I think Lake Superior State University can already select its word to be banished for 2012. "Fair share" has already claimed that title--and it's only mid-April. Just wait until the Presidential campaign really ramps up. We will all want to stick our "fair share" of meat thermometers into our ears just so we never have to hear it again.
Actually "fair share" is a brilliant political/economic strategy. I mean, how do you effectively measure it? Today, the Senate is expected to vote on the so-called "Buffett Rule"--which is supposedly going to ensure that millionaires and billionaires pay their "fair share" of taxes. I went through dozens of press releases, Presidential speeches and on-line articles last night trying to find how that "fair share" was being determined--and I just couldn't. It wasn't until I called up Senate Bill 2059 itself that I found "fair share" is an alternative minimum tax of 30% for those making over one-million dollars a year.
So there we go, 30% of a millionaires income is a "fair share".
WHOOPS, WAIT A MINUTE!!! The White House isn't saying that! According to Spokesman Jay Carney, the "Buffett Rule" is just a "first step" toward making sure the rich pay their "fair share". What steps 2, 3, 4 or 5 are--well, that information isn't available yet. Complicating matters, is that this "fair share" still won't come close to making up for all of the additional spending that has been racked up the last three years--so obviously that ISN'T a "fair share"--because there would't be a deficit if everyone was paying their "fair share". Right?
Another thing that is brilliant is that "fair share" is a one-way street. There's only a "fair share" of money going into the sytem--there is not a "fair share" coming back out. You never hear about someone getting more than their "fair share" of entitlements or government services. Compare the family that gets housing assistance, WIC, Foodshare, BadgerCare Plus and Free and Reduced School Breakfast and Lunch with the same-sized family that owns its own house and is on no public assistance. Who is getting their fair share? That is why liberals hate the Paul Ryan budget so much, it requires everyone on the consumption end to get only their "fair share".
Sounds plenty "fair" to me.