7/15/2009

Hail to The Confiscator


Of course, Barack Hussein Obama was giddy in the clubhouse at last night's All Star Game. The Jock Sniffer in Chief must have sensed the potential tsunami of tax revenue in the presence of all those rich Major League professionals. Those guys, and non All Stars alike, ultimately are paying for Obamacare. As reported Monday by Reuters:

WASHINGTON - A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent, congressional sources said. The tax rate is higher than the 3 percent surtax lawmakers had been discussing earlier and would be imposed on those making more than $1 million a year, the sources said.

But what I can not understand is all of the fawning by these players or, for that matter, millions of their fellow Americans, over this Radical Socialist POTUS amid mounting evidence that Obama's agenda specifically seeks to confiscate billions of dollars from productive citizens, be they pro athletes, business owners, educated professionals in fields such as law and finance, or others justly compensated based on exemplary performance.

If you want a sense of where household earning power is headed, watch replays of that limp-wristed first pitch Obama tossed from the pitcher's mound at Busch Stadium. It was delivered on a strictly downward trajectory. In addition to the new looming surtax, a higher ceiling on income tax rates is forthcoming as well as the return of the crippling 55% death tax.

In fact, the pitch looked a lot like some of the softball questions Obama entertained during an interview by Fox Sports' Joe Buck when he joined Buck and commentator Tim McCarver in the booth Tuesday night.

Buck opined that the poor sleep deprived POTUS must have been happy to attend a baseball game, recounting Obama's recent trip to Russia, Italy and Africa. Had Buck been able to reel in his tongue from the floor, he might have chosen a different line of questioning for the peculiar looking world leader, he of the White Sox jacket (on a 79-degree night), blue jeans and sneakers.

Buck: "You've just come back from Russia, where you made dangerous concessions on missile defense, and from the G8 in Rome, where you met with the Pontiff, and later checked out the backside of a 16-year-old Brazilian girl while photographers feasted, before going to Africa because, well, Michelle and the girls thought it would be fun".

White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle, in a later on-camera chat, lamented he had not had a chance to pose for a photo with the former Chicago street organizer and occasional Illinois Senator. "That's OK," Buehrle said. "He has a lot more important things to do."

Obama could not agree with you more, young man. It is very important that he and his Socialist disciples get their hands on an additional 5.4% of your $14,000,000 salary, just as soon as possible.

With BHO in the house, Buehrle needed a bodyguard and a safe, not a camera.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

So every one making a big pile of money is "justly" compensated, even crooks like Milken Madoff & Lay? A-Rod makes 25 mil a year because it is just, not because of scarcity and the New York team has a big pile of money?

Let's consider justice at the other end of the scale. Imagine someone with a family who works 40 hours a week at a physically demanding job, say, roofing or pouring asphalt. What is just compensation for this person? What about someone who has a very risky job, such as a miner. What is just for this person? Shouldn't they be able to work hard at a dangerous job for 20 years and retire with full benefits and health care>?

How much more than the people at the bottom is it just for the people at the top to earn? 5x? 10x? 100x? Is there no limit? Is it just?

The Daily Pander said...

Madoff and Lay were criminals, so I'd say, no their comp was hardly just. A-Rod is paid by the fans so in that context he's worth it.

I'd add, before deciding what's just, lets decide on who gets to decide. It's just as problematic.

Johnny Keynes said...

Anon: Just because work is physically difficult does not mean that it should be highly compensated. You are delving into an area of labor economics that, in its own right, could have an entire blog dedicated to it. That said, let me make a couple of points:

Taking your example of miners, there are certainly far more people capable of doing and willing to do that job than there are jobs available. This explains why the conditions for miners were historically so bad. Because the supply of potential miners far exceeded the demand.

Enter the unions. Unions have done a great job of providing better pay, better benefits and safer working conditions than the freely operating market would dictate. So, in that sense, they are actually paid better than the market would otherwise determine.

Justice? Is it just for someone to earn 100X the bottom? Sure. If that person is creating 100x (or more) the benefit to society in whatever form that may take, be it wealth, be it creativity...whatever. And what determines this benefit? The market. It is why Goldman Sachs attracts the best clients and why Coca Cola sells more cola and why the iPod is an international standard for listening devices. And behind each of these organizations is a relatively small group of people that make this possible. Why shouldn't they be rewarded for their success? How else do you encourage innovation and enterprise? Do you really believe that altruism and subjective measures of "justice" can replace that? Ask the Soviets how that worked out.

And how about guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? They are certainly extremely wealthy, but they have also taken that wealth and channeled it back into charitable organizations. Just not the ones that the US government might choose... and that, I suspect, is what the real argument about justice boils down to: a few people in Washington that see piles of cash that they want to control.

The Daily Pander said...

Johnny:

I'd add to your comment about miners: "there are certainly far more people capable of learning, doing..." Ability to learn screens out some, but still not enough to create a shortage. A small but relevant wrinkle.

Anonymous said...

Health care reform, done right, will lower overall costs. What is paid in taxes to support reform will be more than made up in savings through reduced costs.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Johnny Keynes said...

Anon: Apparently you missed the CBO report.

Also, while some would argue with your quote (I won't), there is a point when the bottom half pay almost nothing and the top 10% pay the majority of taxes where we have gone way too far. The "pay their fair share" argument has lost all meaning when the top earners will be paying a marginal rate in excess of 50% in 39 states.