Charity among our leaders

Fox News reported yesterday that Mitt Romney recently contributed 15 percent of his annual income to charity. Now, before O and B became our leaders, O reportedly donated about two percent of his income to charity. And B reportedly donated $369 in a single year - on a senator's salary.

My point? This is their business, but it sure made me wonder about the deep-down compassion of our two most prominent leaders, when they look like pikers compared with a prominent, sometimes-vilified representative of the one percent.

And it didn't square with the conventional wisdom of Democrats being more compassionate toward the less fortunate. And then I thought, Oh! The Democrats use other people's money to appear compassionate. It's a little tidier that way - you can claim the moral high ground (honestly, what a bunch of hooey, isn't it?, and still preserve your income.

Compassion is having economic growth sufficient to be able to offer someone a job. And, yes, the way it works is that a one-percenter will likely offer you that job.

Yeah, a few may need a life preservers from time to time, but we're creating a nation filled with dependents. I think most would prefer to work, but when jobs aren't available - you're gonna take it. Pretty soon, you may even learn to like it. Ugh.

I read yesterday that the one percent make 16 percent of the nation's income, and pay 36 percent of its taxes. If that's not fair, to my lights it's unfair to the one percent.

When the bottom 47 percent of earners in this country pay no taxes, that's unfair. Their only skin in the game is getting to the voting booth every few years, and re-electing leaders who preserve the sham.