A Partial Retraction

In yesterday's Liberal English to English translation I may have been mistaken. Perhaps liberals do, in fact, feel that the rich haven't been paying their fair share. For example, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and censured Representative Charles "What Would Jesus Debt" Rangel (D. NY) both failed to report income for tax purposes. So maybe liberals were just calling themselves out. I'd pay good money to see a reporter ask Representative Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) how much she has decided to give to the government to make up for the fact that her family isn't paying its fair share through the income tax.

Today's Liberal English to English Translation

Representative Xavier Barcerra (D. CA) echoed a common theme on FOX News Sunday parroting the Democratic line of paying "their fair share". Specifically, he said that rich people haven't been paying their fair share. Let's translate this liberal English into English.

The rich need to pay their fair share = wealth belongs to the United States government, not to the individual. If a person earns money, what they are allowed to keep is only by the grace of the United States government. This is especially true if they are good at creating wealth or earning money. The more you earn, the more you are taking away from the government and we intend to take it back from you. You are evil.

Tomorrow we will translate "tax breaks for the rich".

No Comment

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the commentary of disgraced and unrepentant Representative Charlie Rangel (D. NY) commenting on the budget deficit negotiations. If you keep your lunch down, you have bested my response.

Must See TV

CNBC contributor Rick Santelli is on fire again. The arguable father of the Tea Party, popped off today on the mythical potential of default and the spending addiction of Congress. He's dead right, no compromise on spending.

Today's Recommended Reading, Part II

I rarely find much of interest in Pat Buchanan's opinions. However, this article on Real Clear Politics makes a compelling case for why the Republicans should hold their ground on no net tax increases as part of any budget deal. Notice that he mentions President Reagan cut a deal in 1982 for $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases and was burned. President Bush the elder made a similar deal, backtracking on his pledge of no new taxes in return for $2 in cuts for every $1 in taxes, which was turned into an actual spending increase. Not surprisingly, President Bush lost his reelection bid. You can bet that Democrats want to see the same thing happen so that they can retake the House.

Today's Recommended Reading

Charles Krauthammer knocks it out of the park again with this piece. I adore the part where he notes that our demagogue in chief's favorite targets of late, oil and corporate jets, if taxed in the manner he proposes, would, in 50 years, make up President Obama's deficit spending for February 2011. The problem is, will the public see thought the rhetoric, or will the liars who appeal to emotion and class warfare over logic win again?

Must See TV

Wow. Talk about your blatant lies. Yesterday President Obama talked about his pay freeze for White House employees, and indeed, bragged about how they have had their pay cut. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with reality.