About that populist anger

Wall St. Journal's Obama booster, Gerald Seib, writes yesterday (Capital Journal) about the "populist anger." That makes me so angry--it was SO ginned up, it was ridiculous. So who's responsible for getting everyone hyped about CEOs' bonuses--bonuses (millions) that were a fraction of what Obama and his buddies are stealing from us (trillions) and the future unborn Americans (assuming they can make it past the now free-wheeling, free-for-all abortionists thanks to our President). Wasn't it old Barney's threats in Congress as he grilled Liddy? Wasn't it Obama's ACORN being bussed to the suburbs to harrass law abiding people who actually work for a living?

Can the passions be cooled, Seib asks. Don't know. Can newspaper reporters' jobs be saved when they've gored the ox (advertising for business) that pay their salaries? It depends, Mr. Seib. How angry will Americans get when they wake up and see Obama's poked a hole driven a bulldozer through our dike of protections at the top--our three branches of government with distinctly different responsibilities (and he's not the first to do this, just the worst). How mad will they be if they realize over half of Congress are flunkies slurping up the pig droppings from the pork trough in Washington trying to cover their appetites by shouting "it's the bankers," "it's the Jews," "it's someone else's greed."

Seib can't figure out what happened to the steadily rising median income of the middle class after the 1980s (except for a blip under Clinton, which he happily claims). Well, let's see if I remember my history. When the Great Depression finally ended in the 1940s after the war and inspite of FDRs programming, we did have a bit of prosperity, which made liberals and conservatives feel guilty, so the wealth transfer started big time. We had LBJ's programs and Carter's programs, and the Republicans tried to play catch up every time they got in office (but Congress approves the budget and Democrats controlled that until 1995). All the major cities with the poorest people are controlled by Democrats, from bottom to top. No one was a bigger spender on social programs (until January 2009) than Bush II.

But all you have to do is look at the wealthiest, most successful, most entrepreneurial and smallest demographic group--the Asian Americans--to see what happened in the last 20 years, and why the middle class is struggling to keep what it earns.

The government provides resources to households through cash and noncash transfer programs. These programs may be open to all or limited to those with incomes below set amounts. Holding other income
components constant, transfers from the Social Security Administration, Veterans Administration, and state governments increase household income. Payroll, state, and federal tax liabilities reduce household income. Certain tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit, are refundable and may
increase household income. U.S. Census

And we have an awful lot of Americans who never pay any federal income tax (although they do pay exorbitant special interest taxes, like the recently raised poor tax called cigarette taxes). Here again, Asian non tax payers do not reflect their proportion of the population because, well, who knows? Pride? Ambition? Family values? Marriage? Flight from Communism?

"White Americans are 83 percent of total taxpayers, and the percentage of zero-tax filers who are white is 79 percent. African Americans are roughly 13 percent of total taxpayers and 17 percent of zero-tax filers. Asian Americans comprise 3.6 percent of total taxpayers and 3.4 percent of zero-tax filers." Tax Foundation figures for 2004

Of all the groups, Asian Americans lost the most by readjusting their income downward through wealth transfer to the poorer whites, blacks and Hispanics. And so it is with all who will try to succeed under socialism, Mr. Seib. The Asians are just the canary.

Populism? Mr. Seib should probably be putting out feelers for a job if he reads the tea leaves.