Gary Wisenbaker Blog
Gary Wisenbaker
Why Unite? Its Easier to Divide Or Confessons of a Korean Point Dog

There was a time when American school children were taught that the greatness of their country was rooted in the common concern of its citizens: the “melting pot” theory.  The idea was that people from all over the globe came here for opportunity and freedom giving up their individual ethnic and cultural backgrounds in order to become an American.

Learning and mastering a common language was part of that Americanization.  And so was understanding that everyone had a chance to live their dream free from governmental (and even private) interference.  Understanding that such an opportunity existed became the crux of individualism and the harder that opportunity was became the crux of rugged individualism.

While there were kinks and chasms to deal with along the way, the roadway became smooth and broad ensuring that there was ample room for everyone to travel their chosen road to opportunity at whatever pace and in any (legal) manner they wished.  Viola!  The American Dream.

Then something insidious happened.  The idea developed that the American Dream wasn’t something you worked toward but something that ought to be handed to you.  And this morphed into the thought that if you worked and amassed wealth and possessions then, well, that was wrong.  The government, once the benign facilitator of commerce, took on the new role of arbiter and distributor of wealth.

That smooth and broad road we all traveled was reconstructed.  Speed bumps and detours of governmental regulations were installed; worse, lanes were put to be traveled only by those of a specified ethnic background or sex or orientation or religious belief or disability or income bracket.

The melting pot was cleaned out and put away.  “Haves” were pitted against “have nots”.  Blacks against Whites against Hispanics against Asians and on and on.  Men against women.  Gay against Straight.  Marriage against cohabitation.  Professionals against laborers.  Employed against unemployed.  Voila!  Class warfare.

Obama, who has adopted it as his governing modus operandi, recently escalated his class warfare rhetoric with the “soak the rich” tax scheme announcement on April 10.  We’ve discussed this before.  He doesn’t seem to understand that the tax rates for the higher brackets are generally based on capital gains: they buy and sell stock; they buy and sell land; they buy and sell businesses...all are job creating exercises.  Moreover, the vast majority of these high income “earners” are in reality companies owned by individuals or LLCs or LLPs, entities whose profits and losses flow thru the individual taxpayer.  Again, these are job creating engines, entrepreneurs. 

He just doesn’t get it.  The tax code was structured to treat different types of incomes differently (I won’t get into the merits or demerits of such a structure) and for good reason: to encourage investment.  So of course Warren Buffett’s or Mitt Romney’s tax rate (say, 18% capital gains rate) may be lower than their respective secretary’s rate (say, 27% ordinary income rate) but its because of the different types of income.  The Code, ostensibly at least, seeks to reward risk takers who go out and invest and grow wealth. There’s nothing nefarious about it; it’s the law.

But as demagogy trumps good government and since divisiveness trumps responsible governing, Obama stays on task: Divide and conquer.  Winning at any cost to the solidarity of the American people.

Yet  now the Obama Administration finds another wedge issue for his reelection campaign:  Stay-at-home-moms (SAHMs)  vs. working moms (WMs).  Clearly a new low, even for this administration.  His campaign unleashed DNC pit bull (my apologies to the breed) Hilary Rosen to attack likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney on Wednesday evening, April 11.

You might recall that the White House has no record to run on: Unemployment at 8.3%, a failed $800 billion dollar “stimulus” package, a severely flawed and unpopular health care “reform” act (regardless of how the USSC rules), a failed energy policy, a failed foreign policy, a failed [you fill in the blanks, I’m tired].  Since all they can do is tear down (see his AP Editors speech from 2 weeks ago where he assailed the House budget offering absolutely nothing in its place), that’s what they did.

Only they picked on Mrs. Romney, mother of five sons.  Rosen snarled that the Governor’s wife had “never worked a day in her life.”  (This, of course, follows Obama’s proclamation that SAHMs are “a luxury”.)


Tell that to my wife who retired from teaching to raise (just) 3 kids.  The funny thing about Rosen’s remark was that it was intended to show how “out of touch” Mitt was with women, their issues and concerns.  Talk about out of touch. 

They had to do something, however, since Obama’s poll numbers are sketchy, at best, with the SAHMs where Romney does well.  Gotta shore up the “have nots” against “the haves”: “energize the base”.  Rather than address the real issues and how Obama’s policies have failed all Americans, not just the working moms, the simpler, more liberal, more Democrat approach is to pit one American against another. 

Or would they be cynical enough to sic this attack dog on Mrs. Romeny on the eve of a North Korean rocket launch which, if successful, would demonstrate their ability to deliver a nuclear device within our borders?  Maybe deflect attention from one of the most glaring foreign policy failures of this administration?   


Trackbacks :
Comments :
Name :
Email :
Comments :
Allowed Tags : <B>, <I>, <BLOCKQUOTE>