… Jake Tapper, ABC, asked Obama
about the compromise that he might make on extending the Bush tax cuts.
Right now, of course, the tax cuts will eliminate, stop for everybody,
$250,000 or more, and maybe everybody’s taxes will be raised. But
believe me, there’s no tax cuts on the table. And Jake Tappersaid,
(paraphrasing) “Would you compromise and say people who make a million
dollars a year will not see their tax decrease, tax cut sunsetted?”
And I started thinking, where’s
all this talk of rich equaling $250,000 a year, a million a year, where
does all this start? What right does Obama have to sit there and
proclaim that people who earn X are gonna be punished with Y, people who
earn less than X won’t be punished with Y?
Do you notice how easy it is to
fall into the premise trap that the left sets? Looked at within the
prism of liberty and freedom, as our founding documents spell out—the
Declaration, the Constitution—in nowhere in any of our founding
documents was it ever said that people earning X would be punished for
it. It was never said in our founding documents that people earning X
would share a greater burden of funding the government than people who
didn’t.
Where does all this talk start? Because all this is nothing more than a direct attack on liberty,
a direct attack on freedom and it creates class envy and resentment and
anger between the classes, between people of different income groups.
So all of a sudden we’re faced
with a possibility here of the Bush tax cuts ending for people who earn
$250,000 a year or more. Well, why are we even discussing it in the
first place? What did those people do? What is the magic? Who sets
arbitrarily this figure of $250,000 a year? Why are they targeted?
And look how easily people fall
into the trap of debating the premise, when the real question is when is
the federal government going to assume responsibility for the deficit
spending, for the irresponsible position they put this country in? When
are they going to be forced to reduce the behavior, to limit
the behavior they are engaging in that is causing a usurpation of our
liberty and freedom? The question is not: Should people who make
$250,000 or $500,000 or one million for some reason pay a higher burden
of supporting the folly and the irresponsibility of people like Barack
Obama and most people in government?
Why are we even debating the
premise if we really believe in liberty, if we really believe in
freedom? Why do we acknowledge a premise that states: The successful are
gonna get punished, the successful are gonna pay the price? Where is it
written that the people who create the problem get to demand that people who had nothing to do with creating the problem
solve it, but first get blamed for it, because that’s really what’s
happening here. People who are making $250,000 or $500,000 or a million,
according to people like Barack Obama, and in fact most people in
Washington, are somehow to blame for our deficit, somehow to blame for
this out-of-control spending, somehow to blame for this generational
theft.
What did they do? What did the
people earning $250,000 do to create this problem? What did the people
who earn a million dollars do to create the problem? What did the people
who earn $500,000 a year do? What have they done that resulted in this
irresponsibility in Washington? Nothing! The people who earn
$250 or 500,000 or a million are in fact the people who are investing in
this country and the private sector hiring other people, producing
products and services that allow for the country’s economy to grow and
for people to have jobs and to earn higher wages!
The federal government, the state government cannot and does not create wealth. All it can do is destroy it. All it can do is confiscate
it. And what we’re doing is discussing the proper level of servitude.
What is your price? What are you going to have to pay for the
irresponsibility and for the misnamed, the maligned, the stupid, and the
incorrect policies of liberals like Barack Obama? What level of
servitude will you have to bear the responsibility for something you had
nothing to do with? At what level are we going to proclaim: You are
more guilty than another citizen based on how much you earn? Where in
our founding documents, where in Natural Law, where in the Constitution
are these principles written?
So when Jake Tapper stands up,
“Are you willing to compromise, Mr. President? Are you willing to
compromise, maybe go $500,000 a year they get to keep the Bush tax cut,
maybe a million?” And Obama, as the all-knowing, the all-whatever,
“Yeah, I’ll think about it,” as though he has any right to. Who is Barack Obama to be able to say that any citizen in this country has to pay more to support his mistakes because of what they
earn. And why do so many of us fall into the trap of thinking: Yeah,
that’s fair? Why are so many people willing—accidentally,
purposefully—to squander and give up their liberty and freedom so that
they do not have to feel the guilt?
What is the price of your
freedom? You know, it used to be that Americans would give up their
lives before they would give up their freedom. Americans would give up
their lives before other people would have to give up their freedom.
Americans would give their lives so that others might be free.
Now, who made Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or any Democrat, I don’t care, any Democrat, who made them the decider on what anybody should make and then what level of taxation they should pay?
Who made them the deciders on what we should eat?
Who made them the decider of what kind of lightbulbs we have in our homes?
Who made them the deciders on the kind of car we should drive?
Who made them the deciders on what kinda house we live in?
Who made them the deciders of when and where we can and can’t turn our lights on?
Who made them the deciders of who loses how much of their freedom?
Who gave them that power? It doesn’t come from the Constitution! The Constitution does not
say the Democrat Party gets to decide which car people drive, which
lightbulb they have, what foods they can and can’t eat, and what lights
they can’t turn off or on at what time of year. The Constitution does not say that the Democrat Party gets to decide any of this. The Constitution does not
envision this kind of usurpation of freedom. The Constitution does not
envision nor allow for this kind of invasion of private property rights
or overall liberty or freedom. It has to have been a political party
looking at the Constitution and being unhappy with what it says,
ignoring it in order to implement their policy.
So now we have a guy who is the
least qualified in any room he walks into being aske