This page was last updated on December 29, 2011.
Santa not a one-percenter; Thomas M. Finch; Beaver County Times; December 29, 2011.
Mr. Finch’s letters never disappoint. As usual, his letter is little more than a string of leftist talking points. It’s at least the 27th anti-Bush and/or anti-Republican letter from Mr. Finch since December 2004. Here is one example. I wish he could get a regular column in the BCT. I also wish he could get at least five minutes per day on a local radio and/or TV station.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Every holiday I’m treated to Dan Reeping’s pseudo-witty stories that disparage Democrats and anyone else who doesn’t agree with his Republican/Tea Party ideas.”
[RWC] This is at least the fifth time since 2005 Mr. Finch has written a letter responding to a Reeping letter. Previous examples are here, here, here, and here.
You have to give Mr. Finch credit for chutzpah for complaining about “stories that disparage Democrats ….” As noted above, this is least the 27th anti-Bush and/or anti-Republican letter from Mr. Finch since December 2004.
“This time, in his letter to Santa -- depicted as a wealthy, businessman, one-percenter -- he is told to avoid the occupier encampments and Washington, D.C., in general, to avoid being victimized and/or taxed … ‘for no other reason than because they are rich.’”
[RWC] Mr. Reeping wrote, “You [Santa] must be very wealthy and a great businessman to be able to go forth around the world giving gifts to so many children. But Santa, this may put you in great danger. For the people of these tent cities (called occupiers) demand that rich people must share their wealth because they are more successful than those living in the tents.” “One-percenter” is Mr. Finch’s terminology, not Mr. Reeping’s.
“Heaven forbid that the extremely wealthy are asked to pay a little more to support the common good.”
[RWC] FYI, “extremely wealthy” currently means anyone making $200,000/year ($250,000 for couples filing a joint return). This is also President Obama’s definition of millionaires and billionaires.
Based on 2009 income tax data, the top 1% (AGI greater than $344,000) of filers paid 37% of the total and the top 5% (AGI greater than $155,000) paid 59%. How much more is the top one percent’s “fair share” in Mr. Finch’s opinion? The bottom 50% (AGI less than $33,000) paid 2.3% of the total.
“Reeping’s half-baked analogy is just plain wrong, on so many levels, but I will only comment on a few.
“1) Those occupiers that he regards with such distain [sic] -- ‘human debris’ as Limbaugh called them -- are making a public statement in support of the remnants of middle-class America. We need more of that.”
[RWC] What is that “public statement in support of the remnants of middle-class America?” Heck, a local lefty leader even conceded the occupiers didn’t make specific demands. What was the “public statement” when the occupiers closed some West Coast ports, resulting in lost pay for “remnants of middle-class America?” Mr. Finch really believes “We need more of that?”
“2) The mythical Santa represents generosity, but one-percenters are all about greed and personal gain. Has any of their largesse trickled down to you lately? Didn’t think so.”
[RWC] Under other circumstances I’m reasonably sure Mr. Finch’s ideology would require him to present Santa as an oppressor and his wife, elves, and reindeer as the oppressed.
Mr. Finch seems to say you can be filthy rich, but you’re not a one-percenter if you fit his definition of generous. Can you be a one-percenter if you’re not wealthy but “are all about greed and personal gain?” Is being a one-percenter really about something other than wealth? Man, this one-percenter stuff is getting complicated. <g>
“Has any of their largesse trickled down to you lately? Didn’t think so.” Do the evil rich stuff “their largesse” under their mattresses or in safe deposit boxes? Of course not, they lend it, invest it, buy stuff, employ people, pay taxes on it, donate it, et cetera.
“3) Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and Wall Street CEOs are true one-percenters. I’m pretty sure Mr. Reeping and his like-minded cronies are not. Why would you believe their lies and work against your own self-interests? It seems like brain-washed stupidity.”
[RWC] In case you don’t know, the Koch (pronounced “coke”) brothers are the latest lefty boogeymen because they are wealthy and contribute primarily to conservative candidates and causes. If the Koch brothers contributed primarily to lefty candidates and causes, as do wealthy lefties like Peter Lewis, George Soros, et al, they would be lefty heroes. For example, USW CEO Leo Gerard recently wrote of “Democratic benefactor George Soros.” I wonder if Mr. Finch considers Messrs. Lewis and Soros “true one-percenters.”
Above, Mr. Finch wrote “one-percenters are all about greed and personal gain,” yet here he asks why someone would work against his own self-interests and support raising already-high tax rates on someone else but not him. This tells me Mr. Finch meets his definition of one-percenter.
As for the question, I’ll answer it for me. I don’t envy what someone has, or at least not to the point I would steal it or empower the government to confiscate it for me.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.