State of The Union: Fairness - Where are You?

Well, I must admit that I fell asleep during President Obama's boring State of The Union (SOTU) address last night.   It was the same old class warfare nonsense that we have come to appreciate from our community organizer, and it was not interesting enough to keep me awake.   But as I drifted off, I remember hearing something about  " everyone gets a fair shot,  everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules".   

Now that I am wide awake this morning, I am trying to understand what this fairness thing really means.  I suspect that it is political speak for equality of income and wealth.  Well kinda.    Elites want a discernable class structure in the U.S. - a politically- connected wealthy 10 percent controlling most wealth in stocks, bonds and commercial real estate, a 50 percent middle class with enough income to qualify for a mortgage enabling home ownership but not enough income to accumulate financial assets providing unearned income, and a 40 percent lower class that can be bought off with food stamps, earned income credit and no income tax liability.   What the elites really want is equality of income and wealth within each of the classes - not across the classes.   There is no way that elites want to live like the rest of us do.  

So how does this "everyone gets a fair shot"  thing work?   If a kid fails to avail himself of a "free" high school education, did he not get a fair shot at basic education?    Or did he get a fair shot at poverty?   And if so, will he get a fair shot at welfare?   How many fair shots should we give him before we realize that fighting Charles Darwins' "survival of the fittest" is really not in society's long-term interest?

How about the "everyone gets a fair share"?   What does this mean?   Assume that Brother A and Brother B both made $100,000 per year during the past 40 years. Brother A was a big spender and retired with no financial assets.   Brother B, however, was a saver and investor who accumulated $5 million in financial assets capable of generating $300,000 annually in interest and dividends.   Did both of these gentleman get a fair share?    I would argue that they did as each enjoyed substantial and equal incomes.   Would a liberal elite argue that brother A is presently not receiving his fair share and that Brother B is receiving more than his fair share?   Absolutely.    Brother A should be entitled to government income support and Brother B must pay high taxes on his income - and must have his Social Security benefits means tested.   A conservative would argue that both Brother A and Brother B were responsible for their respective situations - it just turned out that Brother A was not financially responsible and should live with the consequences.   It is not the role for government to transfer income from Brother B to Brother A just to mitigate Brother A's lack of responsibility.

Okay, how about this "everyone plays by the same set of rules"?   I love this one.    Jon Corzine of MF Global fame ripped off farmers, ranchers and investors to the tune of $1.2 billion by illegally transferring customer funds to MF Global's corporate accounts in a failed attempt to addresss a margin call on European debt.    Why is this guy not in jail?    Why did the federal government allow the bankruptcy to proceed under a statute treating MF Global as an equity rather than commodities trading firm, thereby treating customers as unsecured creditors?    Why did the federal government prefer to protect JPMorgan's interests rather than customers' interests?    I guess it does pay to be a former U.S. Senator and New Jersey governor - and in the case of JPMorgan, a too big to fail bank.

How about U.S.Representative Charlie Rangel?   When is the last time you heard anything from the mainstream media about his evasion of income taxes?   And of course, we have my favorite clown on MSNBC.   The Rev. Al Sharpton, who owes the Internal Revenue Service about $2.3 million in back taxes.    I mean, how does this happen?   This guy, apparently lacking integrity but not income,  bad mouths us Tea Party people nonstop as host on MSNBC.   As an ex-corporate guy, I can not imagine a corporate human resources department overlooking tax evasion when considering candidates for responsible corporate positions.  Yet MSNBC puts this guy on the air.   You and I would not be able to get away with this.

I am reminded of Joe the Plumber of election 2008 fame.    Joe was excoriated by the mainstream media for being $1,200 behind on his federal taxes.  Joe had the termity to tell candidate Barack Obama off about increasing his taxes.   Joe was simply behind in his taxes, as can be expected of small businesses with erratic cash flows.   There was no mention of tax evasion like we have with Charlie Rangel, or arrear amounts in the millions like we have with Rev. Al Sharpton.   You do not hear much of this from the mainstream media.   Me thinks there is not "everyone getting their fair share of media coverage".

So last night the President was pretty much talking business as usual while our country accelerates beyond feasible debt and onto future economic collapse.  There was no straight talk about our dire financial condition and no willingness to be honest with the people about what will happen if we slash spending and what will happen if we do not slash spending.   We shall continue to steer into shallow water and take chances.    As the Captain of the Italian cruise liner learned a few weeks ago, that is a risky course of action that can lead to destruction and death.

November 2012 is coming soon.  Get involved now.