Forgive Our Debtors … For They Know Not What They Do

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 21, 2011 – During the Easter season, I couldn’t help thinking about the phrase “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”  Perhaps that phrase should guide when it comes to our elected officials’ inability to address the issue of our National Debt in a cogent way.  Then again, I rather doubt that they will ever “forgive us our debts.”

Perhaps the President and our Congressional leaders haven’t had time to read their copies of The National Platform of Common Sense.  They’ve been too busy pandering to their constituencies.  At the risk of saying, “I told you so,” I offer the following excerpts from a relevant section of my book:

“If we have it, we will spend it.”  That seems to be the mantra of our Legislative Branch of government.  As a corollary, we can add the Democratic dogma:  “If we don’t have it, we will spend it anyway.”  In the past, the power to tax has been the secret weapon of both Parties.  Democrats use it to get votes by promising to only tax the rich to fund programs for everyone else.  Republi­cans use it to get votes by claiming that they will protect the public against pernicious taxation.  Here’s the reality:

“Republican candidates routinely promise that they’re not going to raise taxes … not on you as an individual or on businesses in general (one of their few reliable constituencies) … because taxes negatively impact the economy. “Read my lips … no new taxes.” It’s a clear and intentional misrepresentation. If cutting taxes stimulates the economy, why not eliminate all taxes? Oh, yeah … then we couldn’t pay for government salaries, perks, offices, boondoggle trips, etc.  Scratch that idea!  I guess some taxes are okay.  But the one thing about Republicans is that they can do the math.  If they can’t pay their debts, they’ll raise your taxes regardless of what they’ve promised.  They’ll just do it under the guise of necessity.

“The Democrats are far more forthright on this issue. They’re going to raise your taxes under any circumstances because they’re sure they can create some kind of social program to spend the money … no matter how much is available.  Normally, this would turn off a lot of people, but the Democrats always promise to only tax the rich.  Robin Hood would be so proud!  You see, the rich are really just like the Sheriff of Nottingham who, as we all know, wrongfully took money from the poor by abusing his power … kind of like Congress does.

“And when the Democrats promise to only tax the rich … well, that’s “Change We Can Believe In.”  For example:  when President Obama raised the cigarette tax 62 cents per pack just about a month after taking office, I was all for it.  You see, I don’t smoke … and even if I did … I’m not rich!  I’m feeling to­tally Democratic about this one.  Apparently, only the rich smoke.  Either that … or the President was just “blowing smoke” when he promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250 thousand a year.  But who could ac­cuse him of that when he sets an appropriate example for the rest of us by smoking and earning more than $250 thousand a year. That’s stepping up to the plate!

“Correspondingly, when President Obama was running against President Bush (let’s face it, he might as well have been since that was the entire basis of his campaign), he excoriated the former President for presiding over a $2.5 trillion expansion of our national debt (which, by the way, President Obama voted for when he was in the Senate).  Then, as soon as he took office, he es­sentially doubled that level of expansion.  With this level of spending, Presi­dent Obama will be hard pressed to keep his campaign promise to only increase taxes on the richest 5 percent of our population while reducing taxes for everyone else … unless there is an expansion of the money supply.  Our inability as voters to recognize the mathematical certainty of this demon­strates why so few contestants ever win on the game show Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?  As a result, you can expect the government to increase the money supply to close the gap.

“Now, since our currency isn’t really backed by anything (we went off the gold standard back in 1975), expanding the cash supply really doesn’t hurt us in any way … unless you consider the impact of inflation.  You see, if the gov­ernment prints a lot of money to pay for all of the new social programs and agencies that it’s putting in place, the law of supply and demand suggests that, as the monetary supply grows, the dollar will be devalued.  So, some­thing that costs a dollar today will cost more than a dollar tomorrow if every­thing adjusts to stay the same (i.e., to maintain the dynamic equilibrium of the economy).  Luckily, this will only impact the richest 5 percent of our popula­tion since President Obama promised that only they would suffer a tax in­crease.

“Now, why do I say that?  Well, taxes are just a method of paying for gov­ernment programs.  If the money supply has to be manipulated to pay for government programs, isn’t the resultant inflation, in effect, a tax?  I can’t wait to see how President Obama makes sure that only the food, drink, housing, clothing, etc. of the rich gets adjusted for inflation.  Otherwise, he will have broken his promise to 95 percent of Americans who thought they were get­ting the deal of the century!  I can see it now:  I’ll be going through a checkout line, and the clerk will ask me to produce some sort of National Identification card that will let him or her know that I’m not one of the top 5 percent.  Bingo!  I’ll either get a discount, or I’ll get to avoid paying a premium since we’ve been promised that all these new programs will only impact the pocket books of the rich.  Either way, it’s good to know that most of us will be insulated against the effect of runaway inflation.”

(The National Platform of Common Sense continues …)

“The best way to destroy the “Field of Dreams” mentality that is so preva­lent in Washington, D.C. is to restrict Congress’ cash flow … as was intended by the Framers when they spelled out the limitations relative to the Legislative Branch’s “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Ex­cises” in Article I, Section 8. So, this Platform requires Congress to follow the Constitution as it was written.

(At this point, The National Platform of Common Sense draws upon a myriad of solutions that are discussed in detail in its previous sections and then continues …)

“This Platform also calls for the introduction of an indexed budget for Congress; whether it be indexed to the Gross Do­mestic Product (GDP), the number of citizens in the United States, or some other blended formula that relates to the size of our economy and our population base.  As our country ex­pands or contracts in both terms of its economy and popula­tion, so should the government’s budget in proportion thereto.  Other than in times of an unexpected national emergency (e.g., a war, legitimate pandemic, terrorist attack, etc.), there would be no other way to infuse the government with money (other than by utilizing past budgetary surpluses); no additional taxa­tion, no printing of money … nothing!  The country’s over-draft protection could begin with a proportionate reduction in the wages of the Federal government.  Since they’re in control of their spending on our dime, they should feel the pinch first.  This marks the end of La Dolce Vita.”

(continuing …)

• “Let’s determine what would be a reasonable indexed operating budget for the government and work backwards from there to calculate the correct percentage to apply to everyone … equally.  If you don’t have any income of any kind, you don’t pay any taxes.  Otherwise, we’ll all have the same skin in the game.

•  “Let’s simplify the process while we’re at it.  First, let’s elimi­nate all of the deductions (both business and personal).  That will streamline the calculation.  And don’t worry about what will happen when you lose the deductions that you’ve grown to view as an entitlement.  In all actuality, they’re merely tools by which politicians manipulate us.  Remem­ber:  we’re working backwards when we do the math, so the infusion of tax dollars from the elimination of deductions will help reach the budgetary objective sooner and, in turn, will reduce the overall percentage that you’ll be charged.

•  “The elimination of deductions should help in a variety of ways. Individual and business decisions will become more legitimately based.  Charity may even return to the heart rather than emanate from the tax return.  Millions of trees will be saved.  How, you ask?  Well, if Congress doesn’t spend a lot of time adding thousands of pages to each bill it drafts to account for the special interests it panders to through tax deductions and credits, millions of trees will be saved.  This could be the environmental solution of our lifetime.  Mem­bers of the Green Party … Unite!

• “Similarly, if Congress is limited to a single way of generat­ing tax revenues, just think of how much time and money will be saved and how that time and money can be redi­rected to important issues … rather than on the negotiation of backroom deals and the distribution of pork.  IRS staffing can be reduced (and) the “business of the People” can be properly addressed …”

• “Businesses will pay upon the distribution of both passive and active income.  They will reserve the appropriate per­centage on any distributed income and pay that sum to the government according to a uniform schedule.  As a result, individuals will no longer have to file any kind of income tax form.  How terrific will that be?  (Sorry, H&R Block!)  And to mitigate the chance of misconduct, the penalties for im­proper reporting will be swift and significant (including fines and imprisonment).

(continuing …)

“…The beauty is that it’s clean, simple to administer, and treats everyone fairly.  Yes, there is a “price of admission” to be a citizen of the United States; no one gets a “free ride.”  As a collateral benefit, your vote can no longer be bought by political promises.  Wel­come back to the Republic!”

As I reflect upon the past several years, I am stunned at how often the phrase “I told you so” would be fair comment.  I am equally disappointed that our elected officials seem to have such a difficult identifying the obvious.  I guess we should just “forgive them for they know not what they do.”

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.

• On April 28th, he will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST and 590 AM, KTIE, Riverside County, from 8:00-9:00 PM.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.
• T.J. will also be appearing in Dayton, Ohio, at the Armed Forces Family Aid Concert on April 30th.

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                     www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:         http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:         @TCSCzar

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Our Debt of Gratitude … or Gratuitousness

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 14, 2011 – As our National Debt skyrockets toward its $14.3 trillion limit, the favorite past-time of our politicians is about to begin.  In something reminiscent of the start of the Indianapolis 500 and with a presidential election year on the horizon, the budgetary debate starts with: “Ladies and gentlemen, start your name-calling.”   Why can’t the Democrats and Republicans just focus on the job at hand and put Party politics aside … just this once?

Assuming you weren’t taking an afternoon nap, you might have heard the President’s second speech about our Nation’s 2012 budget.  His first one in February was a real “yawner,” but with two more months to prepare, he delivered a scintillating reprise yesterday … just ask Vice President Biden.

The President’s speech also was a response to the Republican budget proposal:  The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise.  If titles make a difference, the Republican’s have a winner.  The President’s budget is named Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the United States Government.  Alas, there’s probably more to a budget than just its name.

In support of their budget, the Republicans position the President and his Party as a bunch of “tax and spend” Liberals who will bring about the economic end to life as we know it.  Of course, anyone who paid attention during the last Bush Administration knows that the Republicans can give the Democrats some competition when it comes to spending.  A war here … a war there … and pretty soon, we’re talking “big” money!

The Republicans apparently hope that they can engineer their own version of social change (i.e., cutting the programs that are not favored by their donor-base) while diverting our attention to the sinister risk of the Liberals’ Robin Hood strategy (i.e., taking from the rich and giving to the poor … and ostensibly destroying jobs and small businesses in the process).  The Republican plan even projects a balanced budget by 2040.  That’s only 29 years from now!

Of course, the President’s plan isn’t nearly that assertive.  It doesn’t pretend to reach a breakeven point.  In fact, it adds an additional $9.5 trillion to our National Debt by the end of its tenth year.  Hmmm, where have we heard about a $9 trillion debt before?  You may recall someone saying:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.  Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Was it Speaker Boehner?  No.  Perhaps it was Majority Leader McConnell or renegade Representative Ron Paul. No, again!  Well, which right-wing extremist was it? 

Actually, it was then-freshman Senator Barack Obama (March 20, 2006) who was imploring Congress not to increase the debt ceiling to $9 trillion.  What a difference a few years make.

Press Secretary Carney (perhaps the most aptly named Press Secretary in our Nation’s history) adds to the “carnival” flavor of the whole debate by explaining that President Obama “thinks it (his statement) was a mistake” and that the President now realizes that “raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with.”  Seriously though, what difference does it make?  He got elected saying it and a lot of people have bought the theory that it was all Bush’s fault anyway.  Forget the fact that a President doesn’t have the legislative authority to do anything.  The Constitution is apparently overrated.

During the President’s speech, he dutifully invoked Lincoln and said the budget debate “will affect (our) lives in ways that are potentially profound.”  Then, he gave his version of American history as it pertains to what our country owes us.  Had President Kennedy been alive to hear it, he may have been disappointed.

President Obama began to inspire the audience by saying. “We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge (the deficit) before, and we can do it again.”  Then, he ignored the word “together” and launched into an assault of the Republican Party.  Someone should tell him he needs their votes.

We learned that the Republicans are apparently against clean energy, education, transportation, sick people, the elderly, poor children, and middle-class families.  This is about as fair an assessment as the one proffered by some Conservatives who suggest that all Democrats favor a socialistic form of government and are against jobs and the American Dream.  Where’s the bipartisan spirit and change we were promised?  This just sounds like politics as usual.

The Republican plan targeted a feeble $4 trillion dollar reduction of the deficit over 10 years.  The President’s response was to promise a much more aggressive $4 trillion reduction of the deficit over 12 years.  Huh?

Do these people have any common sense … or math skills?  The Republican plan amounts to a $400 billion reduction per year, while the President’s plan calls for a $333 billion reduction.  Now, it’s becoming clearer why the Republican plan doesn’t project a balanced budget until 2040 and the President’s plan doesn’t project one at all.

Our National Debt is already approaching $14.3 trillion and is growing about $4 billion per day.  So, let’s do some simple math.  If we multiply $4 billion a day time 365 days in a year, we get $1,460 billion per year in new debt, yet even the more aggressive Republican program only averages a reduction of $400 billion per year.  Does that scare you?  It should!

Rather than wasting time delivering meaningless speeches that only serve political purposes, how about revisiting the issue of our National Debt in a meaningful way … or at least getting out of the way of others who can get the job done?

How about using an indexed federal budget that would take the political games out of establishing a budget (as described in The National Platform of Common Sense)?  It would flex with changes in GDP and population and allow for controlled exceptions to successfully address unplanned emergencies.

Do you remember those 14,000 unoccupied government buildings the President said he was going to sell earlier in the year?  Who’s going to buy them?  Perhaps more importantly, who’s going to finance the transactions?  If you guessed “no one,” you’re probably correct.

So how could we put them to use?  Why not offer them rent-free to entrepreneurs and small business owners whom everyone seems to agree are the economic engine behind our recovery?  All the tenants would have to do is pay for their utilities and create jobs along the way.  The program could be limited to a reasonable number of years at which time the companies would emerge from the incubator and stand on their own.  It seems that this approach would return more ongoing revenue to the government in the form of taxes than the one time capital infusion of a fire sale.

Republicans should love this approach because it’s all about jobs and small businesses.  Democrats should love the program because it will stimulate the economy and create a larger tax base.  Heck, it might even create a few rich people to tax along the way!

Would you like more ideas?  How about accepting the offer that the CEO of IBM made to the President in the Fall of last year.  Sam Palmisano offered President Obama IBM’s software and consulting assistance to identify $900 billion in medical fraud within the federal budget … for free.  Did I mention that it was for free (as opposed to the nearly $1 trillion price tag of Health Care Reform)?

The President apparently didn’t like the deal.  Maybe he was hoping IBM would offer to match the savings.  Benefactors do things like that in community organizing initiatives.  Unfortunately, we’re talking about the real world here.

Who among us would have turned down Mr. Palmisano’s offer?  It takes a very special ego to do something that ridiculous.

In his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President Obama said, “In addition to making government more affordable, we're also making it more effective and customer-friendly.  We're trying to run the government more like you run your businesses - with better technology and faster services.  In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America.  And we want to start with the twelve different agencies that deal with America's exports.”  How about starting with the 159 new agencies the Health Care Reform Bill created (assuming the Bill survives the courts).  Let’s try to rationalize how they can be combined before we allow them to take on a life of their own.

Would it make sense to dismiss the 40 Czars the President has appointed?  That should save a ton of money.

How about collecting the $1 billion in back taxes that are owed by federal employees … and/or terminating them … or would that get rid of too many Cabinet Members? 

Perhaps a few less campaign trips by the President and his entourage would also be in order.

Our country is in dire need of a turnaround.  Having facilitated turnarounds in the private sector for 30 years, I can assure you that they require quick and decisive action; something that’s lacking in the approaches of our major Parties.  Decisions have to be pragmatic, and personal feelings and friendships (or political ambitions and debts) have to be put aside.  The suggestions in this article are just common sense solutions that we are not hearing from our politicians.  Are there a myriad of others?  Of course there are!  The National Platform of Common Sense addresses them in more detail.  And you never know … maybe The Common Sense Czar will be coming to a city near you.  Maybe … I’ll even drop by Washington, D.C.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  He will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on April 28th on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST and 790 AM, KTIE, Riverside County, from 8:00-9:00 PM.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.  T.J. will also be appearing in Dayton, Ohio, at the Armed Forces Family Aid Concert on April 30^th.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                        www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:          http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:            @TCSCzar

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Shutdown? How about … “Shut Up!”

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 8, 2011 – With a government shutdown looming, it’s time to examine the credibility of the loudest voices on the Hill.  President Obama tells us that it’s time for “an adult discussion” in order to resolve the differences between the Parties on government spending.  Here’s the challenge:  where is he going to find an “adult” in Washington, D.C.?

Starting with the President:  he wasn’t willing (or able) to marshal a 2010 budget through Congress last year when his Party had overwhelming control of both the House and the Senate.  Why?  Could it have been because there was a risk of damaging the Democratic Party’s chances in the November election?  Oh gosh, that couldn’t have been the reason.  That would have been juvenile … particularly in retrospect.

So, the President should just blame the Republicans (and TEA Party) for his strategic ineptitude and that of his Party.  It was the Republicans’ fault that he and his Party didn’t pass a budget last year. Then, he should just threaten to veto a resolution that would keep the current debate moving forward.  That certainly would reflect “adult” behavior.

Next, let’s look at the “adults” who are running the Conservative side of the equation.  It is embarrassing to see them pretend that they are trying to cut the budget when their “line in the sand” is a veritable “spit in the ocean.”  Whether it’s $100 million, $60 million or $39 million in cuts, the amount is irrelevant in the face of the President’s $3.55 trillion budget proposal.

The Republican’s 2011 budget recommendation calls for trillions of dollars of cuts over the next 10 years.  That’s a bit more like it.  However, it would make more sense if the Party was at least open to revisiting the issue of possible short-term tax increases.  There are segments of our society that might be able to support a higher level of taxes to accelerate the correction of our out-of-control National Debt (not a tax increase on the ridiculously defined “rich” who earn $250,000 a year, but rather a tax on the “uber-rich” who earn annual incomes in the millions).  Under our Nation’s current economic conditions, it’s not “adult” to preclude the consideration of that alternative.

It is equally ridiculous to pretend that we can remain competitive in a global market as our corporate tax rates head toward attaining the dubious distinction of being the highest in the world.  For those career-Democrats who think that we can legislate new industries and job growth, maybe they should drop out of politics for a while and try starting a business.  It might give them an “adult” appreciation for what being “competitive” really means.  It might also help them grasp the impact that senseless government over-regulation has on businesses.

Perhaps most disappointing is the behavior of some of our more senior legislators.  Nancy Pelosi is on record as saying that it is strategically more effective for the Democratic Party to attack Republican recommendations than to fashion counter-recommendations of its own.  Wow, that’s certainly an “adult” approach.

Correspondingly, while the Left seems to be comfortable accusing the Right of being the sole source of incendiary language, Pelosi and her Senate counter-part, Majority Leader Harry Reid, have taken rebel-rousing to a new height … or should we say depth.

Yesterday, Pelosi tweeted that there was a “war against women” being waged by Republicans.  Today, Reid said that the GOP is trying to “throw women under the bus” by denying them healthcare (at least in the form of the government’s funding of Planned Parenthood); thereby forcing a government shutdown.  Majority Leader Reid would have us believe that “the Republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health, and my granddaughters’ health” … and that he’s “appalled” and “offended.”

We should be “appalled” and “offended” as well.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are both millionaires … several times over.  Neither Nancy nor any of Harry’s female relatives are likely to ever see the inside of a Planned Parenthood clinic for their routine healthcare needs.  Still, they would have us believe that Planned Parenthood is somehow a primary care center for women; a sole source for “cancer screenings” and “routine medical checkups.”  Physicians, hospitals and other clinics apparently no longer exist.  Perhaps Planned Parenthood should just be renamed “Women’s Healthcare Central.”  Grow up!

It appears that there is a Congressional IQ requirement on Capitol Hill … where “IQ” stands for “Idiot Quota.”  This is one quota that won’t require an “Affirmative Action” plan to meet it’s objective.  We already have an over-abundance of candidates.  If this kind of behavior continues, the real “adults” in this country are likely to open their windows and do their impression of Howard Beale of Network News.   

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  He will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on April 28th on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST and 790 AM, KTIE, Riverside County, from 8:00-9:00 PM.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.  T.J. will also be appearing in Dayton, Ohio, at the Armed Forces Family Aid Concert on April 30^th.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                        www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:          http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:            @TCSCzar

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

The Path to Politics

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 8, 2011 – President Obama’s 2012 Budget and the GOP’s “Pathway to Prosperity” may have a common thread:  they both ignore reality.  The President presented his budget proposal for 2012 on Valentine’s Day, while the House Republicans presented their budget proposal on April 5th … just missing April Fool’s Day.  The President’s budget was submitted one week later than is required by law (according to The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921), but let’s not quibble over that.  His fellow Democrats still haven’t passed a budget for last year, and the Senate hasn’t given any indication that it is taking our current debt crisis seriously.

The problem with the President’s and the House Republican’s proposed budgets is that they pander to politics rather than address the real world in which the rest of us have to live.

The President’s budget challenges us to believe that we can spend our way out of debt and that the government can do a more effective job of picking “winners” and “losers” from a commerce perspective than the open market.  Raise your hand if you’ve ever successfully lowered your personal debt by spending more money … and please share the name of the fiscally responsible lender who gave you the additional money to do so.  Raise your hand again if you think that government officials know what you want better than you do.  Who needs the open market anyway?

The House Republican’s solution to reduce debt by spending less may make more intuitive sense, but it disregards any consideration of increasing taxes to bring down the debt more quickly.  Think of it this way:  can you reduce your personal debt more rapidly by generating more income through a second job?  Of course, you can!  So, why shouldn’t that option be on the table?

While Michael Moore should never be confused with a Rhodes Scholar, he did recently make a statement that garnered a great deal of attention and is roughly correct:  “Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans … have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.  Let me say that again … Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks … most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 … now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined.”

The 400 richest Americans have a net worth of approximately $1.4 trillion (extrapolating from the Forbes 400), which is more than the cumulative net worth of the bottom half of our population.  Admittedly, those with negative net worth pull down the average for the bottom half, but the statistic is still staggering.  Perhaps, some sort of progressive tax might be appropriate to consider.

Let’s take a moment to look more closely at the 400 richest people in America.  The 16 individuals who tied for “last” place all have an estimated net worth of $1 billion.  Since we’ve been told that “rich” people make $250,000 a year, let’s do the math.  If you made $250,000 a year, didn’t pay any taxes, and never spent a dime, it would only take you 4,000 years to amass a net worth of $1 billion.  Another way to look at it:  these people have twenty times the net worth of Michael Moore, which is estimated to be $50 million!  Why not have them share more of the burden?

If Michael is right about how most of them “benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008,” why not take some of the money back to accelerate the reduction of our National Debt?

Speaking of documentaries and people benefiting from the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street, you might want to check out Inside Job, which provides a good overview of how the Bush Administration contributed to the economic collapse … and how the Obama Administration has provided senior government positions for many of the perpetrators.

Returning to those 400 really rich people, it’s interesting to note what a “mixed bag” you have.  At the top, Bill and Melinda Gates, along with great support of their friend, Warren Buffet, have created the Gates Foundation.  They have contributed and raised approximately $24.5 billion in grant money ($36.7 billion in endowed assets) for this worthy charity.  Their generosity has almost undoubtedly had more of a beneficial impact on society than any amount of taxes we reasonably could have exacted upon them.

Moving on to #3:  Larry Ellison probably bought a bigger boat.  After all, yachts really should be sized according to ego.

Then, just a little further down the line, we have the Koch Brothers.  They went from #9 in 2009 to #5 in 2010; increasing their respective fortunes from $16 billion to $21.5 billion in only one year.  That’s about a 34% increase from their diversified industry holdings.  How they accomplished that while funneling so much money to Republican and Tea Party candidates to skew the political balance of power and destroy the unions (at least according to Michael Moore) is anybody’s guess!

Luckily, we have George Soros to balance out the political spectrum.  Poor, old George climbed from #28 to #14 on the list while almost doubling his fortune … going from $7.2 billion to $14.2 billion in only one year.  The Koch Brother’s could learn a few things about capitalism from George!

The funny thing about these latter titans of wealth is that the Koch brothers are the darlings of the Right while George Soros is the champion of the Left.  Think about it.  The Koch Brothers run a wide variety of manufacturing companies that provide hundreds of products to, and thousands of jobs for “Main Street” Americans throughout the United States.  Meanwhile, George Soros runs a Wall Street hedge fund that makes obscene money for “qualified investors” (i.e., the “uber-rich” the Left professes to hate).  Just as an aside, he also is credited with making $1 billion in personal income in a single day by orchestrating the collapse of the British pound on September 6, 1992.  According to stereotypes, you’d think the Koch Brothers would be revered by the Left and that Soros would be the poster child of the Right.

Maybe the politicians are “on” to something.  Maybe things are just the exact opposite of what makes sense.  If that’s true, let’s spend our way out of debt and eliminate taxes for everyone.  It doesn’t matter that those two extremes go against every instinct … the world just isn’t what it used to be.  Are we on The Path to Prosperity … or just another path to politics?

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  He will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on April 28th on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST and 790 AM, KTIE, Riverside County, from 8:00-9:00 PM.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.  T.J. will also be appearing in Dayton, Ohio, at the Armed Forces Family Aid Concert on April 30^th.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                   www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:         http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:         @TCSCzar

***** 

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.