Bridges & Hoes

Last week, the President stood below a 48 year old bridge and told the American people his new stimulus jobs bill would fix all of the structurally deficient bridges that his previous jobs stimulus bill did not get around to fixing. In order to pay for it, the "rich" have to pay their "fair share".

Also last week, a Democratic candidate for Senate spent time lecturing America on how no one gets rich without "the rest of us" paying for their roads and security from "marauding bands" as if these "factory owners" paid nothing into this system themselves. No mention is made, however, to the fact that not one dollar in taxes would be collected without first a business being created and generating income subject to taxation.

A concerted effort is being made to demonize those that maintain and create wealth in this country. The President is repeatedly calling for a fairer system, although no one is clear on exactly what that means. He says he is a "warrior" for those who feel a billionaire should pay a higher income tax rate than his secretary, never mind the fact that he already does.

Some on the Left have a semblance of economic reality, however, and disagree with the plan. Former President Bill Clinton says although he's one of the rich and willing to pay more, the plan won't work. In addition to knowing that taxing everyone making in excess of one million 100% of their income will not fund the deficits we have, maybe President Clinton is more cognizant of the impact of Ms. Warren's views, should they be translated into actual policy.

According to the famed Harvard professor and aspiring Senator, people who generate their wealth on the backs of others should be commended (but really condescended) and are more than entitled to keep their "hunk" of the wealth created. But the rest should be contributed to the common good. Of course, this is exactly how our system currently functions. What is left unsaid is just how big that "hunk" should be.

Perhaps one can apply this idea towards funding President Obama's new stimulus jobs bill. Mr. Clinton, whom has made considerable wealth for himself as a result of a long career in politics, would not have sold near the amount of books, made near the number of paid speaking engagements nor secured the many other lucrative opportunities gained from having been President of the United States.

Using Ms. Warren's logic, perhaps Mr. Clinton's income and foundation endowment as a result of these endeavors could be considered property of the State and Mr. Clinton granted a "living" stipend as a person of public importance. Wouldn't this be a strong down payment on President Obama's new plan? And why stop there? Ms. Warren has been featured prominently in liberal activist Michael Moore's revenue-generating propaganda. Since Mr. Moore has received an inordinately large income as a result of misguided souls overpaying to listen to his filth in movie theaters, perhaps Mr. Moore owes the country beyond his current tax bill.


Recently President Obama joked that the first jobs stimulus funded projects were not quite as shovel-ready as he originally advertised. Nothing has changed this time around. It appears they are only ready for hoes.