by .

[Note: This piece was originally published on January 25th, 2012]

Shortly after President Obama was elected, NBC News interviewed a young woman from Detroit named Peggy Joseph. She explained that she was excited about Obama’s election because “I won’t have to worry about putting the gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.”

In the three years since, President Obama may not have actually paid her mortgage or filled up her tank, but judging from last night’s State of the Union address, he’s still trying.

The president’s address — more campaign speech than policy platform — was long on calls for “fairness” and “opportunity,” but it really boiled down to the president’s vision of a society where government does everything for everyone — financed, of course, by higher taxes on “the rich,” who need to pay “their fair share.”

The president’s argument ignores the fact that the rich already pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes. In fact, the much-reviled 1 percent earns 16 percent of all income in this country, but pays 36.7 percent of all federal income taxes. One might conclude that this group is already paying its fair share.

Take, for example, the president’s renewed push for a so-called “Buffett rule,” based on the idea, in Obama’s oft-cited formulation, that investors such as Warren Buffett should not pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries. He even had Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, sitting in the presidential box.

Buffett makes most of his money from investment income (capital gains and interest), and he pays a capital-gains tax rate on that money. That tax rate could theoretically be lower than the tax rate that Ms. Bosanek pays on her wage-based income, although only if Ms. Bosanek’s income is fairly high and she took few deductions. However, the president’s narrative ignores the fact that Buffett’s income had already been taxed at the corporate level. When the effect of both taxes is combined, the real effective tax rate is closer to 45 percent. That is quite a high rate on an inherently risky activity — investing — that our tax code should encourage.

And significantly, note that the president’s solution to this supposed problem is not to reduce taxes on Ms. Bosanek, but to raise them on Mr. Buffett.

That is because the president sees the Buffett rule and his complaints about other tax loopholes as simply a tactic, the camel’s nose under the tent, in his desire for more money for the federal government. That is why his actual tax proposals, hidden behind rhetoric about “millionaires and billionaires” and the “wealthiest 1 percent,” would actually raise taxes on people earning as little as $200,000 per year, as well as many small businesses. And many of his proposals will probably hit people with incomes even lower.

And he wants that money so that he can spend it.

The president might have given lip service to the need to reduce deficits and the debt, but most of his speech was a laundry list of government programs to spend more money doing more things for more people. From health care to housing, from worker education to industrial policy, from “green energy” to college loans, the president sees the government as both the engine of our prosperity and the guarantor of fairness.

The president’s vision of the state of the union is a zero-sum one in which, if some people get rich, it must make other people poor. If Warren Buffett makes money, then Peggy Joseph won’t have gas for her car. The only alternative is for the government to step in and make Mr. Buffett pay for Ms. Joseph’s gas.

Of course there is another option.

We all seek a society in which every American can reach his or her full potential, in which as few people as possible live in poverty, and in which no one must go without the basic necessities of life. More important, we want a society in which every person can live a fulfilling life. But the evidence is now inescapable that the best way to achieve that goal is not through welfare-state redistribution of wealth, but through the creation of more wealth. We should judge the success of our efforts not by how much charity we provide to the poor, but by how few people need such charity.

Would it not be a better America if we could make it possible for Ms. Joseph to get a better job so that she could afford her mortgage and her gas? For that matter, wouldn’t we like a country where she could afford a bigger house and a second car? Nothing that the president has proposed would help bring that about.

Poverty, after all, is the natural condition of man. Indeed, throughout most of human history, man has existed in the most meager of conditions. Prosperity, on the other hand, is something that is created. And we know that the best way to create wealth is not through government action, but through the power of the free market. Last night, President Obama said, “This nation is great because we worked as a team [and] have each other’s backs.” Others might suggest that this nation is great because we are free.

We will probably spend the next year debating these two visions. Last night’s speech was the start.

Regards,

Michael Tanner
for The Daily Reckoning

Recent Articles

Extra!
The Greatest Challenge Facing America’s Economic Dominance

Alasdair Macleod

Next month, for major countries will become full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). That will increase the population of SCO member states to 3.05 billion. But why should you care? As Alasdair Macleod explains, this move could have a very important impact on the US dollar. Read on...


On Sale: A Precious Metals Play with a Reliable Dividend

Dan Amoss

Precious metals get a bad rap from most investors. But in the midst of so much central bank money creation, they still provide an excellent hedge against inflation. Dan Amoss relays one great investment idea in this sector with plenty of upside potential as precious metals look poised for a significant comeback. Read on...


An Early Stage Opportunity in the Next Phase of 3D Printing

Wayne Mulligan

Over the last two years, few innovations have had as big of an impact as 3D printing. But as important as this technology has become, one new tech story is about to leapfrog over it. And as Wayne Mulligan explains, early investors in this new innovative technology could make a fortune by getting in early...


Laissez Faire
How to Get Free Airfare to Almost Anywhere in the World

Chris Campbell

Traveling the world can be expensive. Between airfare, dining costs and hotel accommodations, travel expenses can add up quickly. And the last thing you want on your vacation is to be stretched too thin. Chris Campbell explains how you can eliminate one of the biggest travel expenses entirely, with one simple trick. Read on...


1990s Flashback: A Blueprint for the Current S&P Rally

Greg Guenthner

The S&P finally closed above 2,000 yesterday - a new all-time high. And that has some investors comparing it to the heady days of the late 1990s, when the S&P soared through 1,000 and didn't bother to look back. But as Greg Guenthner explains, that run up wasn't without its pitfalls, and this one won't be either. Read on...


5 Min. Forecast
“Neofascism” in 2014 America

Dave Gonigam

The fall of the US dollar-based monetary system will happen much like Hemingway's description of how one goes bankrupt: "gradually, then suddenly." And, as Dave Gonigam explains, when the inevitable finally happens, there's one group of investors who will be happy they listened to folks like Jim Rickards. Read on...