The other "fairness" doctrine

"That's not fair!" Those of us who have children have heard that phrase often. Most of us probably said it at some time when we were kids. Across the generations, the most common response has probably been "life's not fair, get over it".
Politicians, especially those of a liberal bent, just can't seem to get over it. They speak constantly about how hard they are working to create "fariness". The problem is that, for all their talk, they cannot define exactly what "fairness" means when it comes to enacting policy. And that's where the danger lies for the American people. "Fairness" apparently means whatever the liberal politicians want it to mean at whatever time they utter the word, so they use the pursuit of "fairness" to justify all kinds of destructive policies.
The most common context in which liberals use "fairness" is as it relates to taxation. In a recent interview Sen. Tom Harkin said that corporations and "the rich" need to pay "their fair share" of taxes. Both of my Senators, Warner and Webb, have responded to letters I wrote them by mentioning their pursuit of "tax fairness". None of them, however, can say specifically what that means. Apparently it simply means "more".
We now live in a country where nearly half the population will pay no federal income tax. And many of those will receive "rebates" of taxes they never paid. Apparently that is still not "fair" enough for Congress and this administration.
In 2006 the top 10% of taxpayers earned 47% of the income but paid 71% of the federal income taxes. Mayor Bloomberg recently said that "in 2006, 5,000 people paid 30 percent of the taxes in New York City." Over 8 million people live in New York City - and 5,000 of them pay 30 percent of the taxes. Is that "fair"?
"Fairness" is a wonderful concept, but a dangerous one when used by liberal politicians in search of more money to spend. When they talk about how they are pursuing it, they should be held accountable to define exactly what "fairness" means and exactly what they would do to achieve it.

If this isn't socialism, what is?

A common definition of socialism is "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state". Today, President Obama fired the Chairman and CEO of a private enterprise and said that the federal government would stand behind the warranties provided by General Motors and Chrysler. These are clear examples of the means of production being controlled by the state and therefore, socialism.
All Americans should be very wary of the unprecedented power grab now underway. There is no Constitutional basis for what President Obama did today, and the criteria on which he based his decision to do it have not been communicated. If a president is permitted to grab power in such a way, with no Constitutional right to do so and with no reasonable explanation for the action - then the liberty of all Americans is at risk.
The tenth amendment to our Constitution reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to do what President Obama did today is clearly "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution", so this expansion of federal power is clearly unconstitutional.
When he took his oath of office President Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". But today he blatantly violated that oath and took another step toward socialism and the dramatic reduction of the liberty of all Americans