More recently, this week, in line with his increasingly partisan rhetoric, President Obama unveiled his annual budget proposal, calling for over a trillion dollars in tax increases on America’s most successful citizens. Indeed after taxing capital gains and dividends as real income, repealing the Bush tax cuts, and factoring in a 4% surtax for Obamacare, President Obama’s budget proposal would triple the tax burdens of many wealthy and middle income earners. Although President Obama now claims to be a representative of Jesus’ teachings, his new tax plans would probably make the Christian Savior quite disappointed.

President Obama contends that since Jesus Christ placed significant emphasis on charity, the Savior would favor a tax policy that institutionalizes such philanthropy by forcibly redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Through taxation, the President seeks to enforce mandatory charity and make wealthy Americans relinquish larger portions their income to the government regardless of their will or intention. However Jesus taught in Corinthians 9:7, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” When paying taxes, one determines their donation based on the mandatory payments established by the government rather than the generosity of their own being. Thus Jesus Christ would not view increased taxation as being in line with his teachings, which judge believers based on the voluntary sacrifices that they impose upon themselves for the benefit of others.

(more…)

On a stage adorned with American flags and amid the glitter of Las Vegas, Donald Trump, who had been threatening a third party run for the presidency, revealed he is endorsing Mitt Romney for president of the United States. Earlier in the day it had been rumored that ‘The Donald’ would be endorsing New Gingrich but that turned out to be false. Whether ‘The Donald’s’ gurus in media attention planned the “mistake” we will probably never know. A more valid question is this. Why should we care who Donald Trump endorses for President?

To say that ‘The Donald’ has a penchant for attracting the white-hot lights of media attention would be to state the blatantly obvious. For months Mr. Trump advanced the idea that he might enter the race for the presidency but whenever pushed to declare “yea” or “ney” alluded to the ridiculous notion that his contract with NBC wouldn’t “allow” him to run…equal time restrictions, don’t you know. Right. And if you believe that…well, “you’re fired!”

Make no mistake; I am not taking issue with ‘The Donald’ for his unique ability to captivate the media. More power to him. I am taking issue with the mainstream media and those swayed by celebrity endorsements of political figures for even caring. We – as a voting public – should aspire to make our political choices based on our own research and experiences, not the declarations of those lucky enough to have achieved notoriety; famous or infamous.

(more…)

The mainstream media is knocking itself out making comparisons between the Occupy Wall Street protests and the tea party movement. For years, the left has tried to find a left-wing equivalent to the tea party movement without success. Remember the Coffee Party? I didn’t think so.

The protesters in Manhattan and the tea party are 180 degrees apart. This rag-tag group of unwashed, middle-class socialists protesting against corporations and the rich don’t really know why they’re protesting. They just know they want something for free.  Lots of free stuff to everyone, except to the wealthy who produce the free stuff, is what the protesters want.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters represent perfectly what liberals, such as Nancy Pelosi, initially labeled the tea party movement in 2009. Pelosi tried to halt the rapid spread of the grass-roots tea party by suggesting it was controlled by the Republican Party and calling it “astro-turf.” That failed as people recognized that the Republican Party is not capable of creating anything with the brilliance of the tea party movement. The Occupy Wall Street protesters are another matter. The strings controlling it run directly to the labor unions and the White House. Obama political advisor Patrick Gaspard, who has worked closely with the ACORN-controlled Working Families Party and the largest local within the Service Employees International Union, has actually advertised on Craigslist to pay protesters to join in the fun taking place in Manhattan. Don’t expect any reporting of this from the mainstream media! They are too busy trying to compare the incomparable Occupy Wall Street to American patriots in the tea party movement.

(more…)

“Greedy: Excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious.”
– Dictionary.com

By now, no doubt, you have heard about the “incredible” Occupy Wall Street Movement taking place on and around Wall Street; a movement whose organizers claim is “organic” and spreading across the globe, not unlike the so-called “Arab Spring.” There are a few problems with this claim, however. First, the movement is anything but “organic.” And second, for the most part, the “Arab Spring” has facilitated the rise of radical Islamist factions to the courts of power. Incredible indeed.

The “movement” is incredible for many reasons; incredible in that what we are being asked to believe the impossible or very difficult to believe, via the reporting in the mainstream media and declarations issued from the movement’s organizers. Interviews with a credible sampling of those in attendance prove that many participants don’t even know why they are there but for it being “the place to be” for the terminally and youthfully disgruntled.

But a closer examination of who is in attendance, who is stepping up to the proverbial microphone and what “the movement” is issuing as a set of “demands,” makes the studied eye suspicious that this may, in fact, be the mother of all political “astroturfing” initiatives, just in time to demonize the job creators as “greedy” in the run up to an election where the incumbent – Barack Obama – hasn’t an accomplishment to run on.

Perhaps the biggest “red flag” (no pun intended) came in the form of statements made by left-wing Progressive agitator, self-avowed Communist and former Obama Administration official Van Jones. Jones is currently the lead rabble-rouser of the “American Dream Movement,” a radically left-wing political activist organization run by the Progressive group MoveOn.org Civic Action, in partnership with a number of other Leftist and Liberal groups ranging from the Hip Hop Caucus to Planned Parenthood.

(more…)

From Reuters:

Democrats want tax hikes to be the first item negotiated in “super committee” deficit-reduction talks, trying to force Republicans to confront an issue at the heart of this year’s budget fights, sources told Reuters.

The tough stance by Democratic members of the powerful 12-member congressional panel reflects the party’s wariness that Republicans might try to sideline the issue of revenue increases in the negotiations.

“They’ve raised the idea of doing taxes first,” a Republican aide involved in the discussions said on Friday on condition of anonymity.

(more…)

We’re hearing an awful lot about the “wealthy” paying “their fair share” where taxes are concerned. Pres. Obama and his Progressive and liberal Democrat brethren have perfectly coordinated their talking points to affect a campaign of undefined and reckless class warfare against the productive class, doing so for the sole purpose of political gain. Expectedly, Mr. Obama presents a Janus face: denying out of one mouth that he is utilizing class warfare; demonizing the producers out of the other.

In announcing his new, but all too familiar, deficit reduction plan on September 19th, Mr. Obama said:

“This is not class warfare, it is math…All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay their fair share in taxes…We can’t just cut our way out of this hole… It is only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share…We can’t afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. We can’t afford them when we are running these big deficits… Middle class taxpayers shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that…”

Of course, an honest man would admit that the federal government is spending way, way, way beyond its means. An honest man would admit that the federal government has gone far, far, far beyond its constitutional mandate in providing special interest programs that would be better suited for private sector benevolence organizations. An honest man would acknowledge the fact – the fact – that the federal government, now hijacked by the political correctness of Progressivism, has ventured into social engineering via its “social justice” campaign and departed, to a great degree, from the vision of federal government established by our Founders and Framers.

But, that would be an honest man and honest men. We, here today, are dealing with opportunistic politicians, whose primary goals are to retain power (and by any means possible) and to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

Which brings me back the points I want to address: What is anyone’s “fair share” of taxes when our tax code is not only a progressive tax code (oh, the irony), but rife with special interest exemptions, limitations and write-offs? Who decides what constitutes someone’s “fair share”? And for that matter, who defines who is “wealthy” or “middle class” or “working class” or “poor”?

(more…)

The U.S. economy is crumbling. Businesses are collapsing in record numbers. Jobs have disappeared. Tax revenues are down dramatically. Coincidence?

Everything happening today under Obama resembles the storyline of Ayn Rand’s famous book, Atlas Shrugged, one of the most popular books of all time, selling over 7 million copies. Now, under President Obama, Atlas Shrugged has come to life. Rand prophesized a country dominated by socialists, Marxists and statists, where looters, free loaders and poverty promoters live off the productive class. To rationalize the fleecing of innovative business owners and job creators, the looter class demonized the wealthy, just as Obama and his socialist cabal are doing in real life today.

The central plot of Atlas Shrugged is that in response to being demonized, over-taxed, over-regulated, and punished for success, America’s business owners were disappearing — dropping off the grid, and refusing to work 16-hour days to support those unwilling to put in the same blood, sweat and tears. They were going on strike. Because of that the original proposed title of “Atlas Shrugged” was “The Strike.”

They were going on strike to teach that civilization cannot survive when people are slaves to government. That without a productive class of innovative business owners willing to risk their own money and work 16-hour days, weekends and holidays, there are no jobs and no taxes to pay for government. If you punish the wealthy, the risk-takers, the innovators, you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. In Obama’s America, fiction is becoming fact.

(more…)

I keep reading that wealthy Americans state that they want to be taxed more for the fiscal well-being of the nation:

More than 40 of the nation’s millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.

“For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled,” their website states. “We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.”

To my fellow Americans who want to be taxed more, it’s time to put your money where your mouth is and I have found your opportunity.  If you would like to donate to the federal government, all you have to do is mail a check to the US Treasury at this address:

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called “Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

(more…)

From AFP:

With the US Congress hurtling toward a deadline on expiring tax cuts, a growing number of wealthy people are calling for higher taxes on the rich to help restore America’s fiscal health.

One effort gathered over 45 millionaires who signed an open petition calling for the end of the tax cuts adopted since 2001 on those with annual incomes exceeding one million dollars.

Tax breaks for the wealthy should expire “for the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens,” the letter said. It was signed by Ben & Jerry’s ice cream founder Ben Cohen, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt and others.

(more…)

“So how do you plan to kill me?”  Charles Morse (played by Anthony Hopkins) asked Robert Green (played by Alec Baldwin) in “The Edge.”  It was at that moment that I realized I had a deep-held sympathy for the super wealthy. It’s got to be a lonely life.  It’s got to be a life void of trust and sadly, a life of being vilified by the media and politicians alike, through no fault of your own.  Sure you should probably never feel bad for a guy who owns a plane, but I often wonder, how many of us have ever really thought of the country’s wealthiest 2% as actual human beings?

We live in a world today where rich = bad. If a wealthy man shows up in a movie, you are to immediately assume that he’s the bad guy. Of course, these assumptions are never reserved for the middle-eastern terrorists, rather the man with the bryl-creemed hair and Brioni suit. Add to the fact that we have a Harry Reid-minded administration consistently setting up the “Us vs. Them” cultural narrative and it seems that today’s top earners find themselves in a never-ending, uphill battle against public hatred. Prejudice is bad. Why should prejudice towards the rich be any different?

As I foray into new territories in my career (and by foray, I mean play jester-monkey for coin), I find myself meeting more and more of today’s “super wealthy.”  Little known fact; most of them are good people. It’s crazy to hear, I know.  I expected to see more men looking like the Planter’s peanut guy, thinking only of ways to scheme their next shadily earned dollar.  The truth is that like any demographic, you’re going to end up with the same percentage of good people and jackasses. I would even dare to say that I’ve encountered far fewer jerks in the wealthy community, because success leaves less room for that kind of behavior. I’ve met far more selfish poor and middle class people than I’ve ever met wealthy folks.  Often, it seems that today’s middle class are so busy nickel and diming their lives that they rarely take the time to help others.  My mom never makes me sandwiches anymore.

Try this; at the next business gathering or conference that you attend, stand back and observe the interaction of the general public with some of the wealthiest people in the room.  Throughout the night you’ll see people treat them as veritable ATM’s, extending common courtesy only for as long as it takes them to pitch their latest investment or product. Sometimes these are the same people who turn around and complain about the “have’s and the have not’s” as they lobby for higher taxes on aforementioned rich people.

(more…)

Would you vote to cut taxes only for the middle-class, if that were your only choice?  Who says it’s your only choice?  It’s time to place the blame on those who try to box people in.

The furor over the tax cut answer given by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R, OH) obscures the fact that it’s a tough question–one for which all politicians should have a response ready before it’s asked.

Reporters want to push them onto the horns of a supposed dilemma:  either disavow across-the-board tax cuts or be labeled a toady for the rich.  Or dodge the question and get depicted as a weasel.

The better approach is to challenge the very premise of the question.  Who is trying to force a decision between bad alternatives?  It’s known as a “Sophie’s Choice”–from the Meryl Streep portrayal of a mother cruelly forced by Nazi’s to choose only one of her children to save from a death camp.

America’s economy is hurting, but must President Obama and his team of class warriors insist that some can be saved from January’s automatic tax hikes but others must not be?

Examples abound that Obama’s selective approach hurts the very group that creates the jobs we need; the entrepreneurs who are holding back from expanding and creating jobs due to Obama’s impending higher taxes and heavier regulations; the 5 per cent who are credited with 37 per cent of consumer spending.  As The Wall Street Journal reports, “According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, the top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays.”

(more…)

If something stays the same, has it been cut?  The answer is a resounding YES in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Demo-nomics.  Of course, I am speaking of the Democrats’ claims that Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage when the issue really is whether certain tax rates will remain the same or go up.  Such folly is, to be generous, not the only upside down element of Demo-nomics under which we vassals must toil.  Here is your guide to some of the more prevalent illusions . . .

1. Extending the current rates = a Tax Cut.   It is not so much a subtle tactic by the Democrats to frame the discussion by claiming that the Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage.  Remember that he who frames the argument often wins the argument.   The literal and basic premise of this Demo-nomics subtlety is that the rates, by all rights, should be higher.  By pedaling their line of argument, however, the status quo becomes change - and it is they who are heroes for cutting them again from where they think ”should” be.

In truth, who is to say tax rates should be this high?  After all, when the income tax was ushered in by Democrat Woodrow Wilson the top rate was only 7%.  Shouldn’t the question be:  Why are we keeping rates so very high?  Obviously not in the world of Demo-nomics.

2.  Tax Cuts Are A “Windfall” for the Rich.   This too is a brilliant job by the Democrats of framing the issue.  According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, “windfall” is defined as “an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage.” Incredibly, so pervasive is this canard that one of the examples Websters uses for the word windfall is: “They received a windfall because of the tax cuts.”  Of course, in 99%.9 of the cases, a tax is a government taking of money you have earned and probably not so suddenly but after a year of hard work.  A tax rate cut, therefore, does not result in a gain – what it really represents a smaller loss for you – just not in the world of Demo-nomics.

(more…)