If you want to know how to scare away the achievers, just look to New York as a model. New York has managed to scare away the evil wealthy earners. You won't be surprised to learn that this is costing New York a lot of money. Over one million taxpayers have fled New York City since 2000. That means one out of every seven taxpayers moved out. Now here's an interesting fact. The people who have been bailing out of Manhattan were earning close to $100,000 a year. The people moving in to replace them earn only about $72,000 a year. That difference is the highest of any city or region in the country.

But what the hell ... who needs all those rich people around anyway. So what if they carry the load when it comes to funding government ... once we get more government in our lives we won't need these stupid rich people and their jobs anyway.

MoveOn.org has produced a new commercial in support of a government takeover of healthcare. A bunch of Hollywood celebrities got together and thought, "wouldn't it be funny to pretend like we are really concerned about CEOs of insurance companies?" So that's what they did. They put together this video where they pretend like they are worried about health insurance executives. Here are a few lines from the ad, so you can get an idea of the wealth envy involved in demonizing health insurance companies.

"These great businessmen are American heroes. So why is Obama trying to reform healthcare when insurance companies are okay making billions of dollars in profit? ... Insurance companies need our support, because they keep our selfish priorities in check when we can't ... Health insurance companies are huge. They need to make big profits so they can afford to give their employees health insurance ... Insurance company executives have a RIGHT to THEIR American Dream: five houses, a private plane, $500 million in your pocket, and a mini zoo in your backyard ... So now is your chance to look after insurance company profits. They've looked after our best interests for so long, now you can look after theirs."

All part of the war on the private sector, my friends. They have their champion in the White House .. and they're off to the races. The people who read these lines are Hollywood actors. They pretend to be things they're not for a living. In this case they're pretending to be intelligent.

With Congress returning to Washington next week and PrezBO giving his address to a joint session of Congress, the Democrats need to figure out their healthcare plans and they need to figure them out real quick. Also .. the looters need to figure out how they are going to pay for all of this. I think that maybe ... just maybe ... the Democrats have figured out that the people of this country are not in the mood for more spending and the debt that comes along with it. So whatever the healthcare plan turns out to be, it can't contribute to the deficit or cost taxpayers more money ..... unless they are rich. That seems to be the failsafe approach to things. When in doubt, play up the wealth envy. That's exactly where we are headed.

Senate Democrats are already re-examining proposals to raise taxes on the evil, filthy, disgusting rich in order to pay for their healthcare dreams and schemes. Typical of Democrats, they will not call these tax increases. They will simply "limit tax deductions" or "let tax cuts expire." Pretty clever, huh? But the main proposal that Barack Obama is seriously considering would be to limit federal tax deductions for rich families - or, to be more accurate, the people out there who own the small businesses that provide most of America's jobs. So .. know what? Let's just substitute the word "employers" for "rich." For the most part it's accurate, but it sure changes the tone of the rhetoric.

Here we go ...

The original proposal would cap the value of itemized deductions at 28% of the total claimed by employers. Which employers? The employers whose small businesses show more than $250,000 a year in income. These are the employers who are providing 80% of all new non-government jobs in our economy, and 70% of all extant jobs.

Sounds a bit different, doesn't it?

Besides the healthcare debate, Washington is also figuring out how to handle large executive salaries at companies that received bailout money. Not only do we have our pay czar Kenneth Feinberg; but Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs decided to chime into the debate. Baby Huey says, "I don't think the American people begrudge that people make big salaries, as long as they're not jeopardizing the good will of the public in doing so."

Oh, isn't that just so sweet! It's OK with the American people if private companies pay their executives big salaries ... but they need to make sure that they keep the good will of the public along the way. Fine .. so how do we determine whether or not a particular company still enjoys the public's good will? Does some political hack figure that out for us and let us know? Hardly. The public votes with their pocketbooks. If they feel good about the company, they become customers. If they don't, they don't. It is not for the government to decide.

We are going to take a little trip to the Democrat Underground. Now if you ever wanted to really view the seamy underside of the leftist political mind, Democraticunderground.com is the place. Leave all logical thought, adherence to facts and rationality behind .. you are about to take a trip so far below the surface of intellect that the brightest of lights can barely illuminate something three inches in front of your face.

The mindless depravity of Democraticunderground is so intense that I gave up visiting years ago. I just didn't want to believe that I lived in a society that could possibly produce these thought processes. So, if a listener had not pointed me to this post., I never would have seen it. But I did .. and I don't want to have to suffer this alone. I believe that just reading the wealth-envy ravings of this moonbat have destroyed several million of my brain cells .. so, to share the pain, I'm going to share it with you.

Ladies and gentlemen .. may I present the dark workings of the liberal mind:

I'm honestly trying to figure it out.

Is it envy? I don't have any particular desire to be rich myself, especially if it means attaining such wealth the way so many other people have.

Is it jealousy? I don't particularly like the fact that there are so few rich people when there are so many more poor people who don't have what they have, but I don't really resent them for that reason alone.

What is it then? Could it just be the fact that to become rich it means stepping on so many other people below you in order to get ahead? In effect, EXPLOITING people in order to attain for oneself a vastness of resources that you in effect deny everyone else? Even this wouldn't be so bad if the rich didn't bitch about the fact that a portion (or even half) of their ill-gotten wealth gets taxed back by the PEOPLE that the government is supposed to represent!

I mean, you watch reality shows like "How'd You Get So Rich?" with Joan Rivers on the TVLAND channel, and listen to the "rags-to-riches" success stories. Doesn't it ever strike you how in all of those cases its either: a) getting people underneath them to make money off of their labors; OR b) charging exorbitant prices for their products which in effect distributes wealth from everyday people into their greedy little hands?

Do I think we should do away with all rich people? No, for you can never mandate total economic equality without a government gaining too much control over its populace. But do I have a problem with "redistribution of wealth" where the rich are taxed slightly higher than everyone else to pay for their unfair burden of resources that they hog to themselves? NO! After all, it's often THEY who benefit the most from government protections of all their wealth in the form of the police and courts, and from wars and other machinations of the State. They ought to pay their disproportionately fair share!

Am I really wrong to think this way?

Well ... Yes. You are wrong to think this way. Almost all of the premises you set forth in your jealous screed are wrong. You sense this, but you don't quite understand why. So, I'm here to help. Read on.

You probably think you're highly educated. My guess is that you've been through many years of school, but you weren't all that good at learning. No ...wait! Don't quit now. This is really going to help you. Just keep reading:

You really do think you're an educated person, and you believe that very few people out there will work as hard as you will to make it in our economy. You have a job, you do the work assigned to you, and you believe you do it well. I agree. You probably do. You also pay your taxes, obey the law, keep your lawn mowed and give to charity - though by your way of thinking you are "giving back." And THERE, my friend, is your problem. You don't really recognize that wealth is earned .. you think that it is handed out by some great unseen and ultimately unfair force.

Look at you! Here you are ... you've done what you were supposed to do. You went to school. You got a job. You worked hard. You are a good citizen. You're involved. You care about those who have less than you ... and despise those who have more. Why? Because you just can't figure out why they have all this stuff, and you don't. You're a good person, and you've played by the rules ... yet you're not rich. So, in your mind this means that those people who ARE wealthy aren't really good people and they didn't play by the rules. That just has to be the explanation for why they're rich, and you're not.

If you really knew these people, you might feel different. If you knew the risks they take, the hours they work, and the imagination they bring to the table you might recognize that their wealth was earned, not seized. If you watched them create jobs in their community while working 80 hours a week and risking all that they have to build a business you might re-think your line about "exploiting" people. If you saw them competing with other similar businesses in the marketplace - keeping their prices low enough to attract buyers, yet high enough to stay in business and eke out a profit, you might have other thoughts about "charging exorbitant prices."

Here's the bottom line. You just cannot accept the idea that those with more than you obtained their wealth through hard work, risk-taking and good decision making. I mean, after all ... if that was all it took then YOU would be rich, right? You work hard; you're not afraid of risks; and you make good decisions, yet you're not rich. NO! That just can't be the explanation. You're good, so they have to be bad. To believe anything else is to recognize your own shortcomings.

Hope that helped.

A group of leftists and centre-leftists have come together in ecumenical communion to call for the establishment of a High Pay Commission. The 100 signatories to the request include Lib Dems, Labourites, Greens and lecturers in media studies, and their most famous champion (in these days when the General Secretary of the TUC is no longer a household name) is the Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor, Vincent Cable. The argument of the 100 signatories is that, just as in 1997 there was a case for the Low Pay Commission to tackle the problem of low pay, so today we need a commission to tackle the problem of high pay.

So .. there you have looters in Great Britain talking about putting the government in charge of deciding who can make what in the private marketplace. Does this sound a bit like any other country you know? I mean, other than China.

Transcript of remarks made by Leo Carrington (who doesn't exist) to a mandatory meeting of all employees of Carrington Automotive Enterprises, Inc. (which doesn't exist either) on August 17th, 2009 at the Royal Payne Hotel (a purely imaginary place) in Norfolk, Virginia (which does, in fact, exist).

I would like to start by thanking you for attending this meeting, though it's not like you had much of a choice. After all, attendance was mandatory. I'm also glad many of you accepted my invitation to your family members to be here as well. I have a few remarks to make to all of you, and then we'll retire to the ballroom for a great lunch and some employee awards.

I felt that this meeting was important enough to close all 12 of our tire and automotive shops today so that you could be here. To reassure you, everybody is being paid for the day --- except me. Since our stores are closed we're making no money. That economic loss is mine to sustain. Carrington Automotive has 157 full time employees and around 30 additional part-timers. All of you are here. I thank you for that.

When you walked into this auditorium you were handed a rather thick 78-page document. Many of you have already taken a peek. You were probably surprised to see that it's my personal tax return for 2008. Those of you who are adept at reading these tax returns will see that last year my taxable income was $534,000.00. Now I'm sure this seems rather high to many of you. So ... let's talk about this tax return.

Carrington Automotive Enterprises is what we call a Sub-S - a Subchapter S corporation. The name comes from a particular part of our tax code. Sub-S status means that the income from all 12 of our stores is reported on my personal tax return. Businesses that report their income on the owner's personal tax return are referred to as "small businesses." So, you see now that this $534,000 is really the total taxable income - the total combined profit from all 12 of our stores. That works out to an average of a bit over $44,000 per store.

Why did I feel it important for you to see my actual 2008 tax return? Well, there's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around today about taxes, small businesses and rich people. To the people in charge in Washington right now I'm a wealthy American making over a half-million dollars a year. Most Americans would agree: I'm just another rich guy; after all ... I had over a half-million in income last year, right? In this room we know that the reality is that I'm a small business owner who runs 12 retail establishments and employs 187 people. Now here's something that shouldn't surprise you, but it will: Just under 100 percent ... make that 99.7 percent of all employers in this countries are small businesses, just like ours. Every one of these businesses reports their income on a personal income tax return. You need to understand that small businesses like ours are responsible for about 80 percent of all private sector jobs in this country, and about 70 percent of all jobs that have been created over the past year. You also need to know that when you hear some politician talking about rich people who earn over $200,000 or $500,000 a year, they're talking about the people who create the jobs.

The people who are now running the show in Washington have been talking for months about raising taxes on wealthy Americans. I already know that in two years my federal income taxes are going to go up by about 4.5 percent. That happens when Obama and the Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. When my taxes climb by 4.5 percent the Democrats will be on television saying that this really isn't a tax increase. They'll explain that the Bush tax cuts have expired .. nothing more. Here at Carrington we'll know that almost 5% has been taken right off of our bottom line. And that means it will be coming off your bottom line.

Numbers are boring, I know ... but let's talk a bit more about that $534,000. That's the money that was left last year from company revenues after I paid all of the salaries and expenses of running this business. Now I could have kept every penny of that for myself, but that would have left us with nothing to grow our business, to attract new customers and to hire new employees. You're aware that we've been talking about opening new stores in Virginia Beach and Newport News. To do that I will have to buy or lease property, construct a building and purchase inventory. I also have to hire additional people to work in those stores. These people wouldn't immediately be earning their pay. So, where do you think the money for all of this comes from? Right out of our profits .. right out of that $534,000. I need to advertise to bring customers in, especially in these tough times. Where do you think that money comes from? Oh sure, I can count it as an expense when I file my next income tax return .. but for right now that comes from either current revenues or last year's profits. Revenues right now aren't all that hot ... so do the math. A good effective advertising campaign might cost us more than $300,000.

Is this all starting to come together for you now?

Right now the Democrats are pushing a nationalized health care plan that, depending on who's doing the talking, will add anywhere from another two percent to an additional 4.6 percent to my taxes. If I add a few more stores, which I would like to do, and if the economy improves, my taxable income ... our business income ... could go over one million dollars! If that happens the Democrats have yet another tax waiting, another five percent plus! I've really lost tract of all of the new government programs the Democrats and President Obama are proposing that they claim they will be able to finance with new taxes on what they call "wealthy Americans."

And while we're talking about health care, let me explain something else to you. I understand that possibly your biggest complaint with our company is that we don't provide you with health insurance. That is because as your employer I believe that it is my responsibility to provide you with a safe workplace and a fair wage and to do all that I can to preserve and grow this company that provides us all with income. I no more have a responsibility to provide you with health insurance than I do with life, auto or homeowner's insurance. As you know, I have periodically invited agents for health insurance companies here to provide you with information on private health insurance plans. The Democrats are proposing to levy yet another tax against Carrington in the amount of 8 percent of my payroll as a penalty for not providing you with health insurance. You should know that if they do this I will be reducing every person's salary or hourly wage by that same 8 percent. This will not be done to put any more money in my pocket. It will be done to make sure that I don't suffer financially from the Democrat's efforts to place our healthcare under the control of the federal government. It is your health, not mine. It is your healthcare, not mine. These are your expenses, not mine. If you think I'm wrong about all this, I would sure love to hear your reasoning.

Try to understand what I'm telling you here. Those people that Obama and the Democrats call "wealthy Americans" are, in very large part, America's small business owners. I'm one of them. You have the evidence, and surely you don't think that the owner of a bunch of tire stores is anything special. That $534,000 figure on my income tax return puts me squarely in Democrat crosshairs when it comes to tax increases.

Let's be clear about this ... crystal clear. Any federal tax increase on me is going to cost you money, not me. Any new taxes on Carrington Automotive will be new taxes that you, or the people I don't hire to staff the new stores I won't be building, will be paying. Do you understand what I'm telling you? You've heard about things rolling downhill, right? Fine .. then you need to know that taxes, like that other stuff, roll downhill. Now you and I may understand that you are not among those that the Democrats call "wealthy Americans," but when this "tax the rich" thing comes down you are going to be standing at the bottom of the mud slide, if you get my drift. That's life in the big city, my friends ... where elections have consequences.

You know our economy is very weak right now. I've pledged to get us through this without layoffs or cuts in your wages and benefits. It's too bad the politicians can't get us through this without attacking our profits. To insure our survival I have to take a substantial portion of that $534,000 and set it aside for unexpected expenses and a worsening economy. Trouble is, the government is eyeing that money too ... and they have the guns. If they want it, they can take it.

I don't want to make this too long. There's a great lunch waiting for us all. But you need to understand what's happening here. I've worked hard for 23 years to create this business. There were many years where I couldn't take a penny in income because every dollar was being dedicated to expanding the business. There were tough times when it took every dollar of revenues to replenish our inventory and cover your paychecks. During those times I earned nothing. If you want to see those tax returns, just let me know.

OK .. I know I'm repeating myself here. I don't hire stupid people, and you are probably getting it now. So let me just ramble for a few more minutes.

Most Americans don't realize that when the Democrats talk about raising taxes on people making more than $250 thousand a year, they're talking about raising taxes on small businesses. The U.S. Treasury Department says that six out of every ten individuals in this country with incomes of more than $280,000 are actually small business owners. About one-half of the income in this country that would be subject to these increased taxes is from small businesses like ours. Depending on how many of these wonderful new taxes the Democrats manage to pass, this company could see its tax burden increase by as much as $60,000. Perhaps more.

I know a lot of you voted for President Obama. A lot of you voted for Democrats across the board. Whether you voted out of support for some specific policies, or because you liked his slogans, you need to learn one very valuable lesson from this election. Elections have consequences. You might have thought it would be cool to have a president who looks like you; or a president who is young, has a buff bod, and speaks eloquently when there's a teleprompter in the neighborhood. Maybe you liked his promises to tax the rich. Maybe you believed his promise not to raise taxes on people earning less than a certain amount. Maybe you actually bought into his promise to cut taxes on millions of Americans who actually don't pay income taxes in the first place. Whatever the reason .. your vote had consequences; and here they are.

Bottom line? I'm not taking this hit alone. As soon as the Democrats manage to get their tax increases on the books, I'm going to take steps to make sure that my family isn't affected. When you own the business, that is what you're allowed to do. I built this business over a period of 23 years, and I'm not going to see my family suffer because we have a president and a congress who think that wealth is distributed rather than earned. Any additional taxes, of whatever description, that President Obama and the Democrats inflict on this business will come straight out of any funds I have set aside for expansion or pay and benefit increases. Any plans I might have had to hire additional employees for new stores will be put aside. Any plans for raises for the people I now have working for me will be shelved. Year-end bonuses might well be eliminated. That may sound rough, but that's the reality.

You're going to continue to hear a lot of anti-wealth rhetoric out there from the media and from the left. You can chose to believe what you wish .. .but when it comes to Carrington Automotive you will know the truth. The books are open to any of you at any time. I have nothing to hide. I would hope that other small business owners out there would hold meetings like this one, but I know it won't happen that often. One of the lessons to be learned here is that taxes ... all taxes ... and all regulatory costs that are placed on businesses anywhere in this country, will eventually be passed right on down to individuals; individuals such as yourself. This hasn't been about admonishing anyone and it hasn't been about issuing threats. This is part of the education you should have received in the government schools, but didn't. Class is now dismissed.

Let's eat.

© 2009 Neal Boortz

Well, folks. The figures are out. The latest numbers from the IRS have hit the mean streets --- and guess what? The rich still aren't paying their fair share! Well .. that will be the liberal line, but since you're reading the Nuze YOU are going to know the truth. So here it is .. the latest figures from the year 2007, according to the Tax Foundation.

The top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. Now if you're not initiated into the Church of the Painful Truth you're probably thinking that the evil top 1% probably earn way over 40% of the income. Well .. you would be wrong. These nasty, disgusting and oh-so-easy to hate high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income. And just how much does some crook have to earn to be in this top 1%? Try $410,000. Remember now .. many, if not most, of these wretched people are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. Still .. they're nasty. Right?

Ok .. more painful truth. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. For those of you who are government educated, that means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the road.

The key to these numbers is that over 9 out of 10 Americans will never see them nor will anyone ever share these numbers with them. So the Democrats will, in spite of these numbers, be able to continue to demonize the evil rich and spread the lie that somehow they aren't "paying their fair share." To make things worse ... Democrat demagogues will continue to promote the idea that all of their vote-buying social welfare programs can easily be funded with additional taxes on the rich. Where do they start? When the top 1% is paying about 80% of all income taxes?

Well .. it gets worse. Now for the first time, the IRS decided to break things down even further. It presented data on the super rich, the top 0.1% of tax earners. We are talking about the top 10% of the top 1% of earners. About 141,000 taxpayers fit into this group. Those 141,000 people account for 12% of the adjusted gross income earned but they pay 20% of all federal income taxes.

Las Vegas can be a bit exhausting, so all I wanted to do on the AirTran flight home yesterday was saw some logs. I cranked up the Kindle, though, and started reading the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. An AJC editorial presented some ways the Atlanta area might crawl out of the economic doldrums. Here was one suggestion:

"We believe, though, that Atlantans in the right tax brackets should shake off a bit of their investing conservatism and put more dollars behind our hometown startups and young companies.

"If the prospect of triple-digit investment returns aren't enough, consider the civic good of helping the region grow high-paying jobs.

"Surely Atlanta investors can step up more, even during hard times, and seize potentially lucrative, if risky, opportunities.

Say what?

This jewel of an editorial was written by one Andre Jackson representing the AJC editorial board.

Well, Andre ... have a seat. I have a few things to say to you. First ... I haven't seen your name before, so I have no idea how long you've been hanging around the AJC. You should know, though, that your paper has excelled in promoting wealth envy since I stepped off that Greyhound here 42 years ago. Your editorial board has never missed a chance to throw the word "greed" at high-achievers. In reading years worth of AJC editorials you would scarcely know that Atlantans with money to invest actually worked for their wealth. They earned it. To the editors of the AJC they were either "lucky" or they exploited some poor, downtrodden, pitiful poor people. AJC editorial word processors have a two-key macro for inserting the phrase "pay their fair share" into commentaries. I dare say that there is not one person on the editorial board that could come close to telling you (a) what percentage of total income is earned by the top 1% of income earners; and, (b) what percentage of total income taxes the disgusting top 1% pay.

So .. here you come suggesting that the very people your paper has made a cause out of vilifying for decades step forward and, if necessary, sacrifice a goodly portion of their wealth in Atlanta startups.

As it turns out, I have a bit of money I could invest, but I'm holding those funds very close. Let me tell you why, sport. I would bet five dollars to a donut hole that you voted for Obama. Good for you. Hope you're enjoying all of this wonderful change while you're telling me how you want me to invest my money. While you're getting your jollies from the hopey-changy thing I am working overtime trying to figure out how to save as much of my future income and retirement nest egg from this guy as I possibly can; and I suspect I'm not alone.

Have you taken stock of how your man wants to raise our taxes? Or, I should say, have you seen his plan of attack on the very people whom you think ought to be pouring money into Atlanta startups? Let's start with a guaranteed 4.6% tax increase in about 17 months. Then we have surtaxes ranging from 1% to 3% to cover his health care dreams, plus taxes on our health care plans. Charlie Rangel has an even higher surtax - this one over 5% -- waiting for the super achievers, the ones with real money to invest. Then let's add to all of this a reduction in allowable tax deductions (really another tax increase) and the removal of the Social Security earnings cap. You total these goodies up and the tax rate will be around 50% for the people you think have all this money to invest. And Andre ... we're just talking federal taxes. You might want to remember that our esteemed city council just raised property taxes by 45%, and then there's the Georgia income tax on top of it all. To make things even worse, Obama thinks that Christine Kirchner, the President of Argentina, is one of the hottest things going in this hemisphere. She nationalized all pension plans in Argentina. Retired Argentineans will now get their checks from the government. Do you, Andre, want to convince me that your president isn't thinking the same thoughts here?

Tell you what, Andre. When we get a president and a controlling party in Washington that exhibits even a faint affection for capitalism and economic liberty, you can drop us another note. When we have a governing --- or "ruling," as Obama likes to day --- party that doesn't see tax increases as the answer to every problem plaguing mankind; when the leaders of this nation respect private property ... then you can talk to me about investing in your pet startup projects. While this menace is in the White House, and while the corrupt Charlie Rangel is writing our tax laws, I'm sitting tight.

You know things are bad when a socialist Eastern European country passes a bill to lower taxes in order to help its economy recover. Hungary's socialist government passed a tax bill that will cut current personal income taxes and "social contributions" paid by employers to the government. It will also raise the lower income tax bracket to that "average" incomes are taxed at a rate of 17%.

They didn't get it all right, though. The parliament did pass a "wealth tax" on real estate and luxury items.

Wealth envy is universal .. but at least the Hungarians know that lowering tax rates will be the shortest route to economic recovery.

Oh you're going to love this one. An amazing attack on the American entrepreneurial spirit. There's a repulsive suggestion floating around Washington right now. Louis Gerstner, the former CEO of International Business Machines Corp is pushing the idea that short-term investment gains should be taxed at 80%. Gerstner says that taxing short-term gains would counter the culture of "greed" on Wall Street.

Meanwhile, he believes that selling an investment after five years should carry a zero tax rate in order to re-establish a culture of true investors compared to traders.

Do you realize how many American businesses would not exist today if short term investment gains had been taxed at 80%. If you have an idea, count yourself among the elite. Remember ... government education.

Last week, Obama announced that he was appointing a pay czar. Well .. he isn't going to exactly call this character a "Pay Czar," the official title will be "Special Master for Compensation. This is the guy who will be in charge of making sure that executives at evil financial institutions wouldn't make too much money At least, that is what we expected a pay czar to do. We are finally starting to get a better idea of what exactly the Obama administration had in mind. We will supposedly get all the details sometime this week. But here's a start ...

Any bank or corporation that has received two rounds of bailout money will be forced to submit changes in executive pay to be approved by the government pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg. Those would be companies like Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, General Motors and its finance arm, GMAC.

Now do you really think that these pay restrictions will only apply to the institutions who have received two rounds of bailout funds? You're kidding me, right? Once the standards are set you can bet that the businesses and financial institutions will be under tremendous pressure to follow suit. This will apply to financial companies, US operations of foreign banks, and other private hedge fund companies and private equity firms. Even companies that repay the TARP funds in full will not escape oversight on their compensation structures. We are talking about the government setting the standards for an entire industry to make them more fair and comparable to other industries.

The principles currently being drafted by the Treasury Department will apparently allow regulators to tell banks when they need to change their compensation arrangements if the government feels it would "encourage too much risk-taking." What is defined as "too much risk" has yet to be determined. It will be a politically motivated government-style definition, though, and you can just guess what that will entail.

Here's a nifty little line that appeared in this article from the New York Times. Tell me that it doesn't make you do a double take ... to think that we once lived in a time when private companies like banks had the luxury of setting their own compensation levels! Here's the quote: "In the past, banks had free rein to determine the base salary and bonuses they awarded their employees." OMG! Can you believe that? Can you actually believe that there was a time in this country when private businesses could decide how to compensate their own employees? Just how backward were we? Any government-educated person certainly knows that this is a job for government, not the private sector.

Government setting private sector compensation ... change you can believe in.

So now the real question when it comes to these healthcare schemes is how to pay for it. Well, it didn't take long for the Democrats to come up with a plan: tax the rich. What other way is there?

President Obama wants Congress to consider the idea of taxing the wealthy instead of his supporters. Remember that there is a plan floating around out there, initially proposed by John McCain during the campaign, to tax employee healthcare benefits. The Obama administration had been considering the idea, but it seems as though Obama is going to go the easy route of demagoging the evil rich.

Specifics? Well he wants Congress to consider "limited tax deductions for Americans in the highest tax brackets." Now notice the language ... Obama and the Democrats will never, ever call this a tax increase. Nope. They will stick with the line that they want to limit tax deductions. PrezBO's plan is to attack the two highest tax brackets (36% and 39.6%): He wants to set a 28% cap on tax deductions. This would include mortgage interest, investment expenses and charitable donations. Once your deductions amount to 28% of your taxable income, the deductions end. Obama may not believe in a war on terror, but he sure believes in waging war on private charities! And why not? After all, these private charities are competing with government. That just can't be allowed to happen.

It's been a while since Americans have had a corporation that they could really rail against. It feels like ages since everyone raised their pitchforks over the AIG bonuses. Well, maybe the time has come again, as AIG makes its way back into the news. The original outrage, you may remember, came when AIG announced that it was going to pay $120 million in 2008 bonuses to about 6,000 employees.

You'll be happy to know that this $120 million isn't even close to the amount AIG will actually pay to employees in the form of bonuses for 2008. Try $454 million ... that's quadruple what Americans were outraged over before.

AIG's explanation is that this $454 million is the answer to a different question than what as previously asked ... this new figure "'reflects all types of variable compensation across all of our businesses,' while the $120 million figure he provided earlier reflected only bonuses paid to corporate headquarters executives and high ranking officers at its major businesses around the world."

So if it has been a while since you have let your wealth-envy really get the best of you .... Just remember that all of these evil people working for this evil corporation are going to be getting bonuses!

President Obama is trying to follow through on his campaign promise to close tax loopholes and clamp down on all of those evil rich people and corporations who dare to put their money in overseas accounts where they have more potential to grow. Obama says, "If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly." Read that again - please. Either cooperate with us or we're going to assume you're breaking the law. I may be wrong, but don't we have a long and valued tradition whereby the government assumes innocence until guilt is proven? Guilty until proven innocent ... sounds about right. Just another change we can believe in.

So what exactly is Obama's plan? Well for starters, companies that generate profits abroad would not be able to write off any domestic expenses. This is commonly referred to as "deferral." The thought behind this is that it will reduce the incentive for American companies to base some or all of their operations in countries that won't gouge them to death with taxes.

Obama also wants to overhaul regulations known as the "check-the-box" rules, which give companies the ability to decide where their subsidiaries should be taxed.

Another part of Obama's plan is to .... Imagine this ... hire more government hacks! Not just any hacks, but 800 new agents for the IRS in order to better enforce the tax code.

Here's your bottom line. There is somewhere between $10 and $13 trillion dollars of American wealth that have been sent overseas where those dollars can be free to work and produce wealth in places where tax treatment is more favorable. These dollars are fleeing tax tyranny and looking for freedom, much like people in East Berlin tried to get over that wall to find freedom in the west. The East German communists shot those people down in cold blood. Obama wants to do the same to your money. He's and his Democrat pals are erecting an economic Berlin Wall to keep your money from escaping their tyranny.

I've told you about studies similar to this ... but here is a recent example of how people would rather see the government seize money from the rich than earn more money for themselves.

In Minnesota, the Star Tribune did a little poll. It found that two-thirds of people would want the government to seize wealth from rich people in order to help solve the state's budget woes. But then when it comes to raising taxes on everyone ... not just the filthy rich ... 60% of Minnesotans say absolutely not.

So taxing the rich is OK. Other taxes that are popular with Minnesotans are those on tobacco and alcoholic beverages. But they aren't done there ... 57% of people believe that corporations should pay higher taxes. Higher taxes? Are these people completely brain dead? Do they not understand the fact that the United States already has outrageously high corporate tax rates? Of course they don't; because you are talking about the government educated dumb masses. You are talking about people who believe that evil rich people and greedy corporations don't pay their "fair share" in taxes. And you're talking to people who are so uneducated and obtuse that they don't understand that all taxes paid by businesses filter down to the people who ultimately purchase whatever that business is producing at the retail level.

I'll say it again: At the core of most, if not all, of the problems facing our country today you will find a public that is so uneducated that they just can't understand basic concepts of governance and economics. Government schools were designed to create a populace that was educated just to the point that they would be good government subjects and good employees. Government education has been a massive success.

I thought that me hanging around with a group of private pilots and airplane owners this past weekend would stir some outrage. I really thought that revealing that I spent Saturday in the company of evil, accomplished people who (gasp!) own airplanes would cause a backlash. We are, after all, in the "everybody should have an equal amount of stuff" era. Maybe I can still salvage some outrage here if I tell you that Cessna was there showing off its new Cessna Mustang! This is a small jet twin that can carry a pilot and four passengers and can be had for around $2.8 million! It's not so much a business jet as it is a personal jet! Just think of the carbon footprint you can generate as you fly your friends and family off to a $1000 hamburger and weekend at the beach! You had other private jets on display that you could get for as little as a bill and a half! This is an outrage! How dare these people even think about buying luxuries like this when there are people trying to figure out how they can feed their nine children on food stamps and still have time to try to remember who all the fathers were!

In case you missed the Talkmaster's full on rant yesterday about the "less fortunate" and Barack Obama's suggestion that government gave you your wealth, have a listen here. It's classic.

Well ... That is about what we expected from the G20 summit. World leaders pledged over a trillion dollars to poor countries. More seizure and redistribution of wealth. Other countries didn't bite at Obama's grand plan to stimulate the global economy by spending more money. Angela and Nicolas got somewhat of a compromise on their global financial regulators. The communiqué established the creation of a supervisory body to "flag" problems in the global financial system. Supervisory today .. regulatory tomorrow?

For all you wealth-envy types, you will be happy to know that the honchos managed to "bridge the gap" in terms of how far governments should go to regulate the market and curb what the political class deems to be "excesses." Obama says that world leaders have agreed on principles that would bring accountability and transparency to executive compensation at corporations. Note, please, that this communiqué wasn't limited to corporations receiving taxpayer bailout money. We are talking about Corporations ---Period. Obama says that company shareholders should be able to vote on executive compensation, implementing some sort of "shame function" into the establishment of corporate salaries.

"Shame." That is the word that our president would like to associate with evil CEOs and executive. If you receive compensation that is not in keeping with some politically set global standard, then you should be feeling shame.

Please tell me you don't actually think that this effort to control executive compensation is going to end with companies that receive bailout funds. Democrats - and some Republicans - know that wealth envy and hatred is at a historical high right now. They've been working for decades to bring us to this point - and now it's time to exploit. If these politicians can excuse limits on compensation based on the fact that the involved companies are receiving bailout funds, why not extend those controls to all companies with government contracts? How easy would it be to make the argument that any defense contractor should not be allowed to "unfairly" enrich top executives "at the expense of our men and women serving their country overseas." Once we have established the government contractor controls, we can extend the controls to any companies who supply goods or services to these contractors.

Smack down the executives with their high salaries and become a hero to the jealous class. There are far more people envious of highly compensated executives than there are people making a million a year. Count the votes and you'll see where this is going. The result will be executive and financial talent fleeing this country to work where the compensation matches the contribution.

Now let's take a moment to reflect on the socialist/anarchist/ignoranus protesting taking place in London. These people are clearly the underbelly of an unproductive segment of society. Pond scum. If they lived in the ocean shrimp would eat them. To the people gathered in protest in London, capitalism is a disgusting notion that only leads to corruption, greed and personal success, rather than achievement for the "common good."

Take a look at some of the quotes and/or signs surrounding this meeting:

"If people don't protest, if people don't have a voice, it means that they are complicit with corruption"

"The death of capitalism"

"Consumers suck"

"No third runway" (Huh?)

"One currency, one country, one world"

"Put people first"

"Capitalism isn't in crisis, capitalism is the crisis - money is immoral"

"I think we need to share the resources, power to the people and that"

This is wealth-envy, folks. Pure and simple. These are people who simply don't like the idea of having to get up every morning and actually work to provide for themselves. Society should be structured so as to provide for their every want.

Here are some facts about these protestors you may not know. First of all, the numbers of true anarchists and other worthies in these protests are rather small compared to the number of protestors. They entice aimless kids to come to town and have a big time making news during the economic conference. The organizers are generally in the back of the crowd urging people on. The organizers are armed in London with marbles and other items. They toss the marbles on the roads to harm police horses. They even have razors for slashing horses flanks should they get too close.

Imagine a world economy organized by these idiots.

Slobbering Barney Frank has never held a private sector job in his life. That might explain why this man holds the private sector in such disdain. Just two weeks ago, he was up there in Washington spitting nails about these AIG bonuses and how the government needed to "recover" this money. But people finally came to their senses and the bill quietly died.

But the latest move from the House Financial Services Committee .. which is led by Sylvester the Chairman has approved legislation that could be even more outrageous than the 90% tax on bailout bonuses. This new legislation is called the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009." Pay for performance? Since when has the government been one to pay anyone based on level of performance? If Barney is so hot about paying for performance, why not apply that to teachers in government schools? For right now Barney's legislation would impose government control on the pay of all employees at companies that have received bailout money from the government. The controls would be retroactive. That would mean that our government could walk into one of these workplaces, pick out one employee, and tell him that he has to "give back" some of the money he has already received.

So tax cheat Timothy Geithner - a government hack - will be determining the pay of thousands of employees of private American companies. Not only that, but the government will come up with the way in which to evaluate employee performance. And what is the excuse, according to the bill? In order to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards."

OK .. I know what you're saying. You think that Barney is serious when he says it would only be limited to companies receiving bailout funds. You may have been born at night, but was it last night? You really don't see that Barney and Friends would soon be looking for a way to extend these compensation controls to the rest of our economy? Look ... they have already put a floor on compensation with minimum wage laws. Why should they not believe they can install a ceiling?

Last week Barack Obama met with top executives of US banks. This was his message to the banks: bonuses are not acceptable.

That's right. Not just "excessive" bonuses or bonuses paid with bailout money. But bonuses. Period. They are unacceptable while other Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

On CBS's "Face the Nation" Obama said that he made sure the bankers knew that big bonuses during a financial crisis is "just not acceptable." He also told the bankers, "Show some restraint. Show that you get that this is a crisis and everybody has to make sacrifices."

Sadly, the American people will applaud this move. They just won't understand that the amazing financial minds that we need to turn these banks and other financial institutions around are simply going to go somewhere else .. perhaps to another country .. where they can sell their services in a free economy.

Perhaps we will find out what these people are capable of when they're working for our overseas competitors where their earnings are unrestrained.

Watch CBS Videos Online

The governor of New York has officially decided that the best way to make up for government inadequacies and budget shortfalls is to tax the evil, filthy rich. The plan will increase income taxes for New Yorkers making more than $500,000 a year by 31%. Yes, that's right ... a 31% increase in income taxes on the evil rich in New York. Those making between $250,000 and $500,000 will see their income taxes increase by 14.5%.

The result, I can guarantee, will be to drive away wealth. People will find other ways to get around this. It will be just like California in that taxes will drive away productive members of society and leave the state relying on Mexicans and Hollywood for survival.

It's time for a sequel to "Escape from New York."

Last week, all of America had their pitchforks ready for the roast .. of the evil AIG employees who received retention bonuses. The House passed a bill that would tax the bonuses at a rate of 90%.

Fast-forward one week later .. the House Financial Services Committee adopted a milder version of the bill. The new legislation allows bailout companies to pay bonuses so long as the government feels the compensation is not "unreasonable or excessive."

Oh. That makes me feel so much better. So it will be Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and tax cheat Tim Geithner who will determine what is considered "unreasonable or excessive." We all know that government would make such a good judge of the unreasonable and the excessive ... like spending taxpayer's money on butterfly gardens, for instance ... or lobster sex.

Question: How long will it be before these power hungry DC Despots decide that their ability to regulate bonuses and executive pay for some financial institutions is so durned fun that it ought to be expanded to the entire private sector? Isn't having power fun!

Just in case Harry Reid gets his way and the AIG bonus bill comes up pretty quickly in the Senate, here is something to note. The House-version of the bill would lead to the loss of one million American jobs. That is according to a senior economist at JP Morgan.

Michael Feroli, an economist at JP Morgan, concluded that the restrictions of compensation for companies receiving TARP money would put them "at a severe competitive disadvantage for talent relative to foreign banks which have not received such funds." Gee, ya think?

When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac want to pay out at least a million dollars in bonuses .. all of the sudden, it is OK for companies to dole out retention bonuses to keep their best and brightest employees. James Lockhart, the federal regulator overseeing Fannie and Freddie says, "there's a 'great risk' of key employees walking away if they don't pay out the promised bonuses. These Fannie and Freddie employee retention programs were established because federal officials believed top executives will play a critical role in ensuring the successful turnaround of the companies."

And the same doesn't go for companies like AIG?

The latest corporation up to the chopping block: JP Morgan Chase. The company has received $25 billion in TARP funds. But it plans to buy two luxury corporate jets worth $138 million and also build "the premier corporate aircraft hangar on the eastern seaboard" to house them. The new hangar will apparently be built with reclaimed wood, quarry tile and even include a "vegetated roof garden." The Gulfstream 650's are supposed to be the "fastest," "widest" and "most comfortable" private jet ever. Can't you feel the wealth-envy building?

A spokesman for JBMorgan Chase says that no TARP money would be used to make any payment for the new jets or hanger improvements.

But that doesn't fit well into the wealth envy argument, does it? All that matters it that these evil corporations want the luxury of having private jets!

I make more profit from the advertising on this website than the Atlanta Journal-Constitution makes from publishing a newspaper. Now that's a bit scary, isn't it? But .. give them credit. They're trying some new things to turn things around: Looking for a new conservative columnist, for instance. Mallard Fillmore in the comics and that Wall Street Journal two-page insert on the weekend might help.

Unbeknownst to me some of the people that I work for (who just happen to also own that newspaper) have made inquiries over the years about the paper publishing a Neal Boortz column once or twice a week. The suggestion has been met with howls of what could be either laughter or outrage, usually followed by the phrase "no way in hell."

What if they did publish a column? Well, here is what might have run yesterday. Instead it was published on Townhall.com. Read the comments ... a few people actually liked what I wrote:

You know, I think I'll start writing more columns. Beats the hell out of having to do a television show, and columnists don't do book tours.

The Obama administration is ironing out the details of his plans to increase government oversight of executive pay. I'm not just talking about the top TARP recipients .. I am talking about all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies.

The New York Times reports ...

Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.

It will propose that many kinds of derivatives and other exotic financial instruments that contributed to the crisis be traded on exchanges or through clearinghouses so they are more transparent and can be more tightly regulated. And to protect consumers, it will call for federal standards for mortgage lenders beyond what the Federal Reserve adopted last year, as well as more aggressive enforcement of the mortgage rules.

The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.

One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.

Did you hear about these protesters in Connecticut over the weekend? Some protestors went to the houses of AIG executives in Connecticut and they came up with this brilliant battle-cry ...

"Money for the needy, not for the greedy!" Now there are some brilliant government-educated ignoranuses for you.

Are these people really this brain dead? There is no doubt that these were Obama voters. If you heard some of the comments from the protesters, they spoke of "sharing the wealth" and moaned about the size of the houses. (That's called wealth envy, by the way.)

And then we find out this little piece of information about these protests. They were organized by The Connecticut Working Families Party. And guess what? It turns out that this party was jointly founded by ...... ACORN! Imagine my surprise.

Yesterday's vote in the House was completely expected. Overwhelmingly, your representatives in Washington voted huge taxes on bonuses for AIG employees. Nancy Pelosi said, "We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers." Funny .. after recently passing a bill with more than 8,000 earmarks worth over $400 billion, the hollow-eyed hippy from Haight-Ashbury and her flying monkeys are suddenly worried about the taxpayers.

First point. It is not "their" money. The money, whether you like it or not, belongs to the people to whom they were paid. Those bonuses were paid pursuant to a valid contract and are now the rightful and legal property of the payees. Let's us also remember that the amount paid in those bonuses was less than one-tenth of one percent of the bailout money received by AIG. Remember, though ... politicians believe that ever penny you earn actually belongs to the government. In the official language of Washington any money from your paycheck that these political hacks allow you to keep is a "tax expenditure." You earned it ... but if you're allowed to keep it they treat it as a government expenditure. To the Democrat mind, and in the mind of all too many Republicans, all wealth is owned by government. Produced by the people, but owned by government.

Second point. This is absolutely unconstitutional. Con su permisio I'll explain.

So the House succeeded in passing a 90% tax on bonuses given to employees of AIG and any company receiving at least $5 billion in bailout money. But only with those evil rich employees whose family income is above $250,000 a year will have to pay this 90% tax.

You just cannot like what you're seeing here. These politicians are targeting specific individuals out there who have received some money that the politicians, for political purposes, just do not want them to have. So they pass a law allowing the government to seize that money. Can you imagine where this goes from here? How about Ann Coulter? She delights in writing books that just irritate the ever-luvin' puddin' out of Democrats and liberals. Let's say that one of Nancy Pelosi's flying monkeys reports to the Princess that Coulter made $1.5 million from her last book. This money was legally paid to Coulter pursuant to a contract. Sound familiar? But Pelosi feels that Coulter has made this money by promoting divisiveness in the population, so she decides that punishment is in order. She then has her minions pass a bill establishing a 90% tax on the royalties from all books and writings that promote political dissention and defame public servants in the Congress of the United States. Come on now, you tell me the big huge difference between a confiscatory tax on legally earned bonuses and one on legally received book royalties.

This is going nowhere folks. It will never make it through the Senate. If the members of the House had any appreciation at all for the Constitution it wouldn't have gone this far. And why, pray tell, would that be? That would be because of one pesky little clause found in our (once) supreme law of the land.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 - United States Constitution

"No bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

Do you know what that means? The key is the word "attainder." Let's go to Websters: It's a 15th century word meaning "extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason." A definition, this one from the Catholic Encyclopedia, describes "bill of attainder" thusly: "A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial."

Well, in this case the Congress isn't trying to put anyone to death ... they're just trying to steal some money. They are trying to deprive some individuals of property that is rightfully and lawfully theirs without accusing them of a crime and without the benefit of any trial ... except, that is, for this trial that has been taking place in the media for the last week. Well, there's that pesky little Constitution again. A man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and in our country due process means a trial before a jury of one's peers. Barney Frank et al are trying to take these people's money through legislative action without a trial. I would truly hope there isn't a federal judge in this country that wouldn't smack this idiocy down at the earliest opportunity.

This isn't about whether or not those people deserved those bonuses. Perhaps not. But the bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally enforceable contract. The property is theirs. Now we have politicians who are trying to take it away just because they're unhappy and embarrassed because they didn't take care of this little problem before the bailout money was paid.

On to the Senate. Let's hope someone over there has read the Constitution.

Will there be any griping and moaning about the $2 billion WalMart has just awarded its employees? Probably not. And do you know why? Because that money went to hourly employees. And to wealth-envy Americans, these are the people that really deserve the bonuses. Not the people who manage those employees, or manage the payroll .. those people are evil. But the people who make sure that the video game isle is clear for the dumb masses .. it's okay to give those people bonuses.

On the other side .. Democrats just love to demonize WalMart because it doesn't have a unionized workforce. When the Democrats get their beloved card check bill passed, WalMart is going to be one of the first targets, if not THE first. Some rating agencies have already reduced the rating they give Wal-Mart on the expectation that Wall-Mart will be hurt badly by the Unionization by Intimidation bill. But if Democrats were really worried about workers rights and a living wage and proper benefits, then I'll bet they are just livid to hear that WalMart is awarding roughly $2 billion to hourly employees, which includes $933.6 million in bonuses, $788.8 million in profit sharing and 401(k) contributions, millions of dollars in merchandise discounts, and contributions to its employee stock purchase plan. That hideous corporation! Doesn't WalMart know that these Democrats are trying to make people MORE reliant on government?

Today in Washington we are going to have a Congressional beat down of AIG CEO Edward Liddy. He is going to appear in front of a House financial services subcommittee. And I think we can safely say that he is going to get a less than pleasant welcome. Liddy is going to have to defend the concept of abiding by the terms of your contracts with your employees. Look for Maxine Waters ask Liddy some questions ..

"What is a contract?" would be a good start. Mensa Maxine is so darn good at this sort of stuff. We'll also be treated to some posturing from the man most responsible for this mess ... and that would be Barney Frank.

So it turns out that AIG paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 of its employees. Eleven of those bonuses went to former employees. The contracts were written in March 2008, and they guaranteed 100% of their 2007 pay for 2008. They were not based on performance. Apparently the top individual bonus was more than $6.4 million, and the top seven received more than $4 million each. Did these people really earn this money? Possibly not. But they were parties to a contract .. and if the money had not been paid they would have most certainly sued for it.

Here's something I'm guessing you don't know. The Financial Services Division of AIG is headquartered in Wilton, Conn. In Connecticut they have a little gem called the "Wage Act." This law says that if an employee has to sue for wages payable pursuant to a contract they recover twice the amount that is contractually owed. That would have meant $330 million instead of $165 million. Add some attorney's fees on top of that. So ... you're running AIG. What would YOU do?

Now ... here is just a sampling of some of the comments coming out of Washington.

I'm sure that Chuckie Schumer would like to have his way with Edward Liddy. Did you hear what he had to say about these AIG bonuses? If not, here's a brief synopsis of what Chuckie had to say on the Senate floor:

"My colleagues and I are sending a letter to [AIG CEO Edward] Liddy informing him that he can go right ahead and tell the employees that are scheduled to get bonuses that they should voluntarily return them. Because if they don't, we plan to tax virtually all of it. He should tell his employees that if they don't give the money back, we'll put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate so it is returned to its rightful owners, the taxpayers. So for those of you who are getting these bonuses be forewarned, you will not be getting to keep them."

He wasn't the only one who had something to say about these bonuses. Harry Reid declared on the Senate floor, "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money."

And slobbering Barney can't let a good wealth-envy moment go to waste. He's still sputtering about all of these bonuses asserting, "The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, 'No, I'm not paying you the bonus. You didn't perform. You didn't live up to this contract."

Oh and we're not done yet. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says, "They're not going to get the financial benefit of those bonuses."

And Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan introduced a bill into the House that would tax at 100% bonuses above $100,000 for any company receiving bailout money. Ryan says, "We will use any means necessary ... It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through." Democrat Rep Steve Israel also sponsored this bill. Israel says, "If we can't kill the bonuses, we'll tax the bonuses." He says, "American families shouldn't be forced to reward these professional financial failures with extravagant bonuses that could buy fancy cars and yachts ... AIG may not like it, but since they had to come to the federal government for help, the federal government now has a say in how they spend taxpayer money."

Another bill introduced by Democrat Rep Gary Peters would "create a 60 percent surtax on bonuses over $10,000 to any company in which the U.S. government has a 79 percent or greater equity stake in the company. Currently, AIG is the only company that meets this threshold."

This is an absolute orgy of pandering to wealth envy. In the meantime the government cruises along operating a Ponzi scheme that makes Bernie Madoff look like he's selling brushes door-to-door. That would be Social Security. Someday we're going to face a meltdown over this soon-to-be welfare program that is going to make AIG and Madoff look like two-bit operators.

I mean, c'mon folks. Are you listening to yourselves? The outrage over these bonuses from the general population .. the very people that put Barack Obama in the White House .. is filled with mind-numbing wealth envy.

I'm reading just one story about America's reaction to these evil, greedy AIG executives. Here is some of the reaction. Are you ready?

Tess Beauchamp runs a restaurant in Lubbock, Texas. She isn't going to cut AIG any slack, "I think this country has a serious problem with executive entitlement .. I think it's outrageous. I think this country could stand a redistribution of wealth and not to AIG executives or corporate execs, for that matter."

Gary Jarvis of Herron, Illinois lost his job as a forklift driver. He says that AIG executives are "not going to bleed to death because I'm not sure that they've got blood. I think it's ice water that runs through their veins ... To me, it's just stunning to think they're not even ashamed of their disgusting greed."

And then we get this line from Maria Panza-Villa. She asks, "Wasn't Obama supposed to fix this?"

I've said it before .. but in 40 years of talk radio I've never seen the level of hatred and envy against the wealth as intense as it is right now. I propose that everyone out there who hates the rich quit their jobs and go get one from a poor person.

Hey, Rhode Island .. ever heard of the FairTax? I ask because Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri is looking for a change to the Rhode Island tax code. He put together a panel of 20 experts who took six months to study the tax code and make recommendations on how to better serve Rhode Island. And guess what solution they came up with ......... tax cuts! And not just any tax cuts. Tax cuts for the filthy rich and evil corporations.

Wait a minute? Tax cuts for the producers? Tell me this is some kind of a nightmare.

Carcieri officially proposed a series of tax cuts in his latest budget, including the elimination of corporate income taxes by 2014 and the reduction of the top personal income tax rate from 9.9% to 5.5%.

The idea here is simple: in a down economy, make Rhode Island more competitive in order to attract and retain businesses that create jobs. And with those businesses come wealthy residents who turn around and invest in the state.

Naturally, this plan has some wealth-envy knickers in a knot. People are concerned that the tax burden is going to be shifted from the evil rich to the middle class.

Shift the tax burden? Here's what these ignoranuses don't understand. When you reduce the level of the punishment administered to the high-producers for their production what do you get? More production? They increase their efforts when the level of punishment (taxes) is reduced. More production, a stronger economy. A stronger economy, increased tax revenues. Reward the productive instead of punishing them and you will see a dynamic and growing economy. Tax cuts don't mean reductions in the tax revenue. Only the government-educated fail to understand this.

I've been telling you that Barack Obama's plans to tax the evil, filthy ugly rich is going to lead to an economic shutdown. At some point, the achievers are going to give up. They are going to get sick and tired of working hard to achieve and succeed and see their earned wealth be taken away by the point of a gun and given to someone to buy tire shine for the wheels on their house.

Right now, Obama's tax plan makes it pretty clear what is defined as "rich." An individual making $200,000 or a family making $250,000.

Even in the mainstream media, we are starting to hear about the achievers who are looking for ways to decrease their salaries in order to fall under Barack Obama's tax marks. What does this mean? People actually want to make less money, thanks to Barack Obama's tax plans. That means that they employ less people or see less clients. In other words, it leads to a less productive society. A society that is more dependent on the government. There is some point at which people will say "Look, I have enough. I'll continue to work hard, but not for reduced rewards. Time to cut back and take it easy while this country enjoys their new president."

Take a look at this article from ABC News: Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan. This is real, folks. This isn't me typing out a summary of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." Read the article and tell me how Obama's tax plans are going to be a benefit to our society.

OK, sure ...sometimes I might go a bit far on the air just to elicit a response. This wasn't one of those times. I'm talking about yesterday, when I was discussing the ramifications of Obama's extremely popular tax increases on the evil, disgusting rich. Sixty-four percent of the businesses, companies, corporations, partnerships ... call them what you will ... that actually hire people in this country are categorized as small businesses. These are businesses that report their incomes on personal tax returns. Personal returns ... not corporate returns. Are you following the numbers here? Sixty-four percent of job providers are small businesses and they employ well over 70% of all people with jobs. What's more these small businesses are creating 80% of all of our economy's new jobs. Now .. the kicker ... hopefully you already know this. These small business owners are the very targets of Obama's tax increases.

Now I've been a small business owner, and I've represented many more as an attorney. I'm telling you that when these business owners experience a reduction in their income as a result of these tax increases they are going to look for a way to cut their expenses. One of the ways many businesses will cut expenses is to cut jobs. They will fire people.

Who to fire? Longevity counts, so does job performance. You'll want to take this opportunity to send smokers to the unemployment lines ... and you might want to look at employees with tattoos. Lord knows nobody else wants to. But let's say it comes down to tiebreaker time. All elements are equal - but someone has to go. Now is the time to teach your employees that actions have consequences. If one of your employees on the bubble voted for Obama, that should make your decision for you. Tell him or her that they made a choice to vote for someone who made it clear that your taxes were going to go up. You're not going to take the hit. It was their decision, not yours, and they take the hit. Here's a box, put your stuff in it and get out. Maybe you can go get a worthy, honorable poor person to hire you.

Again ... actions have consequences. This isn't a liberal position. It isn't a conservative position. It's reality.

Barney Frank, with his mouth full of marbles, managed to mutter something very telling. In an interview, which is actually from October of last year, Barney had this to say in regards to the idea of an economic stimulus bill:

"Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases ... Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

Can anybody tell me what has my boxers in a bunch? Read it again. Did you catch the phrase "recover" some of this money? What's the premise there? The premise is that this money belonged to the government, and somehow these evil rich people got their hands on it. Now it's time for Slobbering Barney and his band of super-heroes to go out there and get the people's money back. That, in fact, is exactly what these government goons think. They believe that all wealth belongs to "the people;" that means to the government .. and that they are on some holy quest to go out there and get that money back from the crooks and wealthy criminals who have stolen it from worthy Americans.

While we are on the subject of incompetent politicians. Nancy Pelosi actually said that Republicans should not be upset with Obama for raising taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for government healthcare. In fact, the Republicans should be thanking Obama, according to Nancy, because if it were up to her .. she would have raised taxes a lot faster.

And then if that wasn't bad enough, Nancy uses this line .. which is just so typical for Democrats: "It's not about raising taxes ... It's about ending a tax cut."

Are you buying this, folks?

Yeah .. I watched it. There was no doubt that President Barack Obama was going to do a great job of delivering a speech. That's his forte. So, how do you judge a great speech? By the delivery or by the content? On delivery President Smooth Talker gets an A.

On content? Well, if you're a believer in big government; if you big on wealth envy; if you think that government does everything well and private businesses do everything poorly; if you think that banks are the focus of all that is evil in the modern world; if you don't believe that Islamic terrorism is a true threat to our safety .. in short, if you believe that America is great because of government, then the speech gets an A as well. If, on the other hand, you believe that America is great because of the dynamic created by free people working under the rule of law in a system based on economic liberty ... then the speech a D --- D for demagogue.

As I was watching the speech I opened a Word document. I just sat there typing when the mood hit. Here - unedited - are the notes I made as President Smooth Talker was doin' his thang. Remember ... this is real time ... and I had a little Bailey's on the rocks sitting there next to me.

As I said ... Obama wasn't willing to put any of the blame on the government for any of the problems we're facing. I guess placing blame on the entity you believe makes America great isn't the right thing to do. For Obama and government fans everywhere the blame rests solely on capitalism and the evil private sector ... especially bank CEOs.

Terence Corcoran is a columnist and editor of Canada's Financial Post. He is one of Canada's leading business writers. Here's an excerpt from a recent column. If you voted for Obama this might mean nothing to you. Then again, you're never too old to learn:

"How convenient it is to blame bankers and CEO compensation for triggering the crisis, especially for politicians and regulators. Charging bankers with greed and incompetence gets politicians and bureaucrats off the hook for what is now clearly a global systemic failure. . . . [I]f the U. S. Fed sets low interest-rate polices, and the U. S. government, through agencies, is promoting and subsidizing mortgage lending, it is not the role of the bank alone to grasp the full systemic risk being created by the incentive structure created by policy. Nor can each individual bank be expected to understand the full range of risks being undertaken by all banks all over the globe. . . . Understanding systemic failure on this scale requires much more than name-calling and cheap accusations aimed at markets and bankers and capitalism in general"

Makes perfect sense to me. Much more so than blaming banks and CEOs for all that is wrong with our economy. Obama loves government. You don't blame your lover for your problems.

Because most Americans get their news from Entertainment Tonight, comments like these are bound to get more media attention than people who .. dare I say .. know what they are talking about. And this comment comes from actor Sidney Poitier, who believes that the government should cap all CEO salaries in the United States. The Obama administration plans to cap CEO salaries of any bank receiving bailout funds at $500,000 a year. We are talking about taxpayer money. But according to Hollywood, this cap should apply to all CEOs, including those in Hollywood.

According to the Hollywood social elite, capitalism is evil. Working hard at creating or running a business and making a profit is considered evil. It is the government's role to redistribute this wealth by capping CEO pay so that there will be more money out there for people who don't have a job or who don't have the job skills or work ethic to make the big salaries. Does that make ANY sense? What people in this country fail to realize is that these CEOs run businesses that provide jobs which provide paychecks. People also need to understand that if the people with the skills to manage large businesses can't be paid what they're worth in our economy, they'll simply find another economy in which to sell their services. I guess you can't expect those educated by government to understand something this complicated.

But don't go telling that to the average American, who is more inclined to take political advice from George Clooney and the likes of Sidney Poitier.

Meanwhile, what does Wall Street have to say about the pay restrictions? Well, as you can imagine, the financial industry is less than thrilled.

We already knew that Barack Obama wants to limit executive pay to $500,000 for executives of companies receiving bailout funds. As Obama put it, the compensation restrictions would only apply to banks that receive "exceptional assistance."

But thanks to Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, that is not exactly how it is worded in the government enhancement bill that will be signed into law tomorrow. The bill will limit executive bonuses on all banks that receive bailout money .. not just those receiving "exceptional assistance." The rules written into the stimulus bill also apply retroactively to companies that have received TARP money. And when it comes to those evil corporate bonuses, Chris Dodd has a plan for those too .. although any bonuses included in contracts before February 11th will not be affected.

Here's the deal:

"Under the new restrictions, top executives can only collect bonuses no larger than one-third of their annual salary. And those bonuses must be given in the form of restricted stock options that executives could not cash in on until their company's bailout money was repaid to the government ... In terms of how many executives would be impacted by the rules in the stimulus bill: The restrictions would only apply to the highest-paid employee for companies receiving less than $25 million in government funds, but they would impact senior executives and at least the 20 next most highly paid employees at companies receiving $500 million or more in TARP funds."

Now the Obama administration says that it wants Congress to change parts of the executive compensation provisions included in the stimulus. Obama is apparently angry that Chris Dodd is trying to "one up" him with even more restrictions on executive compensations.

Whatever happens with the bonus provisions of the bill one thing is certain .. these restrictions ill insure that the affected companies cannot go into the marketplace to find the best available executive talent to bring their companies back to profitability. But the wealth-envy crowd will be happy.

Judging by the comments surrounding this story, it has the wealth envy crowd pretty riled up. As you may know, Circuit City is going Tango Uniform. The last of its stores are in the process of being liquidated, and the company says that incentive bonuses are needed in order to keep the 154 executives around before the company is dissolved. So Circuit City has proposed that 16 of its executives split $2.3 million in bonuses if they achieve all of their targets and stick around until the deal is done. Then, and this is what really gets to people, Circuit City wants $750,000 to give as discretionary bonuses to non-management workers. We are talking about a company with tens of thousands of employees.

The only good bonus is a bonus that shows up in YOUR paycheck.

Ahhhh ... another Boortz I Told You So. Actually, my I Told You Sos are not all that special .. anyone literate person with an ounce of rational thought capabilities can figure these things out. As soon as Barack Obama started yammering about limiting executive compensation for companies receiving bailout money we knew this was on the way ... and here it is, courtesy of Barney Frank. According to an article from Financial Week, Barney Frank said that curbs on executive pay could be extended to all businesses. Oh, how he would live that.

This news is going to be golden to the wealth-envy crowd out there. Lordy, how they love the idea of the government coming along and spanking those evil corporate executives who make all that money. If you talk to some of these people you will learn that they believe that virtually every corporation out there is failing and that the reasons for these failures are corrupt and overpaid executives.

Here's the report:

"Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

'There's deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,' the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies."

Yeah .. deeply rooted anger. How dare those people pay attention to their education. How dare those rich bastards take chances, work 80 hours a week, pay attention to their decisions and stick their necks out. Who do they think they are?

I saw a report on a Ft. Myers television station over the weekend about people lining up and waiting overnight in Ft. Myers for a chance to get tickets to Obama's appearance there tomorrow. They interviewed one man who lost his job and his home. He had been working in a pawn shop for the last 12 years or so, and was let go. He somehow thinks that Barack Obama is going to get him another job. Now let's think about this hard-driving pawn shop clerk for a while. For twelve years he worked behind that counter .. and all of this time he never took any initiative to prepare himself or to work for something better? No community education? No training courses? No putting on some nice clothes on your day off and looking for a better job ... say at a Wal-Mart? No second job to build a savings account? Now I'm going to catch some hell for this, but how many six-packs and cartons of cigarettes do you think this guy bought over the past 12 years. How much money would that amount to today if he had put it into a savings account? Well, finally he's doing something. He's going to go fawn at the feet of Barack Obama.

Before we move on, here's some more reading for you. Alan Brinkley is a history professor at Columbia ... a somewhat liberal university. He wrote this column for The Wall Street Journal entitled "Railing Against the Rich, A Great American Tradition." Barney Frank ... American Traditionalist.

Yesterday, Barack Obama officially set the bar on what the government considers "excessive" pay. He capped the salary of any executive working for a company that receives bailout money at $500,000. Obama said, "In order to restore our financial system, we've got to restore trust. And in order to restore trust, we've got to make certain that taxpayer funds are not subsidizing excessive compensation packages on Wall Street." So there you go. We have a figure to judge who is receiving excessive compensation, according to the government.

As you can imagine, Wall Street was less than pleased. And those on Wall Street and the business community are worried about exactly what you would think: a talent exodus from the financial sector, which will lead to a delay in the recovery. And just what have I been telling you since last week?

Patrick O'Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com says that the salary limit is "still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it's a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector ... Also, the order itself strikes us as a disincentive for financial firms to reach out for aid, which will just prolong the recovery for the sector and the economy."

Slippery slope indeed. I guarantee you that this is going to spread. Wealth envy is, in my opinion, at an all time high in this country, and politicians are surely going to want to capitalize on this. So you can expect these restrictions on executive compensation to spread to sectors of the private economy that are not seeking bailout money. This will be accomplished by punishing corporations who pay executives more than the government-approved maximum through our tax code. Political hacks are getting kudos now for virtually every attack on the private sector. This is one tactic they won't be able to ignore. The government-educated American people see that their president is doing something about those evil, greedy CEOs who are making money while the rest of you suffer.

And you know how I sometimes like the read the comments on different news stories. Well this opinion piece actually came out of the UK, Obama's bank error: it is boards that should determine pay not governments. And the very first comment, must be from a Brit because he obviously has no clue what is going on. The comment reads: "Journalists opinion is irrelevant, President Obama is doing what the American people support 100%, it's called democracy." One-hundred percent? Ya don't say! Maybe that is what your liberal news sources are telling you over in the UK. And oh, by the way, I don't know what Britain is teaching you (and I assume you went to a government school) but America is not a democracy. In fact, that statement from the British moonbat illustrates just why a democracy is so dangerous and our founding fathers warned us away! So, my Brit friend, your definition of what constitutes a democracy - Obama doing what the American people (supposedly) support 100% -- just demonstrates how blatantly ignorant you are. Thank God you don't have a vote in this country.

Earlier in the week, I told you about the brain-dead idea from Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill. She wants to put a limit on the executive compensation that can be paid by any company that is receiving bailout funds. That cap would be set at $400,000 a year, the same salary as President Obama.

It seems like the Obama folks rather like the idea! We're hearing this morning that Obama and the Democrats are now devising new executive compensation restrictions on banks that receive bailout funds. We are told to expect the exact details as soon as this week. Reports are that executives would be limited to $500,000 in annual compensation under the new rules. There would also be prohibitions on severance packages for certain top level executives and bonuses will be in the crosshairs as well.

These new rules are certain to do two things. First, as I explained earlier this week, the new rules will make it tough for these financial institutions to recruit or to keep the executive talent they so badly need to turn their companies around so that they can once again become profitable. As these rules loom on the horizon you be assured that many of the top executives in these companies are looking to bail - and head to industries where the government isn't limiting their compensation. Secondly, people wallowing in wealth envy will think that this is just wonderful .. those evil rich people are getting just what they deserved .. and Democrats will gain their undying loyalty.

Really, that's a serious question. Now I know that some people suffer tragedies related to mental disease and brain injuries .. but beyond physical disasters like these .. just how stupid can a human being be? I'm not talking "ignorant" here. I'm talking brain-dead stupid. I'm talking about Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill. McCaskill was, by the way, a national co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign.

McCaskill is riding the wealth-envy bandwagon right now. Last week she had some unkind things to say about executives on Wall Street. That's fine. There are certainly some Wall Street executives who have earned some unkind remarks. But McCaskill goes beyond merely pandering to the wealth envy crowd. She has a suggestion. She wants to put a limit on the executive compensation that can be paid by any company that is receiving bailout funds. That limit should be equal to Barack Obama's salary; $400,000 a year.

OK ... let's try to noodle this thing through a bit. Let's say that congress passes a law which caps executive compensation at $400,000 a year for any company receiving bailout funds. Now these companies are in trouble. There have shareholders and employees who are looking to corporate leadership to save their jobs and their investments by turning their companies around and putting them on a path to profitability. The chief executives of these companies are going to have to be experienced and knowledgeable innovators. They will be making decisions that are difficult to the extreme. People with these executive skills are in high demand. There are headhunting firms out there who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars from just one company find just the right person with the right combination of experience and executive talent to lead. People with this talent don't go cheap ... and they certainly don't go for $400,000 a year.

So McCaskill gets her executive compensation limit ... and what happens? Qualified executives run like hell for the companies that aren't receiving bailout money. Why go through the anguish of working under close government control and interference while trying to turn around a company in dire trouble for $400,000 a year, when you can take a job with a company that it doing just fine outside of all of this government interference for three times that much?

McCaskill's brilliant idea is to tell the companies receiving bailout money that they won't be allowed to hire the best executive talent out there. And this woman is a U.S. Senator. God help us all.

Then there is this letter that appeared in the Sunday edition of the Naples Daily News. Give it a read .... Feel the wealth envy.

Did you notice the key phrase that point to a severe case of wealth envy on the part of this writer? We have MBAs who "don't belong to country clubs." Right there we know that this writer is driven by jealousy. Someone out there has something that he doesn't have ... and that's just not right.

What's worse ... he thinks that you can get qualified MBAs to work for $100.000 a year ... the types of MBAs who are qualified to run the nation's largest financial institutions. Oh ... and 9/11 was a phony emergency and Iraq was all about Halliburton.

Terry Coppens ought to apply for a job on McCaskill's staff.

You will greatly appreciate some of this letter that is floating around the Internet. It is called, "Tax Solution to Wretched Greed." And the brilliant genius who came up with this gem is a man by the name of Joel S. Hirschhorn. Oh and guess what? The guy is a university professor. That will sound about right once you hear what he has to say. This oughta be good. Here's a little taste ...

Here is the solution that the overwhelming majority of Americans should demand: A law should be immediately passed that imposes a new special federal income tax of 99 percent on all income in excess of $500,000 annually for single taxpayers and $1 million for couples, starting for 2008 income. Call it a greed tax. Call it justice. Call it getting even for too many years of uncontrolled greed that has given the nation nothing but economic injustice and inequality, and given capitalism a very bad name. Call it a sensible way to raise federal revenues to help offset the cancerous national debt ...

Enough already. Drastic action is needed to achieve some justice. With all the attention on the Obama stimulus plan based on spending money the nation does not really have or can afford, it is appropriate to use this proposal to raise more revenues. Tax greed!

Here's another candidate for a spot on McCaskill's staff. Limit income in this country and watch our talent head overseas to work against the American economy instead of for it.

University professor. It figures.

During this financial crisis, we've encountered countless people whining about the evil, filthy rich. Wealth envy has really reared its ugly head. For all those callers who call up and complain about corporate bonuses, here's a little something to consider.

The state of New York is going to lose $1 billion in tax revenue this year. Any guess as to why?? That's right .. cash bonuses to Wall Street employees decreased by 44% in 2008.

When it comes to the city of New York, employees brought home $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. Sounds like a lot .. until you realize that the year before, they brought home $33 billion. That is going to cost New York City $275 million in tax revenue.

An analysis by the State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli says that this is the largest tax revenue percentage decline in over 30 years. Before the financial crisis, tax revenue from those evil, greedy rich people on Wall Street accounted for 20% of the state's tax revenues and 12% of New York City revenues.

But you go ahead and call up and tell me what a terrible person I am because I dared to defend the concept of corporate bonuses. Go ahead .. I'm standing by for the hate mail.

The inauguration of Barack Obama has emphasized .. at least, for some .. the vast divide between the evil, disgusting, rancid, rotting, putrid, hated, crooked rich and "real Americans," a/k/a the poor and middle income citizens. You can thank the media for reminding us that rich people are attending the inauguration with all the luxuries they can afford, and yet that same media that slammed George Bush for spending about one-third of what the Obama folks are spending on this one.

I want you to take a look at how ABC News covered the pre-inauguration events. Here's a little taste:

President-elect Barack Obama billed his inauguration an event "for all Americans." But in the nation's capital this long weekend, wealthy visitors are finding themselves a bit more equal -- and warmer -- than others.

Most Americans here to see President-elect Obama make history crammed onto buses and trains, slept on floors and fought crowds and cold. But the wealthiest Americans coming to see the event are enjoying all the perks their money and power ever warranted.

For CEOs and stars arriving by private jet, local airports have shut down entire runways to serve as parking lots for their planes. Officials are prepared to handle hundreds of private aircraft for the long weekend ...

Visitors without connections may scrounge to buy a $150 ticket to a state ball and feel a small part of history; meanwhile CEOs, media personalities and major campaign donors hop from private party to ball to private party.

Well, there you go. Isn't it just horrible that these high-achievers are allowed to spend their money to attend this inauguration? Don't they know that everybody is supposed to be equally miserable during this event? If one person has to arrive by bus, then everybody should arrive by bus. Nobody is better than anyone else, right? If one church group of Mississippi has to stand in the mall shivering in the cold, then everyone should stand in the mall. If one bus load from Illinois has to carry their own toilet paper ten who are these rich SOB's to have warm bathrooms and super-soft tissues?

Is this going to be the media routine throughout the Obama presidency? Are we in for four years --- maybe eight --- of the leftist media making a big deal of the differences in lifestyle between high-achievers and your local union pipe fitter?

Oh hell yes, we are.

If Nancy Pelosi had it her way .. we would increase taxes on the evil rich and give welfare checks to the parasite class. What is scary folks is the distinct possibility of Nancy actually making that happen. Ok, so Nancy agrees with Obama's plans for a so-called "tax cut" (welfare) included in his economic stimulus plan. But on top of that, Nancy is "urging" Obama to repeal the Bush tax cuts immediately. Don't let them expire in 2010, do it now. And remember, repealing the Bush tax cuts is just the Democrat way of saying "increase taxes on the evil rich." It's a way for them to pander to the wealth envy crowd. Joining in the hatred of high-achievers has always been a winner for the left.

The economy probably has something to do with it. By "it" I mean the increase in wealth envy and the increase in emails calling the evil, putrid, disgusting, wealthy everything but a child of God. When you can't pay your bills I guess the resentment against those who can really sets in.

I had a rare bout of actual thinking the yesterday. I remembered a time about 10 years ago when gays thought it would be a good idea to print "gay money" on all of their cash to show the community their economic impact.

I have a different idea.

If the evil rich to be despised, then maybe it's time for them to just take a bit of a spending vacation. Don't print "rich money" on your bills, just don't spend them! I would love to see the people in that evil top 1% of income earners - those earning more than something like $350,000 a year - just make a pledge to live a year as if they were making a middle class salary ... say $75,000 a year. Just limit your spending to $75,000 - and that's for everything - and then take the rest of your money and put it away somewhere where it will not be available to the economy. Then the evil rich can sit back and watch the great American middle class wonder why in the world nobody is buying their stuff. Imagine their surprise when the pink slip arrives.

You know that you are dealing with someone really intelligent when they use the word "bashing" in their first sentence. That is why I thought you would enjoy this article by Marie Cocco. You see, Marie is upset that people are criticizing her precious unions in conjunction with this auto bailout. That is because, according to Marie, "No one should be allowed to cast blame on workers who want nothing more than to maintain a middle-class life." In fact, Marie believes that unions aren't the problem ... they are actually the answer to our problems!

Go ahead and read it for yourself. Be sure to check out the bashing, corporate greed and wealth envy.

I'm hearing this more and more often these days. The ever-present wealth envy has settled (for the time being) on the idea that evil, nasty, putrid, scummy, disgusting, horrible, noxious rich people just don't pay taxes, and it's about time someone come along and make them pony up. I've already read for you several emails from people complaining that they know for an absolute fact that rich people are rich because they don't pay their taxes ... and they know this because they know a CPA somewhere and their CPA friend told them so.

Just a question: If the evil rich aren't paying their taxes, then just how is it that the Imperial Federal Government is collecting about 40% of all income taxes paid from the top 1% of income earners? Somebody 'splain that to me please.

I know what you're thinking right now.  You would like to take a trip into the mind of someone who just can't stand the fact that there are people out there who have worked smarter, harder and longer and in the process have become very successful.  Yeah .. how dare these people work that hard and earn that much money?  Don't they realize they're making me look bad? 

Have you ever tried to noodle out the thought processes behind wealth envy?  Here, let me help you.  Nobody likes to be told that they just haven't worked smart enough or hard enough to become wealthy.  People don't want to accept the fact that they've made some pathetic decision in their lives that stood in the way of success and wealth.  They don't want to be told they didn't pay attention to their education. They don't want to hear that they took a dead-end job and hung with it for years. They don't want to hear that they were too eager to punch out and head home after their required eight hours every day .. eschewing a bit of extra work that might have moved them ahead a few squares.  People don't want to hear that all of the money they spent on booze, partying, bass boats, vacations, car payments and lifestyle might have been better invested for future returns. 

In short .. so many people just can't bring themselves to accept the fact that it is they who have held themselves back.  No.  No way.  It's not their fault they aren't rich.  You can hear the thought process:  "I'm a good person.  I work hard.  I put in my 40 hours a week.  I pay my taxes.  I coach little league.  It's not my fault I'm not rich.  Those rich people cheated.  They have crooked lawyers.  They cheat on their taxes.  They've exploited people like me.  They're may be poor but at least I'm honest.  Those rich people are all crooks and they're holding the rest of us down.

Now ... an object lesson.  Here is an excerpt from delightful little email I got from some lady named Joy of Bradenton, Florida. She is more than a little upset about a conversation last week with a caller. The caller and I were wondering where the good investment bargains might be right now ... a question that many are asking.  Here you go:

"Don't you think that the fact that people like you with in your words " lots of money to invest" need to actually pay the taxes that they owe? My daughter is a CPA, so I know that most wealthy people use so many loopholes that they end up paying less tax percentage than the working poor. (BTW, she will not let her clients take questionable deductions although the most wealthy of them are always trying to find new ways to cheat. It is her license on the line if they lie on a tax return so she tells them to find another CPA if they insist on shady accounting practices.)

"Isn't it time for the people who use the system against the interests of the country by cheating on their taxes pay their actual tax liability? Isn't that the real Patriotic thing to do?  You profess to be a Patriot, don't you?

"The auto unions are not the enemy, the illegals are not the enemy, the greedy are the enemy.

"Sell your private jet and pay someone's mortgage that is being thrown into the street because their minimum wage job (that they were forced to take after they were laid off as the stockholders and CEOs steal their pension money) won't let them hold on to their home.  Lose your cushy transportation and save your soul."

Yeah, that's it.  People earning minimum wage are being foreclosed on because of corporate stockholders and CEOs.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they just aren't worth more to an employer than a few bucks an hour.  Oh well ... forget it.  To Joy and to people like her the rich are evil, and there's no changing that.  The poor are only poor because rich people made them that way.  Joy will remain poor .. she's programmed that way.  Sad.  She could change, but I don't see it. 

Gotta love these people ....

Subject: cry baby
Name: randy todd
Message:
you are such a little cry baby when you don't get your way. I think your mommie spoiled you. grow up. stop whining. don't you want to be a supporter of the greatest President we have ever had? listen, trickle down doesn't work anymore. trickle up will, except the companies thriving on dirty money today will cease operations because money will not be spent with them. people will vote with their wallets and their new-found wealth. better get right if you want to play.

Do you see the wealth envy in this email? Yeah .. phrases like "dirty money" and "new-found wealth." Poor ignorant Randy can't bring himself to admit that wealth is earned, not "found." Perhaps that's his problem. Instead of working hard and paying careful attention to his decision-making processes, Randy has been wandering around looking for wealth and, alas, he hasn't found any. I also like this "trickle-up" economic growth idea. Would someone please tell me how that works? Just how do the poor create wealth without funding, a job, or some type of economic stimulus from above? Yeah .. that "trickle-up economics" is a sure Nobel Prize winner.