One of the richest men in the country, ranking in the 0.006 percent of Americans, likes to accuse the President of creating an "entitlement society."
Mitt Romney, the heir apparent, next in line GOP nominee ... is against entitlement.
When I hear "entitlement society," I think "country club." But when Mitt uses that phrase, he doesn't mean rich guys like him, given all the advantages of wealth, who are now enjoying its comforts — he means the rest of us.
Yes, Mitt is against an "entitlement society" because that involves too many people, and not just him and his ilk.
It's not the "entitlement" he contests — it's the entire "society" part.
At the Monday Florida debate last week, Mitt noted that under Gingrich's tax plan Mitt would pay no taxes at all.
Gingrich responded with, "Well, if that –– and if you created enough jobs doing that –– it was Alan Greenspan who first said the best rate, if you want to create jobs for capital gains, is zero."
So rich people whose money makes their money (it's literally capital gaining) are so fortunate they get to hire other people to pay taxes for them?
Rich people with their alleged mythical power to create jobs even get to outsource their tax obligations to poor saps working for a living?
This is the prosperity gospel as a Super PAC-funded marketing blitz.
Money is next to godliness and poverty is the fault of the poor for not being better people.
It's as if Jesus were a CEO and the Romans job-killing communists.
"Contrary to the President's constant disparagement of people in business," former George W. Bush budget director Gov. Mitch Daniels said in his State of the Union response last week, "It's one of the noblest of human pursuits."
This is one of those phrases you (usually) will only hear in business school (funnier if it was one of those rip-off, for-profit colleges).
Business is one of the noblest of human pursuits? Noble as in aristocratic?
That phrase, "noble pursuits," is usually applied to an avocation not paying much but rewarding in other ways: teachers; firefighters; nurses; foster parents; soldiers; community leaders; social workers; mentors; rescue workers; care givers; farmers.
Or to anyone who's honest, shows up every day and works hard.
That's a noble pursuit.
Are the wealthy really so sensitive they need Mitch Daniels to make them feel better about themselves in a spiritual sense? What they're doing not only pays off with privilege and cash — it also has to be venerable from a moral perspective?
How much reward does one group need? They own everything, and they also need to be thanked?!
The rich are not just over-paid — they're over-valued. And generous welfare recipients.
As Senator Tom Coburn points out in his damning Nov. 2011 report, "Subsidies of the Rich and Famous," we are a wealthfare state. It reads, "This reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit."
In other words: We subsidize the rich by telling the poor to pay their fair share.
It's been a strange three years under the Obama administration. First the GOP was against empathy. Yes, the party had to vehemently opposed seeing the plight of your fellow human beings because Obama was for it.
Now their new hot button word? Fairness. Obama used the word fairness in his third State of the Union. And now the GOP has decided to be against fairness and celebrate inequality as being the thing that makes America great.
It's as if Jesus were a CEO and the three wise men were shareholders.
The prosperity gospel is not America. It's not democratic. It's not even Christian.
It's greed warped into being a virtue by the greedy.
The rich aren't better, they're just richer.
Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the managing editor of “Crooks and Liars.” She can be reached at email@example.com. Tina’s column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.