The Daily Beast's John Avlon argues that "Romney Hood" is "a semi-clever gambit, catchy, with a populist pop-culture overlay" ...
But it unintentionally underscores Obama’s own tax problem--namely that his core rationale for raising taxes on the rich seems rooted in concepts of "fairness" rather than arguments about shared sacrifice or investment in national greatness. It is a social-justice argument rather than an economic one.
You'll notice that Avlon inserted a critical word in that tangled curiosity, one, I presume, that he hopes will acquit him after indictment for the savage torture of logic: seems, "seems rooted in concepts of 'fairness' rather than" economics.
I have watched a few of Obama's stump speeches this campaign, and I've read the transcripts of a few more. And Mr. Avlon, I'm here to ask: What speeches are you reading?
Time and again Obama has rhetorically enveloped the concept of fairness in the socioeconomics of progress, or, he has enveloped socioeconomic progress in fairness. The one only means the other; they are indistinguishable, inseparable, useless without companionship. We cannot build a greater society in the absence of fair, progressive taxation; and bottom-weighted taxation creates an unfair, intolerable drag on the engines of socioeconomic progress.
This is not a complex coupling. It's rather straightforward and pretty simple and to me and most others, I should think, damn clear.