Is Obama buying votes? What else do we call it?

A guy named Fred with only a dollar to his name learns a trade, gets a job, works hard, and earns a tight living for his family. At thirty, he decides to take a risk. Fred mortgages the house a second time, borrows a lot of money and starts his own business. He works 70-80 hours a week, and eventually hires a few people, who can then support their families. He works harder and, unlike many people who take this kind of risk, Fred doesn’t go bust. Thirty years later, the business is a success, Fred’s 60, he employs 30 people who support their families because Fred took the risk and worked hard, and Fred’s now earning $300,000 a year. He’s also in the top 3% of taxpayers, paying the highest tax rate, about 35%. Fred’s a success, and his family is comfortable, but it took years of back-breaking work, and he risked losing everything he had to get there.

One night, a thug who never worked a 40-hour week in his life sticks a gun in Fred’s belly, and takes his wallet, with $800 in it, which he shares with his pals, who also never worked full time. (Fred has to give the wallet up, because he lives in a state where the Democrats won’t let him carry a gun to protect himself. Besides, if he shoots the thug, preventing him from robbing other hard working people, Fred might well go to jail.)

We call that theft.

But suppose Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress decide Fred’s now rich, and they send the IRS to take another $15,000 a year from him, to share with lots of people (who voted for Obama), who never took a risk to start a business, or worked a 40-hour week in their lives.

Sen. Obama calls that “being fair” and “spreading the wealth around.” I still call it theft.

Fred decides to hell with it, takes early retirement, sells the business to someone who works only 40 hours a week, in two years it folds, and the employees are laid off. They and Fred stop paying much in taxes, so those still working have to pay even more.

The Democrats call that “bad luck.”

Or suppose I offered to pay people $10 to vote for me, back when I ran for the state senate?

We’d call that a bribe and I’d have gone to jail for corruption.

But suppose Barack Obama promises the 40% of the people who don’t pay any taxes at all, that, if elected, he’s going to raise taxes on Fred and the others in the top 5% (those earning $153,000 and up, according to the IRS, not $250,000 and up as Obama claims) and he’s going to take that money and send a government check worth $500 or $1,000 to each of those people who didn’t pay any taxes. All they have to do to get their cash reward is vote for Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama calls that “cutting taxes” and a “tax credit” for those people. I still call it a bribe.

If white people vote for John McCain, just because he’s white, we rightly call that racism. If black people vote for Barack Obama just because he’s black, we keep our mouths shut.

When Sen. Obama raises $150 million in donations, in one month, the media calls it an expression of his strong support. When Bush raised far less, they called it obscene.

I’d say it’s time to call a spade a spade. But Democrats would doubtless call that racism, though the phrase was first translated into English from the Greek in 1542, and “spade” as an ethnic slur only dates to about 1928.

What things are called matters. Unfortunately, that’s usually decided by the media. And we know where they stand.