Comments on Victor Davis Hanson's Article

The esteemed professor, Victor Davis Hanson has written an article for National Review called Let Obama Be Obama.

Here are some excerpts and my commentary:

After his party’s devastating setback in the 2010 midterm elections, Barack Obama was reelected earlier this month by painting his Republican opponents as heartless in favoring lower taxes for the rich. They were portrayed as nativists for opposing the DREAM Act amnesty for illegal immigrants, and as callous in battling the federal takeover of health care.

 Ah yes, it's the typical Democrat, or I should say, Democrap launch into victim hood. I think most of us are getting sick and tired of it. Of course, the Republicans never hold the Democrats to their lies, but that's beside the point.

Here's where Dr. Hanson gets to the meat of things.

Why doesn’t the Republican-controlled House of Representatives give both voters and President Obama what they wished for?
The current battle over the budget hinges on whether to return to the Clinton-era income-tax rates, at least for those who make more than $250,000 a year. Allowing federal income rates to climb to near 40 percent on that cohort would bring in only about $80 billion in revenue a year — a drop in the bucket when set against the $1.3 trillion annual deficit that grew almost entirely from out-of-control spending since 2009.

 Instead, why not agree to hike federal-income-tax rates only on the true “millionaires and billionaires,” “fat cats,” and “corporate jet owners” whom Obama has so constantly demonized? In other words, skip over the tire-store owner or dentist, and tax those, for example, who make $1 million or more in annual income. Eight out of the ten wealthiest counties in the United States voted for Obama. Corporate lawyers and the affluent in Hollywood and on Wall Street should all not mind “paying their fair share.”

Oh yes, I can hear the whine and cheese party now. Can you imagine George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Bruce Springsteen, etc. suddenly finding themselves in a draconian tax bracket with no deductions, because of their income level? 

Upping federal tax rates to well over 40 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year would also offer a compromise: shielding most of the small businesspeople Republicans wish to protect while allowing Obama to tax the 1-percenters whom he believes have so far escaped paying what they owe,...why not close loopholes for billion-dollar estates by taxing their gargantuan bequests to pet foundations that avoid estate taxes? Why should a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates act as if he built his own business and can solely determine how his fat-cat fortune is spent for the next century — meanwhile robbing the government of billions of dollars in lost estate taxes along with any federal say in how such fortunes are put to public use?

Let's set the marginal tax rate for $1 million a year at 70%. Remember it was President Obama who said that there comes a point when you've made enough money. As far as the Warren Buffets and Bill Gateses, Did they build their businesses on their own? Not according to Obama. Oh wait, it's different for  rich Liberals. Isn't Crony Capitalism a wonderful thing.

Now about the immigration problem, Dr. Hanson hits it out of the park.
  

The president flipped in an election year on the DREAM Act. Suddenly, in 2012, Obama decided that he indeed did have the executive power to order amnesty without congressional approval for those who came illegally as children, stayed in school or joined the military, avoided arrest and thus deserved citizenship. In response, Republicans supposedly lost Latino support by insisting that federal immigration law be enforced across the board, regardless of race, class, gender, or national origin.

But why not make the president’s DREAM Act part of the envisioned grand bargain on immigration? Once it is agreed upon that we have the ability to distinguish those foreign nationals deserving of amnesty, then surely we also have the ability to determine who does not meet those agreed-upon criteria.

Why, then, cannot conservatives allow a pathway to citizenship for the play-by-the-rules millions who qualify, while regrettably enforcing an un-DREAM Act for others who just recently arrived illegally; enrolled in, and have remained on, public assistance; or have been convicted of a crime? Who could object to that fair compromise?

Personally, I think it's a wonderful idea. Thank you Dr. Hanson. Hey Liberals, don't you think it's fair? Or do you want Manuel the gardener and Consuela the maid to continue working for you under the table so you don't have to pay their Social Security, or the new emerging health care requirements that Obamacare is forcing on the American people?  Hey, you voted for Obama, maybe he'll give you a waiver. After all, there have already been over 1200 waivers given out to "favored" corporations and various unions. Quid Pro Quo is such a wonderful thing.

Shouldn’t Republicans seek to end all exemptions rather than tackle the improbable task of overturning Obamacare itself? Their motto should be: “Equality for all; special treatment for no one!”

Yup, let Joe The Plumber have the same access to quality health care as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama. If the government Apparatchiks and the college educated Nomenklatura in the information age economy, the education industry, and the social services racket have to use the same health care system as the unwashed masses that they despise, you would see a wonderful, efficient, and inexpensive health care system in this country.

Come on hippies. Let's be fair. You are all about fairness, right? Well I guess in your mind some people are created more fair than others...or was it more equal to others? Either way, I hope the Republicans have enough spine to make this mess blow up in your face. However, I'm not holding my breath. Thank you Dr. Victor Davis Hanson for this wonderful article. Please read the whole thing at National Review.