By: Michael Tuosto

Linda Chavez expressed her opinion about President Barack Obama’s personal life in her article entitled O’s Tax Hypocrisy.  Her message was essentially that Barack Obama shouldn’t be taken seriously when he talks about eliminating itemized deductions for the top two percent of earners because he himself has taken advantage of these deductions.

Before I explain why this is a legitimate concern it is important to realize that the “facts” I will be analyzing were found in a newspaper article.  Not only that, but they were found in the opinion section of the Washington Post.  I don’t approach any news source without skepticism and there is no difference in this case.  The points I will be making are hypothetical; assuming the facts Linda Chavez uses with regards to Barack Obama and his tax deductions are true.

According to Linda Chavez, “In 2009, Obama took itemized deductions of $514,819, a foreign tax credit of $59,372, and a deduction for interest on his home of $52,195.”  Critics of our President can easily use this fact to undermine the very policies President Obama is advocating for.  “…he wants to raise the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent and eliminate itemized deductions for the top 2 percent of earners,” writes Linda.  There is no question the contradiction found between his actions (possible actions) and words make him a hypocrite.  Especially if he would have Congress institute a law that prevent every other American from taking advantage of tax breaks he himself took advantage of.

There is an important distinction to be made between our President’s desire to increase the income tax and his desire to eliminate itemized deductions.  I’ve heard the argument that those who support raising taxes should pay the Clinton tax rate themselves.  This is an attempt to undermine the argument supporting raising taxes by pointing out that rich liberals take full advantage of the current tax rate as well.  This is not hypocritical, however, because I am not aware of any way individuals can voluntarily contribute more of their earning to the Uncle Sam fund.  I am very aware however, that the only way to take advantage of itemized deductions is to take action.

If President Obama did not seek for and apply for these itemized deductions, the American Government would have benefited from an extra half-million dollars.  He wanted the largest portion of his hard earned money for himself.  We supporters of low taxes empathize.  It would be nice however if President Obama’s message was more supportive of an individual’s right to his or her own earnings.

Leading is done by example.  A hypocrite in politics gets no respect and they shouldn’t.  For example a conservative preaching about how important family values are, but who has had affairs.  Or, of course, a politician who believes the wealthy should pay more in taxes, but actively tries to do everything within his power to keep as much of that five million dollar annual salary for himself. Politically it obviously makes sense to say that the upper two percent should pay more taxes.  That being someone’s position one would think that ninety-eight percent of Americans would support it, but they don’t.  Economic consequences and ideas about an American’s right to his own property prevent that from being too dominant of a political position, but it is still certainly one supported by the majority.  When the person advocating for it doesn’t live his life aligned with the position though, it is a simple example of hypocrisy and more importantly, it is an example of poor leadership.

Linda Chavez goes so far as to question our President’s morals, writing, “When he voluntarily gives up his deductions and asks his wealthy donors to do the same, he’ll have some moral authority…” I don’t know if I would go so far as to say that hypocrisy is immoral, but one thing is for sure:  In terms of politicians being politicians, as far as our President is concerned, it’s very possible that not much has really changed at all.