Obama: Be a Patriot. Pay More Taxes.

President Obama today said it was “patriotic” of “well-to-do Americans” to pay higher taxes.

Obama, who spoke at the White House, indicated the money would be used not just for paying down the deficit, but for broad new spending plans, which he termed “investments” in “things like” education:

credit: totalbuzz.ocregister.com

Instead of the middle class paying more, we should ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more, a modest amount, so that we can reduce our deficit and still make investments in things like education that help our economy grow . . . And here’s the thing — there are a lot of well-to-do Americans, patriotic Americans, who understand this and are willing to do the right thing, willing to do their part to make this country strong.

Obama made the remarks during a short speech in which he called on Congress not to extend the Bush tax cuts for higher earners. A video of the appearance is below.

Paying more income taxes and having your money spent by the government is not normally associated with patriotism. Actually, Americans managed to show their patriotism without hardly paying income taxes at all until 1894, when the first permanent income tax was enacted.

Some people have another term for individuals who want to pay more taxes to a government that currently is spending at the highest share of GDP since World War II: Suckers.

 

Award winning journalist Keith Koffler has 16 years of experience covering Washington. As a reporter for CongressDailyNational Journal magazine, and Roll Call, Keith wrote primarily from the White House, covering three presidents and learning as few have the intricacies of the West Wing and the behavior and motivations of its occupants. While mainly stationed at the White House, he also extensively covered Congress and Washington’s lobbyists.

Keith has also written for a variety of other publications, including PoliticoThe Daily Caller, and The London Observer. He currently writes regular opinion columns for Politico. He blogs at whitehousedossier.com.

Keith Koffler

By

Award winning journalist Keith Koffler has 16 years of experience covering Washington. As a reporter for CongressDaily, National Journal magazine, and Roll Call, Keith wrote primarily from the White House, covering three presidents and learning as few have the intricacies of the West Wing and the behavior and motivations of its occupants. While mainly stationed at the White House, he also extensively covered Congress and Washington’s lobbyists. Keith has also written for a variety of other publications, including Politico, The Daily Caller, and The London Observer. He currently writes regular opinion columns for Politico. He blogs at whitehousedossier.com.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Vitto

    oh for right-wing “Christians” paying a few extra bucks to support the poor has never been a good idea…

  • Ageing Flower Child

    http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/05/24/whose-more-charitable-liberals-or-conservatives/

     

    Who
    is More Charitable, Liberals or Conservatives?

    May
    24th, 2010 · 12
    Comments

    I am engaged in a spirited ongoing
    debate with tax blogger James Maule about
    the relative motivations of conservatives and liberals regarding America’s tax
    policy.

    Mr. Maule contends that I and those
    like me who oppose high taxes and the commensurate and inevitable permanent
    increase in the size of the federal government are motivated primarily by a
    desire to increase our own wealth while he and others like him who favor high
    taxes and bigger government are motivated primarily by a desire to help the
    less fortunate.

    I found a blog post by conservative Michele Malkin which addresses better than I ever could the
    absurdity of these claims (emphasis is Malkin’s):

    A few years ago, economist Arthur
    Brooks wrote a must-read book on volunteerism in America titled, “Who Really Cares.”

    Here’s an excerpt:

    The conventional wisdom runs like
    this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution
    of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because
    they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending,
    according to this logic, is a form of charity.

    Let us be clear: Government spending
    is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how
    beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing
    public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues.
    Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not
    prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. (On
    the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those who don’t share my
    beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence that I am the uncharitable
    one.)

    To evaluate accurately the charity
    difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private,
    voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private
    giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political
    caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

    The data tell us that the
    conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are
    not personally less charitable than political liberals—they are more so.

    …People living in conservative
    states volunteer more than people in liberal states. In 2003, the residents of
    the top five “Bush states” were 51 percent more likely to volunteer than those
    of the bottom five, and they volunteered an average of 12 percent more total
    hours each year. Residents of these Republican-leaning states volunteered more
    than twice as much for religious organizations, but also far more for secular
    causes. For example, they were more than twice as likely to volunteer to help
    the poor.

    Studies like this one by Mr. Brooks
    should have long ago put an end to the left’s charges that conservatives are
    heartless bastards. But, alas, they haven’t because there is simply too much
    political gain to be had by liberals from the continued demonization of those
    who have the temerity to oppose their agenda.¹

     

MENU