It’s really not that difficult to show that Obama is operating not on the basis of any rational desire to reduce the deficit, but rather on an obsession for punishing the rich for the crime of becoming wealthy. 

Follow my logic here.  This is all so very simple that even the most die-hard, ObamaFanatic proggie can understand what is really going on.  I don’t expect a die-hard Obama supporter to read this and suddenly say “Ah Ha!  Boy have I been fooled!  Here’s what I do expect though:  No matter how dedicated you are to Barack Obama, if you will read through (or listen to this) with a halfway open mind you will come away with some serious doubts about his motives and methods.  No --- you won’t go telling your friends what you have discovered.  You won’t suddenly become an anti-Obama activist.  You’ll probably just keep your newfound knowledge and feelings to yourself … but at least you’ll be less inclined to take this man at face value in the future.  That, in and of itself, is a victory.

To do this we’re just going to engage in sort of a running narrative here.  I’ll use Obama’s own words, for they offer the greatest insight into the motivations behind his class warfare --- and yes, that best describes it – rhetoric over the years.

Let’s start with a few Obama moments that really open a window into this man’s feelings about wealth and taxes.  I’ve covered much of it before, but I can’t assume you were listening or reading Nealz Nuze on those days … so let’s hit some of the high points again. 

First … remember Joe the Plumber?  Joe encountered Obama as he walked down his street during a campaign photo op in 2008.  Joe asked Obama about his plans to raise taxes.  What Obama did NOT say to Joe is just as important as what he DID say.  He told Joe that taxes needed to be raised to spread the wealth around.  Not because the government needed the money.  Not because we needed to stop borrowing.  Not to get some money to pay down our debt.  No.  The taxes needed to be raised so that wealth could be spread around.  In starker terms, wealth needed to be seized from those who earned it and given to those who did not in order to make things fair.  So even while campaigning for president in 2008 Obama was promoting wealth seizure and redistribution.  Not taxation to fund the necessary and proper functions of government; but taxation for the sole purpose of taking money from one person and giving it to another.

Then … the infamous Charlie Gibson moment. 

It was April 16, 2008.  The occasion was a debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama. Charlie Gibson was the moderator.  The issue being discussed was Obama’s insistence on raising capital gains taxes. Here’s how the exchange went: 

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.  So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

There goes that “fair” word again.  Obama pays ardent attention to focus groups – especially focus groups made up of low-information Americans who would be convinced to vote for and support him.  He knows they love the word “fair.”  Why everyone wants to be fair, right?  Fair is, after all, fair!  So if it would be fair to raise capital gains taxes, then raising these taxes would only be the fair thing to do and fairness demands that it be done right away!  If not, it won’t be fair!

Recognizing that many people who heard (or read) this are exclusively government educated, let me explain what happened here.  Our so-called leader, Barack Obama, told Charlie Gibson that the reason he wanted to raise capital gains taxes was NOT to get needed revenue for the federal government – revenue to spend on new programs or to pay down our debt – but because Obama believed that it just wasn’t fair that the people who earned this money on their investments got to keep so much of it.  It was more important that the money be taken away from those who earned it than it was that the government actually received increased tax revenues. 

Now some of you – mainly Obama voters – are going to wonder how in the world a capital gains tax increase would lead to less revenue.  It’s simple.  Two ways:  First; investors will simply keep their investments – stocks, bonds and such – and not sell them.  No sale, no profit, no tax.  Other investors will switch their investments to areas that wouldn’t be affected by the tax increase; and that includes taking their money and simply moving it offshore – sending it overseas to work in a more favorable investment climate.

OK .. hopefully you’ve seen Obama’s obsession play out with his desire for increased capital gains taxes, which he got as part of his bludgeoning of the hapless GOP in the new “fiscal cliff” deal.  So let’s move to income taxes.

Raising taxes on the rich has always been an ingrained part of Obama’s philosophy … and once again, this really has nothing to do with increased revenues for the government or paying down the debt.  It has everything to do with Obama’s belief that these rich people obtained their money through oppressing, cheating and taking advantage of others, and it’s just not fair if they’re allowed to keep it.  So … we are treated to Obama’s consistent droning about the rich needing to pay “their fair share.”

Actually, Obama’s “fair share” rhetoric about the rich changed a bit over the years.  I could document it here with specific examples, but this is already going to be wordy enough.  What happened, though, was that the language gradually changed from “the rich need to pay their fair share” to “the rich are not paying their fair share.”  When Obama saw that the Media Party was going to give him a free pass on this “fair share” nonsense, he upped the ante.  He knew that he could flat-out accuse the rich of not paying their “fair share” of the taxes without any fear that the Washington and DC press corps would spoil his attack by widely disseminating the truth.

And what was the truth?  The truth was that America had the most progressive tax system of any industrialized country.  “Progressive” meaning that the more you earn the higher percentage of your earnings you pay to the government. The actual numbers change slightly from year to year .. but during the entire Obama has been preaching his “fair share” mantra the rich – the top 1% of income earners – have been earning somewhere around 17% of all the earned income while paying more than 35% of all the income taxes.  Now if these statistics were presented to the American people, I would say that most of the people would say “well, that seems pretty fair to me!”  The trouble is, the Media Party has never made any honest attempt to report these figures, so the public remains unaware.  Remember – most of these people are glued to Entertainment Tonight and their sports talk shows, so if the true figures aren’t thrown in their faces, they will susceptible to falling for Obama’s “fair share” demagoguery. 

But let’s get to Obama’s “fair share” line and the negotiations (if you want to call it that) over this fiscal cliff thing.  The Republicans really exposed Obama’s anti-rich psychosis during these negotiations, but you never heard about it because the Media Party simply buried it.  Here’s how it happened:

The centerpiece of Obama’s plan for avoiding this fiscal cliff thing was to raise taxes on the rich.  These rich people simply had to step forward and start paying their fair share, right?  The magic word, though, became “revenues.”  Instead of talking about taxes incessantly, Obama started talking about revenues.  We need more revenues … and of course the only way to get these revenues was for the rich to pay more in taxes.  Again, we had focus groups at work here.  Just as people are more comfortable with the word “investing” than they are with “spending,” they see nothing wrong with increasing “revenues” though they might be uncomfortable with the idea of raising “taxes.”  So the issue became revenues; and, of course, the ONLY way to get these revenues was to raise taxes.  Democrats have a history of ignoring the fact that the best way to increase tax revenues is to grow the economy.  That’s how we balanced the budget the last time, under Clinton.  Not with tax increases, but with increased tax revenues from the Dot-Com boom.  (Not that you’ll ever hear that from the Media Party).

But here come the Republicans with their own plan to raise tax revenues!  They’ll simply modify some of the tax deductions that high income earners take advantage of to lower their taxable income!  The tax rates would stay the same, but the evil rich would end up paying more because they wouldn’t have the deductions they had before!

The GOP plan to reduce deductions was clearly superior to Obama’s plan to raise tax rates.  Why?  Because Obama’s plan would hit small business owners .. the very people who employ well over 50% of America’s private-sector workers and who are responsible for over 70% of all new jobs being created today.  These businesses would generally not be affected by the elimination or reduction of the deductions the Republicans were proposing, while they would certainly be affected by Obama’s tax increase. 

The GOP plan would have left America’s private-sector jobs creation machine in better shape than Obama’s plan would, but Obama was having none of it.  As soon as the Republicans proposed eliminating and reducing deductions, Obama’s language changed.  He shifted from insisting that the rich pay more taxes to demanding that the tax RATE on the rich be increased. 

Again … let me walk you through this.  The GOP plan would have brought the increased revenues that Obama said he wanted, but the tax rate on the rich would have remained the same.  High-income earners who were not now using those deductions would not end up paying more.  The tax rates established under George W. Bush would remain in effect for them … and this simply could not be allowed to happen.  The issue for Obama wasn’t revenue; the issue was making sure that the tax rates on the rich --- ALL OF THEM --- go up.  This wasn’t about tax revenue .. it was about revenge.  This is not sound leadership … this is an exhibition of a psychotic obsession for punishing people you do not like … the rich.