Here’s a new way to try and hip-up the boring, ages-old, left-wing idea of tax hikes: link it to reality TV star Kim Kardashian. That is just what ABC News tried to do on the Wednesday, January 4 edition of ABC World News Tonight when the venerable news program helped advertise an effort by a small group headed by a former Democrat operative that wants to hike California’s income taxes. It is a two-pronged approach of hitching a big government, big spending, high tax agenda to the TV reality show star in order to drag younger people into the left’s class warfare game.

ABC highlighted a California Millionaires Tax policy recommendation from a group called Courage Campaign. The group is headed by Rick Jacobs who is the former head of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign in California, a Huffington Post writer, and leader of this admittedly “progressive” group.

ABC reported that the “liberal group” (and kudos to ABC for actually identifying them as a liberal group for a change) is upset that Kim Kardashian, who made some $12 million in 2011, only paid one percent more than the average middle class wage in the Golden State.

Here is what the extremist high-tax group says on it’s website about this:

Kim Kardashian made more than $12 million in 2010, but she only paid 1% more in taxes than a middle-class Californian. That’s not OK, especially when budget cuts are decimating schools and critical programs for children, the elderly, and the disabled. It’s exactly why Courage Campaign and two dozen other organizations are putting the Millionaires Tax of 2012 on the ballot.

Wow, that tiny, little one percent suuuure seems small, right? But let’s look at the actual payment, shall we? Kardashian paid a tax rate of 10.3 percent and 10.3 percent of twelve million is $1,236,000! And those middle-class folks that paid one percent less at 9.3 percent? Well if the average income in California is $47.000, then they paid only $4,371. Why aren’t these middle-class louts paying their fair share? (That’s called sarcasm, by the way.)

Now, it’s not that I care at all for Kim and her brood — I never watch so-called reality TV and have never seen her show — but this is all really just class warfare. After all, let’s look at the tact here. Instead of actually talking about what Kardashian pays, this ABC flogged extremist group focuses on that “one percent” as if that makes her tax remittance tiny. They mislead the public by purposefully avoiding any mention of the amount she actually paid.

Seriously, the fact is we could out right confiscate the millions made by the Kardashinas of this country and it wouldn’t make a dent in the hole of trillions of dollars that Democrats have dug for us.

But there is one last thing to ask about this ABC report. I’m just wondering, but has ABC ever highlighted the tax policy idea of some small Tea Party group that made a video to sell its plan to the people? Why does this tiny, left-wing group in California rate any attention at all in a national news program?

Obviously the answer here is that ABC saw the possibility of exploiting Kardashian and enraging her young fan base in order to drive them to support a left-wing idea. It’s all about branding, you see. If the far left and ABC can leech off Kim Kardashian to sell their creaky old socialist policies, then that’s what they will do.

Think you came up a bit short trick-or-treating this year? It’s nothing compared to California, whose revenues in October came in $800 million below projections. Overall, California is about $1.5 billion in the red for the current fiscal year, which may trigger some nasty cuts to schools and public safety if revenues don’t start pouring in soon.

Of course, California didn’t get into these dire straits by accident. Years and years of reckless overspending pushed the state over the fiscal precipice resulting in the sorry state of affairs we’re seeing today. Apparently, despite billions in cuts to education and other critical programs, some people still haven’t gotten the message. Consider the so-called California Cancer Research Act, pushed by a former legislator. This nearly billion dollar tax increase not only would duplicate existing programs, but would spend up to $16 million annually on additional overhead and up to $117 million a year for new buildings and facilities. In short, it would create another new bureaucracy to pay for, even though we can’t pay for the programs already on the books.

California dug itself into the hole it’s in by giving in to wild spending schemes time and time again. Perhaps this June, voters will finally get the message.

Matthew Cunningham is a writer and new media pioneer in the public and private sectors. In 2004, he founded Orange County’s first political blog, OC Blog, which spawned the most influential regional blogosphere in California and evolved into a national network of more than 30 local blogs under the RedCounty.com banner. He’s also a contributor to the FlashReport Blog, California’s leading statewide conservative blog, and a regular guest on “The Filter with Fred Roggin,” NBC 4’s daily public affairs program.

After pointing out that elected Democrats are making a big mistake in backing these far left kids, Douglass Schoen at the Wall Street Journal points out

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York’s Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

I know, I know, kinda shocking that they are radical left wingers. Some basic polling data is provided about the protesters, followed by

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Schoen isn’t exactly a rightwingnut hell bent on everything the left accuses the right of doing: he was a former pollster for Bill Clinton. And it is very interesting that we see the typical Leftist idea that taxes need to be raised on That Guy, but Not Me. They want someone else to pay their fair share, do their part, but, refuse to do it themselves. And they should all be given free, well, everything, because they are entitled. Someone owes them simply because they were born, not because of any hard work.

My prediction is that the longer this protest goes on, the worse it’s going to get for Democrats, as mainstream America gets a good eyeful of the way Democrats act. The media, despite fawning coverage now and certainly in the future, will not be able to hide the far left ideologies of the Occupiers, and people will start equating the Occupiers more with whiny teenagers who want something for nothing. Or, more than likely, 5 year olds who enjoy pooping their diapers in public, and scream and cry when mommy won’t buy them a toy.

As the saying (sorta) goes: standing around filthy, smelly and unkempt, living in squalor, and demanding someone else’s money is no way to go through life, son.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

(The Politico) President Barack Obama had his American Jobs Act. Now, Senate Republicans may have their Real American Jobs Act.

After more than two years in which the GOP political strategy to Obama’s policies has revolved around the word “no,” Republicans, who are growing increasingly confident they will win back the Senate in next year’s elections, want to give voters a sense of how they’d attempt to turn around the struggling economy if they were in power.

And regaining the Senate is just as important, if not more important, than regaining the White House. Without control of the Senate, a the GOP will not be able to enact their agenda even if they control the House and White House. Don’t forget about electing Republican Senators.

So they’re planning to roll out a jobs plan that amounts to a conservative’s dream agenda: targeting labor and environmental regulations, enacting a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, lowering corporate and individual tax rates, encouraging energy production and expanding free trade, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO.

Sounds a lot better than dumping more money into failed “green” energy companies, short term road projects that see people laid off afterwards, and turtle tunnels.

A draft of the plan refers to it as the “Real American Jobs Act,” a not-so subtle riff on Obama’s $447 billion bill that was defeated by a GOP-led filibuster on Tuesday and would have pumped billions into infrastructure and school construction, cut payroll taxes, give tax incentives to companies hiring laid-off workers and provide aid to ailing states.

Gotta love the name. You also have to love that Obama thinks that most people are blue collar workers involved with the construction industry, and would be financed by the “other” America, those rich people who own all the construction companies. That’s the problem when every thought is about class warfare: Obama forgets that some people have jobs other than paving roads and painting bridges.

Under spending reform, Republicans call for the balanced-budget amendment as well as a bipartisan proposal to give the president line-item-veto authority. On tax reform, the senators call for reducing individual and corporate income tax rates to 25 percent.

On regulatory reform, Republicans will propose repealing the health care and financial reform laws and try to limit medical malpractice lawsuits. Any rule that would cost the economy more than $100 million would have to be approved by a joint resolution of Congress. In a shot at the president, no federal agency could issue regulations until the unemployment rate drops to 7.7 percent, the level in January 2009 when Obama took office.

It would target expensive mandates on states, whack an air-pollution rule that the GOP said would affect “farm dust” and overhaul the National Labor Relations Board. Offshore energy production would be ramped up by prodding the Interior Department to take action and coal mining permitting would be sped up.

Excellent ideas. I hope there are some serious ideas about reducing spending in the plan. We’ll see, perhaps today, when it is unveiled.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

(The Politico) Democrats may not vote on President Barack Obama’s jobs bill just once. They could hold several votes on it, even though they know it’s going nowhere.

But that’s just the public theater. Behind the scenes, Senate Democrats are trying to develop a Plan B: a series of smaller bills that actually have a chance of passing a badly divided Congress.

Unstated is that Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, but do not have the necessary votes to pass it thanks to opposition from, as most of us know, Democrats. Anyhow, Obama’s ideas are apparently so toxic that they need to be broken down into small mouthfuls.

On the floor this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also plans to schedule votes with significant GOP support but tepid backing among Hill Democrats: free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. And on Tuesday, the Senate is expected to give final passage to a bipartisan bill cracking down on Chinese currency policies, a populist proposal with broad support in the Senate but opposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Wait, so Democrats aren’t really happy with the free trade agreements? Obama was excoriating Republicans for refusing to pass them back during the summer (even though he hadn’t sent them over till last week).

The dynamic will be on full display in the Senate this week, where first on Tuesday, Republicans — along with a handful of moderate Democrats — are expected to reject Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill, which includes new spending for construction and tax incentives for hiring and is paid for by a 5.6 percent surtax on those earning more than $1 million annually.

Even the Politico acknowledges that scheduling votes is simply political theater, because Obama’s bill won’t pass. And we all know that it is simply Stimulus lite, and will not work. Of course, the real idea is simply to raise taxes on those who have succeeded, throwing some red meat to the unhinged Democrat base, along with pretending the Campaigner In Chief is Doing Something on the economy.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

America is fast coming to a crossroads from which there will be no return if we take the wrong path. Do we take the road that leads away from America and toward a Euro-esque way of governing? Do we cast aside our American character and bury our great nation in a grave of socialist-styled authority? Do we damn our progeny to a failed superstate that violate every tenet of our original ideals?

I say we do not. I say we reject the Democrat’s Euro-esque ideas and refocus ourselves on American exceptionalism. Our federal system has strayed far from our founding ideals and we may soon find that its time for a new Declaration of Independence from a tyrannical government that has usurped power from proper authority.

Since it was just Independence Day over the weekend (and I waited until it was over on purpose so as not to obviate from that celebration), I offer this new Declaration as a rallying cry to all those willing to return to our true American character…

A New Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events it again becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with a failed authority and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as well as our original, properly constituted laws entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of we the people; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to repair to their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President, his Congress, and our recalcitrant federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It has abused its role over the law and instituted fiat rules that are detrimental to the common good — welfare, cap and trade, oppressive taxes, onerous regulation on business are recent examples.

It has forbidden governors of states to pass laws useful to local needs and has interfered in state business.

It has refused the right of local government to govern at home and has as a matter of course caused local legislators to carelessly assume they have no power.

It has defacto dissolved the authority of state governments so that the representatives of the people constantly defer to rule from Washington.

It has refused to secure the borders so that all manner of foreigners of the lowest station might flood these shores without hesitation while refusing to allow those foreigners with useful skills and education to enter and apply for citizenship.

It has allowed capricious courts to usurp proper legislative duties and to rule from the bench.

It has seated judges with no opposition or investigation and has not required judicial candidates to express an interest in the true meaning of the law of the land.

It has erected a multitude of new regulatory offices few of which have any basis in the Constitution and has as a form of graft filled them with friends, lobbyists, and placemen.

It has refused to properly fund our armies in times of peace without including graft and monies unconnected to the needs of our armed forces.

It has therefore interfered with the military stopping it from operating at peak efficiency.

It has conspired with powers outside our duly constituted authority to take away our constitutional rights, to subvert our national laws, and has given assent to forces such as the UN to rule us from afar without accountability. These outside forces are hateful of our system and desire it’s end. Therefore we accuse our government of attacking us from inside.

For positing that UN forces are superior in authority to our own:

For signing treaties inimical to our national interests:

For cutting off free trade with worthy countries such as Colombia, yet opening trade with evil countries such as China:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us of our constitutional rights of property, life, and self-protection at every opportunity:

For creating rules that encroach on freedom of religion:

For increasing the size of government to never before seen size and power in a manner against our founding principles and for purposefully creating chaos in business, banking, and every other area of the private sector with never ending regulations that strangle, confuse, and stifle American growth:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

And for corrupting our legislatures with federal largess and assuming unto the federal government all powers to rule from Washington D.C.

It has abdicated its Constitutional role and essentially come to see the people as an enemy and waged philosophical war against us.

It has plundered our businesses with overweening regulations, capriciously outlawed entire fields of business, and burdened the lives of the people with oppressive taxes.

It has created an army of police, taxmen and regulators to fan out across the land to assault and imprison our citizens, to confiscate lands to federal ownership and to lay waste the economy and bring our people into a form of dependency akin to slavery.

It has often sent our armed forces to foreign nations without a proper mission, held back necessary funding, and burdened it with untenable “rules of engagement” which has limited our troop’s ability to fight to win, and has allowed barbarous enemies to gain the upper hand on the battle field.

It has attempted to separate the citizenry into warring factions yet has allowed our enemy to easily enter the country and perpetrate a merciless Muslim warfare which is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, religions and American institutions and intends enslavement of us all.

In every stage of these violations millions of citizens have gathered in the streets to protest these government outrages yet no heed has been paid to the agony of the people in its hallowed halls.

Nor have we been heard by our Democrat brethren. We have warned them of the destruction of the American rule of law, yet they are uninterested in this plight. We have appealed to their love of country and we have reminded them of the glorious history of our great nation to no avail. They have turned a deaf ear to Constitutionality, a cold shoulder to our American character, and our law and we find their sympathies lie with Europeans instead of their fellow Americans. We must, therefore, consider them enemies of our national interests, safety, health, and welfare.

We, therefore, the representatives of the American tradition and character assemble as citizens proud of our history and institutions, and in the tradition of our national power being held in the hands of the people, assert our loyalty to our true American system. We hold this government to be illegitimate by its usurpation of power and its obviation of our laws. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence that has been rejected by our enemies, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

We’ve already had the tea party. Now, let the new revolution begin!

O.: I want to yammer on about corporate jets

Staff: OK, that’s good, because Americans are really concerned about them. You should probably mention Independence Day

O.: You mean that right wingnut holiday? Is that this weekend? What’s it about?

S.: It’s Monday, Mr. President. Same day as your daughter’s birthday. And means a lot to the flag lovers

O.: Really? Oh, well, stick it on the ‘prompter

And we get

Right now, there are a lot of folks who are still struggling with the effects of the recession. They’re wondering how they’d deal with an unexpected expense if their car breaks down. They’re worried about layoffs. They’re not sure if they can help their kids pay for college. And for many families, these challenges were around long before the recession hit in 2007.

Like, always, but, obviously, this is an attempt to offset the Right side point about Democrats taking over Congress in 2007, and blaming Bush and the GOP.

I ran for President because I believed in an America where ordinary folks could get ahead; where if you worked hard, you could have a better life. That’s been my focus since I came into office, and that has to be our focus now. It’s one of the reasons why we’re working to reduce our nation’s deficit. Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

All About O. Yet, perhaps he has learned something, and that is government has to “start living within its means.”

The good news is, Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to solve the problem. And over the last few weeks, the Vice President and I have gotten both parties to identify more than $1 trillion in spending cuts. That’s trillion with a ‘t.’ But after a decade in which Washington ran up the country’s credit card, we’ve got to find more savings to get out of the red. That means looking at every program and tax break in the budget – every single one – to find places to cut waste and save money. It means we’ll have to make tough decisions and scale back worthy programs. And nothing can be off limits, including spending in the tax code, particularly the loopholes that benefit very few individuals and corporations.

Face palm. “Spending in the tax code.” That means tax hikes. But, I sort of agree: let’s look at every tax break. How about looking at some of those tax free funds that benefit millionaires? We should look at those, too.

Now, it would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can’t afford them. Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help – then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else. We’ve got to say to a student, ‘You don’t get a college scholarship.’ We have to say to a medical researcher, ‘You can’t do that cancer research.’ We might have to tell seniors, ‘You have to pay more for Medicare.’

Yes, he is going to yammer about this for quite some time, apparently. Much like his slurpee and driving into a ditch points, he seems to love the corporate jet thing. Good thing Obama doesn’t receive all sorts of tax free perks, like a private chef, a country vacations estate, use of jumbo jets, a rent free McMansion, and a $50,000 entertainment budget. Taxpayer funded and tax free, trips around the world. People in the private sector have to pay tax on the value of private jet trips. I’m not saying Obama should pay a tax on them, he won the job of POTUS, even if he doesn’t act like one, but, it is rather hypocritical of him to complain when he jumps on AF1 to make a quick jaunt to a fundraiser.

On Monday, we celebrate Independence Day, the day we declared a new nation, based on revolutionary idea: that people ought to determine their own destiny; that freedom and self-governance weren’t gifts handed to us by kings or emperors, but the rights of every human being. We’ve learned in the years since that democracy isn’t always pretty. We have arguments. We disagree. But time and again we’ve proven that we could come together to solve problems. We remember that while we may not see eye-to-eye on everything, we share a love for this country and a faith in its future. That’s the spirit we need to harness now. That’s how we’ll meet this challenge and reach a brighter day. Thanks for listening, and have a wonderful fourth of July.

So good of him to finally mention Independence Day….wait, what was that thing about people determining their own destiny? Freedom and self-governance? How does that jibe with ObamaCare and the individual mandate? And corporate jets? Raising taxes? Hey, wasn’t part of the Declaration of Independence about taxes?

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

Humph.

We also have the requisite photo of Obama looking snooty, which comes from the video.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

If there was any doubt about how hostile the Old Media is toward tax cuts, spending cuts, and making government accountable and Constitutionally justifiable, CBS’ Bob Schieffer is happy to dispel that doubt. On the April 17 episode of Face the Nation, Schieffer asked Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WS) why we can’t just soak the rich to solve our budget problems.

In a discussion with Rep. Ryan, the GOP’s go-to budget guy, Schieffer expressed his shock that government doesn’t just tax the bejeebus out of “the wealthiest Americans.” Schieffer was aghast at how the GOP is “reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay” and asked Ryan if he, Schieffer, is “misinformed” about the whole tax cut issue.

Ryan was kind not to point out that Schieffer is, indeed, “misinformed”… as usual.

But, perhaps Schieffer isn’t merely misinformed. Perhaps he is ideologically blinded? His comments seem to prove that he is.

“You have two very different approaches that are now out there, Schieffer said to Ryan. “The President wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans… and you actually want to lower taxes on the wealthy, even lower than the Bush tax cuts which were enacted during the Bush administration… why do these rich people need another tax cut? I mean, they’re already rich. They seem to be doing pretty well as it is now. Why cut their taxes some more?” (See video at the CBS website or see transcript)

This fits well with the left’s constant hate-the-rich-hate-the-rich class warfare drumbeat. After all, Schieffer is only following the lead of a president who once arrogantly said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Ryan went on to correct Schieffer’s misconception about what his plan does.

First of all we’re not talking about cutting taxes. We’re just not agreeing with the President’s tax increases. I guess that’s the new definition of tax cuts. We’re saying keep tax rates where they are right now. Get rid of all those loopholes and deductions, which by the way, are mostly enjoyed by wealthy people so you can lower tax rates.

This, Ryan explained, even fits with the recommendations from Obama’s own fiscal commission, recommendations that Democrats supported only a year ago.

Schieffer was having none of it, though. The aging newser insisted that soaking the rich would solve everything.

I guess the part that I don’t quite understand — and I take your proposal to be a serious one — but the part I don’t understand is if the country is going bankrupt, if the country needs to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, how do you help that by reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay? It would be seem to me that’s where you get revenue. How do you justify that?

You have to hear the exasperation in Schieffer’s voice. Once you do you’ll understand that he isn’t just being a good journalist forcing the hard questions on his subject. He truly believes the class warfare pap he is spewing. It is clear that Schieffer is wholly blinded to the simple fact that government is illicitly spending many times more than it takes in and that the solution is neither “borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that it spends” nor hiking taxes to soak the rich. It is telling that cutting federal spending seemed to be a concept that Schieffer rejected outright as a possible solution to what ails our federal budget.

As I said, this all fits with the class warfare agenda of the left. In fact, it can be phrased as a moral argument. This excerpt from Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform by Leslie Carbone helps draw that distinction.

The progressive tax system is based on envy, the “resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage.” … the modern U.S. tax code was imposed in response to so-called progressives agitating against the natural inequality in wealth distribution. Basing public policy on envy teaches people to nurture their natural tendency toward this vice, instead of to resist and rise above it. It encourages everyone to think himself a victim and perpetuates resentment because there will always be something to envy.

If that isn’t a perfect explication of the left’s class warfare agenda, what is? And if this episode of Face the Nation is any indication, Bob Schieffer is pleased to be a vehement class warrior hoping to keep the green monster of envy roiling us all.

President Obama will hit the road this week and forcibly deliver his message that a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes on the rich is necessary to rein in the nation’s rocketing debt — a high-stakes effort to rally public support ahead of a series of contentious budget battles in Congress.

“Forcibly?” Anyone else have the image of Zach Golfarb and Perry Bacon, Jr, jumping up and down, clapping their hands, and squealing like 14 year old cheerleaders while writing this piece?

From Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale to Facebook’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, Obama will make a series of campaign-style stops in an effort to block a Republican plan that would reduce the deficit by dramatically changing Medicare and reducing spending on education and other social programs.

You know what would seriously change Medicare and reduce spending on education and other social programs? Having the government default on its obligations because there is no more of other people’s money.

Obama faces a political necessity — claiming the debt issue as his own — and a political opportunity. Recent polls show that Americans disapprove of his record on the deficit. But sizable majorities agree that a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes on the wealthy — Obama’s vision — is the best prescription for the nation’s fiscal malady.

The debt issue is mostly his own….along with other Democrats….because he has added more to the debt, and the deficit, over the last two years than any other president came close to during the past 200+ years. As far as higher taxes go, that won’t solve anything, but, it will make idiots feel good about sticking it to those evil rich people who just stole the money off the backs of the poor workers (unless the rich are Democrats and donate to Obama, then they are great people.)

Still, some analysts say, the challenge for Obama will be to link his position on reining in the debt to efforts that would boost the economy. The high joblessness rate, stagnant wages and soaring gas prices represent a triple threat to Obama’s reelection, but the president has virtually no options left to spur job growth before 2012.

I take back the 14 year old cheerleader crack: the two seem to have lost their hopey changey feeling, and highlight that Obama is pretty much out of ideas, other than “tax the rich.” The Stimulus failed, just as predicted. Yammering on about “green jobs” didn’t make them magically appear out of a unicorns butt. And…well, that was it. That’s what Obama pushed. After that, he was lost. Clueless. Which is no surprise, but, one would think the President would have some advisers who understand how to create jobs….no? There aren’t any? They’re political hacks with little experience in the real world, too? Who would have thunk it?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

President Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on “the rich,” and he defines rich as those making more than $250,000 a year. Two professors at prestigious universities have started brush fires on the Web during the past couple of weeks by taking issue and offering themselves as examples. One says raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 is unfair. The other says it’s inefficient and will discourage work. Fairness and efficiency are the two measures of any tax policy, so that about covers it. Fairness is subjective, but efficiency has a precise definition: A tax should change people’s incentives as little as possible (unless it changes them on purpose in a positive way — like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s idea of taxing junk food).

Unfortunately, fairness is defined differently by liberals. It means taking one persons money and giving it to the government so they can spend it unwisely.

Professor No. 1 teaches law at The University of Chicago. He got up on the wrong side of the bed one day and banged out a short, self-righteous screed. He wrote that although he makes more than the magic $250,000, he nonetheless objects to being called rich and being asked to fork out more money for taxes. He says that higher taxes will require real sacrifices — and not just from him. He may have to sell his house and cars. Or he may fire the hardworking Mexican legal immigrant who mows his lawn.

Actually, the screed was rather whiny, and a poor way to defend not jacking taxes on “the rich.” Even the Wall Street Journal takes the writer, Joe Henderson, to task, and offers some advice. Yet, he makes a good point: why should his family be forced to pay more simply for doing well? I still don’t have much sympathy for him, though, since, like the good liberal Henderson is, he thinks those making millions should be taxed hard. In Liberal World, it’s always about someone else’s money. Anyhow, let’s move on from Joe

Professor No. 2 is Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who was President George W. Bush’s chief economic adviser. Mankiw wrote an upsetting column in The New York Times a couple of weeks ago, saying that if Obama gets his way on taxes, he (Mankiw) would face a marginal tax rate (the tax on his next dollar of earnings) of 90 percent. Ninety percent! Mankiw did not whine about unfairness. His point was entirely about the effect this would have on his work incentive. (While the whiny law professor is selling his car to raise money for taxes, Mankiw will be turning down paid lecture opportunities because taxes make them not worth it to him.)

Apparently, it is upsetting to offer actual facts about what high taxation can do to the economy. And because Mankiw is an “intellectually honest conservative.”

Of course, when the government is spending $1.3 trillion more than it brings in and borrowing more than a third of what it spends, the details of the tax law almost don’t matter. You’ve got to start making some assumptions about who will ultimately bear the burden of this year’s spending and the effect this will have on that person’s work incentive. (Even deficit doves like Berkeley professor Brad DeLong are quoting Milton Friedman’s famous truism: “To spend is to tax,” meaning that today’s spending commits you to pay for it, however much you initially put off.) If people making more than $250,000 a year can’t be asked to dig a little deeper, who can?

I have a good idea for who can dig a little deeper: the government. They can stop spending so darned much, pare back, live within their means. Raising taxes is like taking away your kids’ allowance so daddy can buy that new 50 inch 3D flat screen with only one pair of 3D glasses, and a 3d Blu-Ray player. Only dad gets to watch.

Why should any group be penalized because the government is irresponsible with the People’s money? If someone is living well above their means, purchasing a car and home they can’t afford, maxing out their credit cards, do we feel sorry for them? Does the bank say “oh, that’s OK, little buddy, here’s a new line of credit”? Or do we tell the person to sell the house, sell the car, and live within their salary?

If someone is making above that magical $250,000 line, exactly what is it to you, Liberals? What business is it of yours? We all know the answer, of course. It is that the Left always has to have someone to demonize. Liberal World is negative, and someone must always be penalized. What they always fail to grasp is that if you abuse your players for winning the championship game, you won’t get the same effort and results next time. And then climate change destroys the field.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Re-Change 2010!