Talk-radio star Mark Levin was so impressed with Daniel Henninger’s Thursday column in The Wall Street Journal – "The Obama Rosetta Stone" – that he read the whole thing to his listeners on Thursday night. Henninger suggested Barack Obama watchers should not only read Obama’s two autobiographies, but the new Obama budget document, 141 pages, printed by the Government Printing Office. Henninger instructed:
Turn immediately to page 11. There sits a chart called Figure 9. This is the Rosetta Stone to the presidential mind of Barack Obama. Memorize Figure 9, and you will never be confused. Not happy, perhaps, but not confused.
Henninger pointed to the source of the chart's data: Piketty and Saez, from 2003. He suggests these names should be better known:
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, French economists, are rock stars of the intellectual left. Their specialty is "earnings inequality" and "wealth concentration."
Messrs. Piketty and Saez have produced the most politically potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s. Laffer's was an economic argument for lowering tax rates for everyone. Piketty-Saez is a moral argument for raising taxes on the rich.
As described in Mr. Obama's budget, these two economists have shown that by the end of 2004, the top 1% of taxpayers "took home" more than 22% of total national income. This trend, Fig. 9 notes, began during the Reagan presidency, skyrocketed through the Clinton years, dipped after George Bush beat Al Gore, then marched upward. Widening its own definition of money-grubbers, the budget says the top 10% of households "held" 70% of total wealth.
Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute criticized the Piketty-Saez study on these pages in October 2007. Whatever its merits, their "Top 1%" chart has become a totemic obsession in progressive policy circles.
Turn to page five of Mr. Obama's federal budget, and one may read these commentaries on the top 1% datum:
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
....Mr. Obama made clear in the campaign his intention to raise taxes on this income class by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. What is becoming clearer as his presidency unfolds is that something deeper is underway here than merely using higher taxes to fund his policy goals in health, education and energy.
The "top 1%" isn't just going to pay for these policies. Many of them would assent to that. The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to "pay for" the fact of their wealth -- no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it. No Democratic president in 60 years has been this explicit.....
New York's Mike Bloomberg, mayor of an economically damaged city, has noted the pointlessness of raising taxes on the rich when their wealth is plummeting, or of eliminating the charitable deduction for people who have less to give anyway.
True but irrelevant. Mayor Bloomberg should read the Obama budget chapter, "Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities." The economy as most people understand it was a second-order concern of the stimulus strategy. The primary goal is a massive re-flowing of "wealth" from the top toward the bottom, to stop the moral failure they see in the budget's "Top One Percent of Earners" chart.
The White House says its goal is simple "fairness." That may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 makes it clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This presidency is going to be an act of retribution. In the words of the third book from Mr. Obama, "it is our duty to change it."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Barack Obama Doesn't Care About Rich People!
March 13, 2009 - 12:27 ET by lareeIn honor of Jim Cramer, I am going to dedicate this next video to
President Barack Obama. Barack Obama, doesn’t care about Rich People!
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/03/tgif-circus-life-chinese-fire-drill.html
Little Net
March 13, 2009 - 12:30 ET by JJoujanIf they're going to cast that little net, hope Soros is in it.
Liberals don't pay taxes
March 13, 2009 - 12:58 ET by MrSnugglesLiberals don't pay taxes unless they are appointed to public office and people find out about it, remember?
this...
March 13, 2009 - 12:56 ET by katainkentMy husband relayed this reading to me as he was in his usual hr and half commute last night and got the full reading. I think this is a misrepresentation of middle class people who are 'playing by the rules'
I think that most people who go through their lives, pay their bills and manage their household do so to be true to themselves and their children, not as some public responsibility. We are not comrades! If I want to "do" for my community I contribute to the food bank and volunteer at my children's school.
So to follow it up so blatantly with the rest of this horse crap :
First of all - those 'huge tax cuts' are what keeps my husband's and father's company in this country. Without them my father wouldn't have a pension and my husband wouldn't have a JOB. Secondly - the "prudent investments in education" thus far have been ANYTHING BUT PRUDENT! Each 7th grader in our district got a laptop this year. The schools all got 'smart boards' for every classroom. But art, sports and major electives are all being cut. School is being cut from 6 down to 5 classes, the size of each class is getting larger and teachers are being let go - and IF parents want their children to have a musical education they are responsible for bringing them to class an hour earlier. All the while, the drop out rate continues to go up and the WASL... oh don't GET me started. And the solution is to throw yet more money at it? ARG!!
Yeah... tax the rich, feed the poor. Till there are no rich no more. Wonder how that will work out for us.
*sigh*
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke
"Yeah... tax the rich,
March 13, 2009 - 13:27 ET by MrSnuggles"Yeah... tax the rich, feed the poor. Till there are no rich no more. Wonder how that will work out for us."
Thats the goal. No more rich, no more inequality.
Harrison Bergeron would like a word...
March 13, 2009 - 22:30 ET by CortillaenEquality is impossible. It really is that simple. Even when one tries to bring everyone down to the same level, some people are going to be punished more than others to keep them there, ergo the inherent inequality in the system. Incidentally, "Harrison Bergeron" was required reading at my high school. Would that everyone was required to read it in school.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
He'll Take Away
March 14, 2009 - 06:50 ET by GeneralAlHe'll take away my money
He'll take away my fun
He'll take away my honey
He'll even take my buns
He'll try to take all I have
But he'll never get my guns!
To paraphrase Mark Levin:
March 13, 2009 - 13:39 ET by BarkerHey, Obama, get off the Stone you big dope!
Creepy, but 1/2 of America
March 13, 2009 - 13:52 ET by marpelCreepy, but 1/2 of America voted for him. This should be the "watershed" moment for arguing that there is a majority of Americans who vote totally uninformed, and they don't care to be informed.
We're in for a bumpy ride and we won't be able to get off for another 4 yrs.
Re 1/2 of America
March 13, 2009 - 15:14 ET by slickwillie2001Part of the problem with democracy in America is that we have been pushing the nonsense that it is our duty as citizens to vote. The result is that people think about politics the week of the election and end up voting for the person with the nicest smile. They don't take the time during the year to learn what each candidate stands for. You can look at John Ziegler's film for evidence of Obammy voters' ignorance in the case of this election.
We should be encouraging responsible and informed citizen voting, not simply showing up. We should tell voters that if they don't feel up to speed on the issues, then it is okay to sit out the election and still be good citizens.
Did 1/2 of America really
March 13, 2009 - 16:36 ET by ThisnThatDid 1/2 of America really vote for this creep;...or is there more to the antics of Acorn than we know about? Did ballot boxes get thrown out, and replaced? What about those reports of more votes than voters? How about Frankin -- when ballots show up in cars, days after the election?
I believe that 2000 and 2004 prepared the left for massive fraud. They learned where they could get away with it, and how, and we are suffering the consequences. Just my belief -- pieced together by all the fraud reports I have heard -- and not a single fraud report going the other way.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
ACORN
March 14, 2009 - 15:41 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsNext election cycle, find an ACORN komrade (outside your local supermarket is a good spot), he or she will be there to help you register to vote. Act ill informed and ask them something along the line of "Should I register R or D?". The answer you will get is something like this:
You don't want to register R, their rolls are full.
You don't want to register R, they only take rich whites.
You don't want to register R, you have to be a millionaire.
You don't want to register R, they are racist hatemongers.
Try it. You will soon see why the democrats support ACORN and have funneled taxpayer money their way.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Did 1/2 Really Vote?
March 14, 2009 - 06:38 ET by GeneralAlI don't believe 1/2 really voted for this Dope! In every Red state that he supposedly turned blue, ACORN was there. Across this spectrum were thousands of disputed that ACORN succeeded in throwing away and others that were counted [Example: Coleman vs Franken]. The Teleprompter Obamessiah raised over seven hundred million for his campaign. Easily enough to stuff the ballots and swing the elections. By the way, what has become of all these investigations now that he has his Comrade in charge at the DOJ? Its too bad that the McCains and Grahams want to help this guy succeed. I wish they'd all grow a pair and block him! By the way, ACORN stands for American Communist Obliterate Republican Numbers!
What becomes of the H.E.N.R.Y.s?
March 13, 2009 - 15:32 ET by niner-four-whiskeyWhat becomes of people like me, the HENRY's of the nation?
HENRY stands for "Higher Earner, Not Rich Yet."
In almost all discussions by so-called progressives, the notions of "rich" and "income" are used interchangeably.
The real punishment is going to be meted out to the HENRY's, not the rich.
Soros, Peter B. Lewis, and all the assorted billionaire backers of the progressive left are all safe. They are not going after the wealthy.
Wealth is what you keep, not what you earn. If you have enough wealth put together that you can live off the dividends, grow much less never touch the principle, and do it all in style, then my friend, you are rich.
If you work hard and earn a lot of money, you are not necessarily rich, or even wealthy.
But you are a target, and an easy one at that for the left's class warfare.
Liberals often interchange income with wealth.
March 13, 2009 - 16:32 ET by c5thenThey refer to "the rich" based upon their wealth and then talk about taxing their income more because it's "not fair". To use a famous example that seems to confuse the liberals...
Bill Gates (Chairman of Microsoft) is rich. He is worth in the neighborhood of $50 billion on paper (mostly Microsoft stock and options). His salary however, is less than $200,000 per year. So, when you hear someone say that people like Bill Gates should be taxed more, or "pay their fair share", what they are really advocating is the taxing of wealth, not income.
This is the "holy grail" of the liberal progressives. To get to a point where not income, but all wealth is taxed. Except for them, of course.
The real top earners have the ability to re-structure their compensation and their income to avoid taxes much more than regular people. They can do things like set up a foundation or a trust that owns all their houses and cars and allows them to use them for a small fee. They can have all of their salary go to the trust and then the trust pay them a stipend or allowance. They can move their primary residence to The Bahamas or The Cayman Islands.
This is why increasing taxes on the top X% of earners never generates the tax revenues that are estimated. Their are too many ways for the very wealthy to avoid them. And that is all the legal ways without getting into illegal ways and cheating like half of the Obama cabinet it seems. So then the increases have to "trickle down" to lower and lower earners.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
Obammy is tired not because
March 13, 2009 - 16:39 ET by srqvetObammy is tired not because of his weekly parties or from spending our money on libtard schemes but rather is tired from writing his third autobiography; "Audacity of a Dope".
Let's see Obama quotes two
March 13, 2009 - 17:46 ET by eaglewingz08Let's see Obama quotes two commies from France in his budget plan for soaking the rich but Obama isn't a socialist. Is that the bilge we're supposed to swallow?
When you start a war with the rich...
March 13, 2009 - 18:22 ET by jawebster1you are also starting a war with the producers. Most of our rich did not become so through inheritance, they earned their money by providing a valuable service or product to the world. If you take away their incentive to earn, our Nation will suffer. That is the reason we need to start taking our Country back in 2010 before it becomes another Europe. Jim Webster
Liberals are Dysfunctional
March 13, 2009 - 18:27 ET by Retired GeekLiberal Logic = Dysfunctional Brain
Liberals believe America is greedy because of Capitalism - yet half of the population is subsidized and don't pay taxes.
Liberals and their NON-TAXPAYER subsidized minions - think they are victims.
These subsidized, NON-TAXPAYERS, think they are victims, yet they control the POTUS and Congress.
These subsidized, NON-TAXPAYERS, keep getting poorer, even though they keep electing the same Liberal politicians.
These subsidized, NON-TAXPAYERS, have possessions and a standard of living that the poor in other countries could only dream about.
These subsidized, NON-TAXPAYERS, want America to be like those countries where the poor have MUCH LESS, then they have.
Barack Obama has conned these 'Poor' people into believing 'Socialism' will be better for them.
Barack Obama believes the 'Success' of his administration, will be equal poverty for all.
Liberals chant 'Yes We Can'.
Obama's policies are an
March 13, 2009 - 19:09 ET by SlicksterObama's policies are an attempt to impress his dead parents by putting their ideas into action. Obama was attention starved child. Both his father and mother wanted nothing to do with him. The old man ran off and the mother sent him packing. Inside he is angry and confused as to why they dumped him and is seeking to gain their approval. Hr can't master the obvious, the father was a drunk and the mother had a mandingo fetish and wanted to abused by minority men to assauage her white guilt.
There is no "just" way for government to redistribute wealth
March 14, 2009 - 00:28 ET by ekslibIt's ALL arbitrary.
Would a parent take away a teenager's earnings from mowing lawns and hand them over to a sibling who does not have as much money?
If the parent DID decide it would be "fairer" to redistribute his children's money, HOW MUCH should the parent take from the "richer" child to give to the poorer one?
The government needs to pay bureaucrats to do the work of redistribution.
That's analogous to the parent taking a "cut" of the redistributed money, as payment for his work.
It is called Social Security and its ugly sister the pension.
March 14, 2009 - 06:09 ET by JWFThe rich take their extra money and INVEST it hoping to get even more money. They take a risk. And from the chart it looks like the 1% have managed to take home even more despite paying 40% of the taxes. Good for them. And when they die, they pass the wealth on to their heirs.
The poor and middle class take their extra money and give it to the Social Security Administration and/or a pension system hoping to get a tiny stipend when they retire. They take no risk. And when they die, their heirs get nothing.
Yes. Start redistributing the wealth. At some point, the rich will no longer have the INCENTIVE to invest and will only have the incentive to preserve their wealth. They will do everything they can to keep the money they have and no longer try to grow the money they can. At that point, the U.S will have no growth just like every other collectivist society.
Yes. Start redistributing the wealth. It is still a free country. The wealthy can still afford to LEAVE. Just like Madonna & Brad Pitt.
Yes. Start redistributing the wealth. Real GDP per capita went from $22k in 1980, same year as that chart, to $38k. Every single person in the United States managed to bring home $16k more DESPITE the rich getting richer. Let's stop that trend now and bring down the average earnings of the citizenry.
Yes. Start redistributing the wealth. It is called socialism. And it is a very successful economic system. Just ask the Russians. They rank 53rd in per capita GDP in the entire planet. Yea, that worked out well for them. China? 97th. Cuba? They don't even have a rank. Someone has to make money before you can average it out. And the U.S where we apparently give most of our money to the top 1%? 6.
Yes. Start redistributing the wealth. Let's go back to the last time we had prohibitive tax rates on the rich. The 70's! Oh hippies loved it then. We had high inflation, high unemployment, high interest rates. The rich were not getting richer then. Of course, NO ONE WAS!
I could go on but I am getting tired and no one will read a dead thread anyway
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
A Bit of Light In the Dark!
March 14, 2009 - 06:19 ET by GeneralAlThere is a bit of shining light in this Obamination! Oprah, Buffett, and other libs are going to have their wealth seized right along with Bill Gates and the rest! Oh wait! There will be exceptions! Just like his cabinet nominees! People called me a nut case when I said he was a Communist. Hes proving me right every day. He wants to sit down with Hugo and Fidel, wonder why? He wants advice from some old pros! I won't be surprised if he tries to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment while hes at it! Heres more reason to required voters to have brains and a job to vote. This is all right out of Vladmir Lenin's playbook! He said "We'll win control of America through their own elections!" It has been acheived!
General Al....attempt to repeal 22nd Amendment already underway
March 14, 2009 - 10:11 ET by justathotHJ Res 5 Check out the link as reported at Hot Air. Does anyone really think Obama plans to go back to being a community organizer? Or even a US Senator?
Hey, it might be a good thing! Even Bill Clinton would be an improvement over the O.
it something like what my wife noted in russia.
March 14, 2009 - 09:26 ET by tonemeistershe had the opportunity to travel in russia just after the fall of communism. for the first time in 70 some years people were allowed to own personal property. any one who had a western made car or nice clothes was looked on by most people with the attitude"how can i drag him/her back down to my level " not "how can i get those things for myself " . this is also the way that alot of europeans and especially the british look at wealth. somehow if you have something nice it keeps them from having something nice.