Let me say from the outset that I don’t care what President Obama does with his own money, as it is completely none of my concern. What is of my concern is when he decides what he wants to do with my money as well as the money of other American people. When his first instinct is not what he will do with his own personal money to help those in need, but what he will do with the money of Americans through various federal government programs, then I have a serious problem. This is about leadership, setting an example, and following the Constitution. While he flies around in what is a private jet paid for by taxpayers, goes on exotic trips with his family (sometimes the family and entourage go without him), and has weekly concerts at the White House with big name entertainers, it is hard to get a sense that he truly believes in “shared sacrifice” when he and his wife are taking full advantage of all of the perks of being in the White House, even in the heart of an economic crisis.
President Obama says he is a Christian, so I will take him at his word. As a Christian, I would expect him, particularly as someone who has been blessed financially, to give out of his own abundance, and encourage others (such as those entertainers he summoned to the White House) to give to help those who are in need in their own communities. But he hasn’t given much himself until only recently. In this past tax year (2010), the Obama’s gave 14.2% of their adjusted gross income of $1,728,096. Vice President Joe Biden, on an adjusted gross income of $379,178, gave $5,350 in charity, or 1.4%, which is just as laughable as it is hypocritical when he tells the wealthy to be “patriotic” and “get in the game” by supporting higher taxes for government programs. In 2009, the Obama’s gave $329,100 to charity on an adjusted gross income of $5.5 million, which is about 6%. Before Obama ran for President, his giving was typically in this range or lower, sometimes even less than 1%. So while I’m happy that the Obama’s are finally giving, it is clear that the increase in giving is because they are now squarely in the public eye, but historically exhibit no example in giving. Obama has always been about giving other people’s money and accepting credit for it, which is a bad habit that needs to cease.
This past week in a speech Obama revealed that he has hundreds of thousands of dollars more than he needs, and thus “millionaires and billionaires” such as himself should pay a “little bit more” in taxes. Well why exactly should they pay a little more when the top 1% already pay 38% of taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the taxes? It seems to me millionaires and billionaires are paying their fair share and some, so I don’t understand Obama playing an ill-advised class warfare card. But that’s not the point. The point is that if Obama can raise the taxes of millionaires and billionaires in the name of “shared sacrifice” and “fairness” so that he can continue his scheme of redistributing wealth instead of helping to create it, then he is only deflecting the fact that he isn’t sacrificing much himself even though he is, by his own admission, sitting on large sums of money that he says he doesn’t need. It’s always easier to force someone else to give “a little bit more” than to instead sacrifice yourself, and then ask others who may be so blessed to follow in your footsteps. A small increase in taxes on himself and other wealthy people is no sacrifice, but writing a big check could be.
My suggestion to President Obama is that he begin thinking like a businessman and begin thinking constitutionally (both of which I know are extremely hard for him). The solution to improving the lot of ordinary Americans is not more or bigger government programs, but to create an environment that causes people who have capital to invest that capital, thereby creating opportunities and jobs for those who lack it (and contrary to liberal opinion, the wealthy don’t keep their money under mattresses, but invest that money and also buy things like private jets that average Americans build). I think even Obama would be surprised at what would happen in terms of revenues and jobs in a low tax environment without onerous regulations designed to keep entrepreneurs under the thumb of big government. And being constitutional means ceasing to do things the federal government is not designed to do, and is no good at anyway. Just leave the money at the state and local levels closest to the point of need, and instead of encouraging higher federal taxes, give of your own excess at the local level and encourage others who have in excess of what they need to give as well. That would be true leadership, and setting a good example. If others don’t follow suit, then we have a larger moral problem that even the federal government cannot solve.
Comments on this entry are closed.