ROGER KIMBALL: The “Fairness” Meme:

Here’s my bet: the operative word in Obama’s speech tomorrow night, the mantra that will be repeated endlessly, not only by O but also by the left-wing commentariat, is “fairness.” You remember his campaign shtick: the Saddleback Church event, for example, when Rick Warren asked candidates John McCain and B.O. about taxes. “Define rich,” he asked. McCain tossed out an income of $5 million, which elicited derision. But the gravamen of his response came in the elaboration: ““I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich.”

How different was B.O.’s response: What he was looking for, he said, was “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”

“Our fair share.” That, as I noted at the time, is B.O.’s refrain. “[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.” It’s a small step from the invocation of “our fair share” to Obama’s call for a tax on “the windfall profits of oil companies,” a tax increase on capitals gains, elimination of the tax on Social Security tax, etc., etc.

The crucial point here is that what Obama is interested in is not increasing revenue but in promulgating redistributionist policies that make it harder for people to prosper economically. William McGurn, writing in The Wall Street Journal back then, recalled Obama’s response to ABC’s Charlie Gibson when Gibson observed that raising taxes led to decreased revenues: “Well, Charlie,” Obama replied, “what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

“For purposes of fairness”: that means, “for purposes of economic egalitarianism.”

Or, more accurately, for purposes of control. The one fairness-tax he won’t propose, I feel sure, is my proposed 5-year 50% surtax on the earnings of former government officials. But that tax seems fair to me. After all, the private-sector is only willing to pay those inflated salaries because of the time the officials spent on the taxpayers’ dime. Why not let the taxpayers get some back? Fair is fair.

I really hope that some Republican — or Democrat! — in Congress will attach this to the Obama tax increase package. As Roger Kimball notes, it won’t raise much revenue, but that doesn’t distinguish it from Obama’s other “fairness” oriented taxes.

My only question is whether a mere 50% is fair enough. Roger Kimball thinks we should go higher, to 75%, or 90%. In the interest of “compromise,” I’m willing to go along. Just to show that I’m not one of E.J. Dionne’s crazed tax-hating “fire eaters.” After all, from reading Dionne over the years, I know that there’s nothing more moderate than agreeing to a big tax increase for other people!

UPDATE: A reader emails:

Would you extend this 5 year limit to state officials/employees? including higher ed employees such as law professors? :)

I joke a little but being a federal employee (so please leave my name out this time if you quote anything) I’m disheartened by the revolving door I see among the high end GS, military ranks, SES, political appointees, and former members of Congress to places such as Goldman Sachs and hate being lumped in with them. I doubt I have an opportunity to make $450K much less $250K. So for the “little guys”how about set the limit to the the top of the regular federal employment schedule? That gives folks like me a chance to earn more (up to $130K for a GS 15 step 10) and cuts the other folks off at the knees.

Well, I was really only thinking about political appointees here. That’s why I said government officials rather than employees, but I guess that wasn’t really clear.