Jon Stewart's Rare Show of Hypocrisy Lights Up Cable TV

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Bob Bartelby | Yahoo! Contributor Network


COMMENTARY | I am a huge fan of comedian Jon Stewart. I think he should run for president. He'd make a great one. That said, I am an equal opportunity commentator, and as such it would be unconscionable for me to allow Stewart a free pass after Tuesday evening's blatant hypocrisy regarding former Massachusetts governor and likely also-ran Mitt Romney.

According to the Huffington Post, Stewart blasted Romney, (who according to CBC earned $21.7 million in 2010) for his earnings and his low tax rate. "How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year -- while paying the same tax rate as the guy who scans shoes at the airport?" asked Stewart. Romney's effective earnings, all from investments, as he is per his own words according to the New York Times, unemployed work out to about $57,000 per day in fiscal year 2010.

Here's the problem: According to celebritynetworth.com, Stewart earns $15 million per year as his salary on "The Daily Show." We can assume, because that is a job, he pays closer to the 30 percent rate than Romney's 13.9 percent.

However, that's only part of the picture. Stewart is also estimated to have a net worth of $80 million. Depending on how he is invested, he is also earning a substantial income from his $80 million nest egg. Even if he is invested conservatively, he's likely earning investment income of $4 million per year, which would be taxed at a rate equal to Romney's. Indeed, between investment income and book royalties, and his salary, more than likely Stewart earns more money in the fiscal year than Romney despite paying a marginally higher tax rate.

Stewart goes on to blast Romney for having lobbied against tax reform that would have been detrimental to his personal holdings, but the fact is Stewart benefits from the tax laws too, and as such should have disclosed the same.

Of course, rich men don't want to pay more taxes than they currently do. But what I can't figure out is why anyone thinks the rich man should like taxation any more than the poor man does. That's just insane. I love "The Daily Show" and its contribution to the national dialog, but that bit was just plain hypocritical. Come on, Jon. You're better than that.

[Muddy]

Post your taxes, Stewart..

[Acid Trip]

They always fail to mention how much Romney gives to charity (about 20% last year). Liberals are for the "poor and middle class" right? Considering liberals average higher incomes why do they always gives so much less? Hipocracy at it's finest!

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

… In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

And the picture looks worst among those who preach income redistribution most: liberal politicians. Reported Peter Schweizer in The American Spectator in 2008:

[New York governor Andrew Cuomo] was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity.

The Cuomos sure know how to redistribute others’ income, though. When Andrew’s father Mario was Governor, he once raised taxes $1 billion annually for three consecutive years and proposed levying a tax on newborns. And, Schweizer points out, joining Cuomo in the Statist Penny-dancing Hall of Shame are:

• Al Gore — gave $353 to charity in 1998 (John Edwards spends more than that on a haircut).

• Senator John Kerry — he found $500,000 in 1995 to buy a share in a prized painting but gave $0 to charity.

• Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton Robert Reich – while he unabashedly peddles the greedy-conservative meme, it seemed like projection when he was forced to release his 2002 tax return during a Massachusetts gubernatorial run. Out of an income exceeding $1 million, Reich donated only $2,714 — .2 percent.

• Race hustler and corporate shake-down artist Jesse Jackson — his tax returns showed that he did five times as well as Reich, donating one percent of his income to charity.

• Senator Ted Kennedy — it may be fitting that Nation board member Norman Birnbaum called the late Mass. Senator the “conscience” of progressivism. After all, when the multi-millionaire had to release some of his tax returns in the ‘70s during a presidential run, it was found that he was a one-percenter as well. In all fairness, though, he did all he could during his 46-year Senate career to redistribute as much of your tax money as possible.

• Franklin Roosevelt — had an income of $1.3 million in inflation-adjusted dollars, but during the darkest days of the Great Depression donated just two percent of it to charity. And this is the guy who gave us the 93-percent tax rate. Much to his dismay, however, it was applied only to income over $200,000. What FDR really wanted was a 100-percent marginal rate ensuring, socialist style, that no American would have an after-tax income of more than $25,000 a year.

[FBD]

:rofl: Jon Liebowitz for president...hahahahaha hypocrite....