Our President, Barack Obama loves to make a speech. To be perfectly honest, it's the only thing he is any good at (assuming, of course, the presence of his trusty teleprompter, otherwise all bets are off.) But in all of his speeches has anyone ever heard Mr. Obama vilify the young for not paying their fair share?

From day one President Obama has made the case that "the rich" don't pay their fair share. I guess the rub is how one defines "the rich." I've made the case in the past that the last thing Mr. Obama wants is for the really, really rich to pay anything at all, much less "their fair share." The more taxes they pay, the less they have left to donate to Mr. Obama's campaigns and causes. And both they and he understand this perfectly.

I'm not saying Mr. Obama invented political corruption, only that he's much better at it than anyone we've seen in a long time. But let's get back to the tax issue.

From the Congressional Budget Office:

"Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile," CBO said. "Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose."

To be perfectly clear, "the working rich" are definitely in Mr. Obama's sights, but the "super rich, (the one per-center corporate jet set crowd,)" not so much. The difference is "the working rich," so often vilified and targeted by Mr. Obama, are generally small independent business owners who are taxed at the highest rate of anyone in the country. You know; those "you didn't build that" people, the entrepreneurs that most of us fortunate enough to still be employed in the Obama economy actually work for.

Is it fair that your local hardware store owner or auto dealer pays more in taxes per year than international conglomerates such as GE and Google? I'm not talking higher tax rates here, like the percentage Warren Buffet's secretary pays in taxes vs. the percentage paid by Mr. Buffet himself, I'm talking tax dollars paid! Your neighbor, Joe Hammerseller, "contributes" every year, more to the IRS than GE and Google combined. It would seem that Mr. Obama finds this arrangement perfectly "fair." A cynic might submit that Joe needs to contribute a hell of a lot more of his revenue to "political causes" if he aspires to ever play on a level field with the "big boys." But any other casual observer would see the rank injustice in this immediately and without question.

But this is only the beginning of Mr. Obama's subterfuge.

The great wealth redistributionist rip off Mr. Obama is perpetuating is not from the rich to the poor (politically connected super rich corporations notwithstanding.) Mr. Obama's great wealth redistributionist rip off is, and there is no lack of irony here, from the young to the old.

Younger voters voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama in the last two Presidential election cycles.

The policies Mr. Obama so vociferously defends, Social Security, MediCare, and the whole Obamacare scam are policies that, by design, transfer wealth from younger to older Americans. There is quite simply no other way to put this.

The idea that healthy young Americans are forced, by law, to purchase grossly overpriced health care policies that are mandated by Obamacare to cover maladies highly unlikely to afflict these younger workers is the foundation on which Obamacare is constructed.

To listen to Mr. Obama's speeches, I could see where you might think his heart may be with you younger people, for what that's worth (not much I would posit,) but he knows it's us old geezers (Democrat and Republican) that get out in force and vote in every election cycle and that is why he will throw you under the bus in a New York minute.

An inspired leader would put these programs on the table for serious consideration as to how they can be reformed to deliver on the promises they represent, not only for this generation, but for those to come. But unfortunately, we don't have one of those.



