Let me be as forthright as possible in my rejection of Obama's screed. The United States is not in debt, nor are we, as such, in need of more money, because people aren't paying their fair share. It's because Obama and Congress have refused to cut spending. And gutting the military as a means to appease his socialist base is not synonymous with spending reductions, but that's a subject for another day.
Congress has been on an uncontrolled spending spree for the last 50 years, and Obama has exacerbated that problem by increased spending in a way that was heretofore unparalleled, even if not unimagined.
You've heard it said before, but if every so-called rich person in America turned over the last penny of their income and savings to the federal government, it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit, and it wouldn't halt or curtail the spending of Obama and the Congress.
Advertisement - story continues below
Internal White House polling and focus groups told Obama the verbiage he needed to use in his State of the Union speech. As I recently wrote in "My Daily Rant" column entitled "Obama Didn't Mention This Buffett/Soros Factoid Last Night": "Obama's speechwriters handed [him] a speech that, as Byron Tau pointed out at Politico.com … was … rated at an eighth-grade comprehension level on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test – the third-lowest score of any SOTU address since 1934." (mychal-massie.com/premium/; Jan. 25, 2012)
Carefully consider what I am saying, in conjunction with the research conducted by Byron Tau. America is standing on the very precipice of financial collapse under the weight of debt and spending. And Obama ordered polling and focus group studies that told him that a speech on an eighth-grade level was needed if his lies were to be believed by a sufficient enough segment of the population. Think about that – Obama purposefully gave a speech that was designed to foment resentment and immiseration in those he believed easiest to convince.
Specific to Tau's findings, I would like to address the issue of hostility toward the so-called rich by offering a few common-sense approaches pursuant to bringing more money into government coffers. Hopefully they're on a level the eighth-grade populace Obama was appealing to can understand.
The first place to start, as one of my Twitter followers suggested, is with Obama and his family. Why do the Obamas need a salary? Everything they need is provided at taxpayer expense: They receive housing, meals, health care, travel expenses, clothing, etc. They want for nothing. Their children attend the finest academy in the Potomac area. Think of the message it would send to suffering Americans, if he were to work for $1 a year, just as many business leaders do.
Advertisement - story continues below
Think about the message it would send if Michelle Obama surrendered her $15,000-per-day makeup person, her $11,000 hoop earrings, $2,000 skirts, multi-thousand dollar sun skirts and dresses, $40,000 bracelets and Roger Vivier shoes (maker of the most expensive shoes in the world). Think of the message she would send if she practiced the same temperance she preaches when it comes to her extravagant dinners, lavish multi-million dollar vacations, and the presidential jet for herself and her friends, as well as the family dog. Would the public think less of her if she were to forego $50,000 Madison Ave. spending sprees for undergarments just for her?
Let all of her taxpayer-provided shoes and clothing be auctioned off at the end of every year during the Obamas' time in office. Sarah Palin's campaign-provided clothing and shoes were auctioned off. If the Obamas want something to keep, let them pay for it from the private incomes or savings they had when they were elected. If Obama's wife needs a $15,000-a-day makeup person – let Oprah pay for it, since she uses the same guy.
Think of the money they could give back to the government if they practiced what they were preaching.
And let's not stop there – we should insist on the same for Congress. Congress is not subject to insider-trading laws – I submit they should turn over to the government all monies they've made from their privileged advanced stock market knowledge. They should not receive special health plans and special pensions. Let them serve for a similar dollar amount our local boards of supervisors earn. Many locally elected supervisors around the nation serve either for free or for nominal dollars, and they are responsible for managing our municipalities. Most hold full-time jobs to support their families – they don't leach off the taxpaying public.
If Obama and Congress did something like that, we might find it less offensive when they attack the rich as not paying their fair share. It would also indicate that they are serious about cutting spending overall.