Usually the First Lady should be more or less off-limits — except, however, when her own choices and actions reflect on current controversy. The president, rightly or wrongly, is now making class an issue. His argument is that the 1 percent, the fat cats, the corporate-jet owners, and the Vegas and Super Bowl jet-setting crowd — those who don’t know when to stop making money or when it is not the time to profit — are inordinately culpable for the present economic downturn. They have not paid “their fair share” and have adopted laissez-faire practices that give them lifestyles unfairly beyond the struggling rest of us, and are thus in need of being reined in. To believe that is not just to want higher taxes on that class, but to be somewhat put off by what these top-bracket people have supposedly done to the rest of us.
Such demagogic populism in hard times, (and it is demagogic, given that a return to the Clinton tax rates would make only a small dent in Obama’s $1-trillion-plus annual deficits, and $5 trillion addition to the debt, due to his astronomical spending), has a long American history. We can excuse the fact that Michelle Obama often has a bad sense of timing — vacationing at tony places like Costa del Sol, Vail, Hawaii, and Martha’s Vineyard after making headlines by talking about “fairness.” Not to mention her past sermonizing on the unfairness of a downright mean U.S., and the moral pep talks about not going into the corporate world to make money in favor of community organizing and other more noble social work.
All that is water under the bridge. But her latest getaway to the Aspen ski resorts to stay with a billionaire ski developer, while perfectly ethical, is the proverbial camel’s straw that breaks the back of her populism — and the notion that the Obamas can make any ethical argument about the “them vs. us” divide. She sees no connection at all between presidential rhetoric and actual deed, even symbolically so — as gas goes over $4 a gallon in the west and the administration gears up for a class-warfare campaign that is making the argument that the privileged have amassed their wealth unfairly and are out of touch. The public is then confused about whether she goes to Aspen to see firsthand what the 1 percent have done with their ill-gotten gains, or to enjoy what they have, or to offer exemptions in exchange for generous campaign donations. (How does one go from being a demonized Halliburton or Koch to an enlightened Solyndra or Buffett other than professing by fealty?)
In her defense, she can point to the life lived and the rhetoric espoused by an Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, or Jon Corzine, and thus legitimately ask why she should be singled out, given the accepted liberal symbiosis of aristocratic tastes and populist rhetoric.
I could take Mr. Hanson 's views if he wasn't such a nativist.The man has a long history of anti- Catholicism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour name says it all; lot's of hotair!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"His argument is that the 1 percent, the fat cats, the corporate-jet owners, and the Vegas and Super Bowl jet-setting crowd — those who don’t know when to stop making money or when it is not the time to profit — are inordinately culpable for the present economic downturn. They have not paid “their fair share” and have adopted laissez-faire practices that give them lifestyles unfairly beyond the struggling rest of us, and are thus in need of being reined in." - VDH
What a crock. The President has never said anything like that and you know it.
Please show me where the President has blamed the 1% and suggested that they were "inordinately culpable" for the present economic downturn.
Please show me where the President has said that the 1% have "lifestyles unfairly beyond the struggling rest of us" and need to be "reined in". Can you show me where you get this nonsense. What baloney.
What the President has said is that everyone should pay their fair share. For instance Warren Buffet should not pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. What a crazy socialist idea huh?
I hope the right keeps up wholehearted defense of that poor downtrodden and picked upon minority otherwise known as the 1%. I'm sure that will go over just fine with the electorate.
Now go and find some more lies to print about our President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOMG, we're back to the phony Buffet tax rate canard!?! We're back to "fair share"!?! Groundhog Day lives in Slide's auto-fill keys!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh stop already with the vacation-bashing. It jumped the shark with Martha's Vineyard and
sounds like nothing now but some sputtering, obsessive/compulsive tick in written form.
Ford vacationed in Aspen in the midst of a recession arguably worse than the last one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHas there been a president or First Family since who hasn't?
You have to be kidding Frank1914.
Michele is the embodiment of Marie Antoinette by dint of her EXTRAVAGANT 16 vacations. This is the worst recession EVER and unemployment is far beyond what it was like in 1976 with Ford (I was there). Either Michele doesn't have a clue as to how indifferent and hypocritical her vacations appear (completely contradicting the class warfare mouthings of her spouse) or she doesn't care (I think its mostly the later).
But to compare ONE vacation of Ford's to the carnival that Michele is living is ludicrous. It doesn't get any more "in your face" than this. Blame the rich for all ills then vacation with them and pluck their pockets from NYC to San Francisco. Even the most liberal useful idiot must be able to see hypocrisy as ripe as this. Do I expect to much?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProbably!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm, I thought the last recession was the worst since the Great Depression. At least that's what your master has been telling us.
Regardless, did Ford go on 16 vacations in 3 years?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid Ford spend much of his time bashing the rich, while partying like them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid he Or Betty bash people for enjoying places like Vail, Aspen, etc and then hit the slopes with a smile? In one word-No. Did he send Betty and the kids all over the world for vacation and then bill the taxpayer for the expense? Probably not at the volume this White House does. Better yet, Did Betty or any other Republicans spouse jet out of DC a couple days or even hours in advance on a regular basis in order to start vacation early instead of just waiting to take one plane to their destination. My guess is those occurances were far and in between if it did occur.
Had this been any Republican in the White House jetting off to the places where the "Lifestyles of the Rich Famous" could be filmed, recession, depression or 10% increases per qtr in the GDP, the media bash would be non stop.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not the Martha's Vineyard that is the problem.
It is the Martha's Vineyard for me, but *YOU* are a bad person if you take a vacation.
Naughty, naughty, naughty!
Now eat what I tell you while I pig out on junk food.
I realize in-your-face cognitive dissonance is a trait valued by the Left, but must you guys always make it the centerpiece of your campaigns?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat fact provided an opening for another ribbing from Obama, when discussing the president's proposal for ending tax cuts for the wealthy.
"People like me and you, Mark, (should be) paying a little more in taxes," Obama said. "I know you're OK with that." External Link
I give the public more credit than Dr. Hanson, who may be the only one "confused" when he sees a rich man favor policies to help the poor, yet doesn't pretend to be poor himself.
It's called social responsibility -- and also not treating voters like idiots.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho do you think pays for a lot of Michelle's vacation expenses, Redfate? The Obamas are only too happy to vilify the rich, but at least the rich are spending their own money. HRH Michelle spends ours, on displays of wealth that only "bad people" make.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo a liberal, social responsibility ends with raising someone else's taxes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn this case, his own. #markwtotalpointmissbutwhatelseisnew
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRedfate, you make an excellent point...if we accept whatever YOU mean by "social responsibility" as being the ONLY way to define "social responsibility."
Cheesh, talk about missing the point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou had a point? That would be a first.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama, Buffet, Clinton and all the other filthy rich liberals who lament that their taxes are too low are completely free to pay more, are they not redfate?
And they don't do this because.....????? It isn't "fair"? They don't do the "right thing" now, why not? Their massively superior intelligence tells them to lecture us all to do this but, despite an enormous cushion of wealth they are utterly unmotivated to set and example.
Must THEY be coerced, FIRST, in order to act "fairly"? Its complete bull redfate and not even you miss that point. Actual leaders put their money where their mouths are, first. Demagogues, however, are more than happy to lecture us without ever having their phony standards held against THEM.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd give Emperor Palpatine some credit - *some*, I said - at least for not being a hypocrite, *if*....His Wonderfulness has two kids. I suggest a family of four can live quite decently on a million dollars. I submit, thus, that Dear Reader should say "Ther comes a point when you have enough money, and for a family like mine, a million dollars is that point. Currently having several million dollars in assets, I will now write a check to the US Treasury for everything my family and I own over that amount. Further, I will accept only one dollar a year for my service as President. From any money my wife or I make from outside sources - books, speeches...whatever - we will keep no more than necessary to maintain our net worth at a million dollars; all the rest will be sent to the Treasury." Hmmm....Anybody have any bets on the probability of that? And before the libs get ask why *I*, for example, don't do something like that before expecting our Emperor to do it...well, that's exactly what we conservatives are saying. Let *him* do it before - not "asking", but "forcing" - anyone else to do it. (By the way....Where, exactly, does *anything* give His Brilliance the legitimate authority to decide for someone *else*, what that magical "point when you have enough money" is?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlong with thousands if not millions of other people who aren't being consulted, and might reasonably want to keep what is theirs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse