Obama and wealth envy

Obama wealth envy at all-time high

By Neal Boortz

Every chance he gets, Barack Obama is taking the opportunity to pander to the wealth envy crowd and demonize the achievers and the evil corporations. Over the weekend, Obama delivered his weekly address where he hammered home the idea that the wealthy aren’t sharing in the sacrifice. Here are some excerpts of what he had to say …

The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share – or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get.

OK, let’s stop right there. I know that I am repeating myself when I tell you this … but would somebody PLEASE tell me what is considered to be a “fair share”? The top 1% of taxpayers in this country earn about 20% of the income, and yet they pay close to 40% of the income taxes. If that is not considered “fair” then would someone please give me an hint of what “fair share” really means?

Then there’s this asinine nonsense this hideous president is spouting about corporations getting tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get. Well duhhhhhh. Guess what? Middle Class Americans aren’t corporations! But hold on just a minute here. Didn’t we just have something --- some Obama idea --- called a first-time homebuyer’s tax credit? If the American people weren’t (for the most part) such government educated idiots they would see that this homebuyers tax credit is pretty much the same thing as a the accelerated depreciation those filthy rich corporate jet owners get on their business jet, or that most American businesses get when they purchase a piece of capital equipment!

The homebuyer’s tax credit was introduced to help the housing industry – to encourage people who otherwise might not be in the market to buy a home to take the plunge and buy a home --- right now --- when they might not be able to afford it but our economy needs the boost.

Well it’s pretty much the same for the corporate jet owners. Maybe they weren’t exactly in the position to splurge on a new corporate jet right now --- maybe the old turboprop King Air they had would do just fine, though it couldn’t fly as far as their growing companies might need, and it wasn’t all that fuel efficient. So Obama --- and remember, this was part of his stimulus plan --- comes up with something like a homebuyer’s tax credit for those who might want to buy a business jet. Only instead of a tax credit, the business gets to take accelerated depreciation. Either way, the first-time homebuyer and the business jet buyer get a break on taxes, more homes and airplanes are sold, and more construction and aircraft workers remain on the job.

Here’s where the difference is. Obama can’t get any class warfare bonus points for slamming homebuyers taking advantage of a tax credit. He can, though, score a few class warfare victories by slamming these evil businessmen who buy these nice expensive new jets built by my listeners in places like Savannah, Wichita and elsewhere.

Another thing --- do you notice that I’m calling these airplanes both “business jets” and “corporate jets?” Usually they’re just called business jets. There’s the NBAA – the National Business Aviation Association; not the National Corporate Aviation Association. So why does Dear Ruler consistently use the phrase “corporate jets?”



Here’s how the conversation went between Obama and his advisors.

“Mr. President, I think we can really stir up the base if we attack symbols of excess wealth during this debate and then on into the campaign next year.”

“Yeah … like yachts and mansions and business jets and stuff. Those people only have those things because they exploit people”

“Er … yes, Mr. President. But we can’t call them business jets.”

“Why not? That’s what we’ve been calling them for years? That’s what they are; business jets.”

“Yes, Mr. President, you’re right. But the American people; especially those likely to vote for you, don’t react negatively to the word ‘business.’ They look at the American dream as owning their own business. They admire successful businessmen. Most of them work for businesses. We can’t call them business jets.”

“OK, what then?”

“They’re corporate jets, Mr. President. From now on we have to call them corporate jets, and we need to attack those who own them and those who fly on them in your statements on the debt deal and in the campaign next year.

“Why is that better than business jets?”

“Because while people like businesses, Mr. President, they hate corporations. These people are dreaming of someday owning their own business, not their own corporation, Mr. President; and while they admire successful businessmen, they look at corporate officers and CEOs as generally greedy and corrupt – and making too much money. That’s why calling them corporate jets fits in so well here. Not only do these CEOs make far too much money, they jet-set around the sky in luxury while your voters have to deal with the same airport security hassle. So when you start calling for these corporate CEOs to give up their special tax breaks on those corporate jets they own, you’re preaching to the great middle class.”

“How much revenue can we get by ending this tax break for business … ahh, I mean corporate jets?”

“About $3 billion over the next ten years, Mr. President. That’s about 0.17% of the budget deficit we’ll run during that time --- but that’s not the point. We’re not going to go after these corporate jet owners for the revenue, we’re going after them to rally the troops; the middle-class troops, Mr. President. Besides – the real truth here is that when this tax break goes the sale of these jets will probably suffer. But in the eyes of the dumb masses …..”

“I TOLD you never to use that phrase around me. You been listening to that racist Boortz bastard again?”

“Uh … sorry Mr. President. I meant in the eyes of the middle class you will be seen as only trying to make these huge corporations pay their fair share in taxes.”

“OK … corporate jets it is. Now, try to work that phrase into my script no less than six times every time I step up to a microphone over the next few weeks. I smell gullible voters.”

“The stench is everywhere, Mr. President.”

Someday they’re going to find that microphone I left under that chair in the Oval Office … but let’s get back to more of what our Dear Ruler had to say

It’s pretty simple. I don’t think oil companies should keep getting special tax breaks when they’re making tens of billions in profits. I don’t think hedge fund managers should pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. I don’t think it’s fair to ask nothing of someone like me when the average family has seen their income decline over the past decade – and when many of you are just trying to stretch every dollar as far it it’ll go.

Let’s start with the oil companies.

First – do you have any idea how much the top three oil companies paid in federal income taxes in 2010? That would be $42.8 billion. Some tax breaks, right?

The tax breaks enjoyed by oil companies are the same tax breaks afforded to every other business in this country. According to the American Thinker: “The only tax in which the oil industry seems to get special treatment compared to other industries is intangible drilling costs. The amount of that subsidy? That would be $0.78 billion per year -- enough to fund less than two hours of federal spending in 2011, and not even half the amount we are lending a foreign-owned and state-owned oil company for drilling offshore Brazil.”

Also – now this would be fun -- would some reporter please ask Barack Obama to explain the difference between a profit and a profit margin? I have the sneaking suspicion that he could not tell us the difference. There is no doubt that oil companies take in large profits. But why should they be demonized for the amount of profit they make? They do a huge amount of business so, if they’re successful, you should expect that they will make a huge profit! Now I know that most Americans don’t understand this, what with government education and all, but it is their profit MARGINS that should really matter. CNSNews recently reported: “The API further reported that in 2010, oil and natural gas companies averaged a net profit of 5.7 cents per dollar of income. Also, an average of 49.5 cents of every dollar oil companies made in 2010 went to income taxes.” Don’t count on Obama or the ObamaMedia explaining that to the American public. The oil companies make an easy target for wealth envy. Nobody likes to fork over $75 to fill up their car.

Now about these hedge fund managers who “pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries.” You really have to work to think of something to say that is more dishonest than this.

What if the president said something like “Hedge fund managers pay less to fill the diesel tanks on their yachts than their secretaries.” Well --- that’s right. Their secretaries don’t have yachts.

Obama is talking about two different types of taxes, and relying on the economic ignorance of the American people to assume that he is simply talking about income taxes. This is the same trick Warren Buffett pulled when he complained that his secretary was paying a higher tax rate than he is. Here’s the deal: If you make money from your investments you pay capital gains taxes (15%). If you make money working for someone else or working for yourself that money is referred to as “earned income” and is subject to regular income tax rates. Earned income is usually wages, salaries, commissions and tips. If you’re self-employed your earnings there are also earned income. If you think it would be a good idea for people who put their money to work in investments to then pay full income tax rates on whatever they earn from those investments; then Obama is your guy. But here’s what’s going to happen. As soon as we start taxing investment income in this country at ordinary income tax rates we’re going to see that investment income going overseas. There are economies out there that are growing a lot faster than ours is. Perhaps the investors with those funds would like to explore some more tax friendly opportunities.

We shouldn’t put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of folks who’ve already borne the brunt of the recession. It’s not reasonable and it’s not right. If we’re going to ask seniors, or students, or middle-class Americans to sacrifice, then we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest Americans to share in that sacrifice. We have to ask everyone to play their part. Because we are all part of the same country. We are all in this together.

Seniors, and students sacrificing? How, pray tell? Most of them pay absolutely no federal income taxes at all; and many of them are actually net tax consumers! That means they get more money from the government every year than they pay to the government --- and yes, that includes payroll taxes. If you want to talk about shared sacrifice --- why don’t you get these freeloaders to chip in something?

And that brings me to that insipid girl at that Section 8 stampede in Dallas, Texas last week. More on her in a moment. Let’s finish this up:

Even if you took 100% of the profits amassed by the top Fortune 500 companies .. about $400 billion .. it would only be enough to keep our government running for 40 days. If we repeal the Bush tax cuts for only the wealthy, we would gain about $800 billion over the next decade (that is not accounting for any changes in economic behavior). Keep these figures in mind while you consider the fact that the only budget proposal Barack Obama has come up with in 2011 would INCREASE our federal deficit by $2.7 trillion over the next decade.