[img]1|left|||no_popup[/img]My sweet-tongued liberal Democratic friends, in cooperation with their duty-bound acolytes at the Los Angeles Times, once again are prowling the dark corridors of phobia, thumping their skintight drums for He Who Is Without Sin:
Let us say that 20 years ago you went into business with a partner, an old friend from school days. Your contract stipulated that every expense and all revenue would be flatly shared 50-50.
But on the day the first mortgage payment on your property was due, your pal developed a sudden case of the fiscal chills, a pattern that would turn out to be permanent. Being a good guy who wanted the business to thrive, you uncomplainingly paid the lion’s share of the bills, 71 percent to be precise. Meanwhile, your partner, the bookkeeper, insists on grabbing at least 50 percent of the revenues because any less would be unfair.
At 3 o’clock this afternoon, Old Pal celebrated the 20th consecutive year of suffering from chills, meaning that you are still paying almost three-quarters of the bills, 71 percent.
Old Pal speaks up. “Given these difficult economic times,” he says, “71 percent does not cover what it used to. I am going to recommend to the board that you increase your payments to 78 percent.” Being hardworking and sensible, you, I presume, would revolt. Clearly, Old Pal is a Democrat. He demands something big in exchange for doing very little. He thinks it is unfair that you are paying out so little, 71 percent, while he is paying out so much, 29 percent.
Is He Who Wearing See-Through Skin?
In the week that we learned Barack Obama’s skin is the only commodity in the Western world thinner than his ankle-high resume, the gimlet-eyed gazelles at the L.A. Times rode to the rescue of He Who Is Without Sin for, I believe, the 631st consecutive edition this morning.
Reporter Stevie Braun, who conducted himself more professionally when he worked for an East Coast newspaper, rolled his ethics into an old-fashioned paper airplane yesterday, sailed it out the window and sat down to compose this morning’s lead story.
Being a loyal liberal and frequently undiscerning Democrat, Mr. Braun suffers from a paralyzing case of Villification of the Successful and Enshrinement of the Failed. Violating several of journalism’s most sacred rules — facts, objectivity, balance — he wrote an opinion piece that was passed off to gullible readers as a news story.
Mr. Braun argued He Who Is Without Sin should be elected President because He Who would punish the rich by raising their taxes again whereas Mr. McCain would not.
It galls Mr. Braun that rich people don’t go dead broke every period by paying an enormously burdensome rate of taxes while middle class, the self-anointed lazy and the poorest people practically get away scot free.
Consider:
The top 1 percent of Americans pay 40 percent of all income taxes.
The top 10 percent pay 71 percent of the taxes.
To say it differently, 90 percent of Americans pay a wispy 29 percent of taxes.
Regardless of whether you judge these proportions to be judicious or wildly unfair to the wealthy, hardly anything is left for you and me to pay.
Yet Mr. Obama has promised to punitively raise taxes on the wealthy while lowering taxes on the underclasses.
This is He Who’s devious Robin Hood strategy, a favorite Democratic weapon left overfrom the last century:
Old-fashioned wealth redistribution, moving great gobs of perspiringly earned income from the Hardworking to the Hardly Working.
If you or I tried that stunt as individuals, we would be jailed. But when the second most honest major political party in America makes the proposal, it is called the centerpiece of He Who’s strategy of making us all equally poor, setting off yet another of their standard brand class wars.
