THE MEDIA & THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

One would not tout Howell Raines' article in CNN.com today too much, but it made interesting reading, and gave credence to President Barack Obama's stance for the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes; but you could go and read it for yourself.

What was worrisome about the tax issue was why the media, and Fox News, particularly, were taunting the president with some remarks he made in 2010, that "You cannot impose taxes in a recession; the idea farther slows down the economy." (Paraphrased)

It was as if they were trying to get him to speak the language of the Republicans, even a year or so before; and that looked dishonest and tricky on their (media's) part. They seemed to be playing on the ignorance of the American public. That would be an injustice of the highest order, even in journalistic terms, since they, the media, could not operate without it (public).

However, those remarks by President Obama were made in conjunction with a different set of circumstances; and even so, the president would not back away from them now, because they were proper at the time.

Additionally, he was not increasing the taxes on the wealthy in his new economic plan in any way, shape or form. He was asking them to pay their fair share, as they have become rich, most probably, through, tax benefits, tax incentives and the rest of the numerous tax loopholes, for many, many years.

The argument of the president's opponents was that, tax increase on the so called rich people in a recession was a job killing proposition. They were the job "creators", and therefore more taxes being heaped on them would defeat Obama's own objective; namely, job creation to combat the high rate of unemployment.

Yet, there was no true evidence of the fact that investors made their decisions on job creation. They rather, and naturally, made them on profits; on the return on their investments and nothing else.

Under the present circumstances, the Republican Party was adapting the economic proposals of the past, that the wealthy must be made wealthier, so that some of their ill gotten gains would flow down to nourish the poor below the economic ladder, as in the Reagan era; the trickle down effect.

In that case, they, the poor or the working people, would always be at an economic disadvantage, as the power of the Trade Unions that protected and defended them, in terms of occasional increases in salaries and wages, were being made to be ineffective.

They were even being gradually disorganized and dismembered, through union busting by some of the same industrial aristocrats and employers, who professed to create jobs.

Obama was fighting to give the working people a break, by getting the rich to pay their fair share of the revenues that were needed to run the country. They have been cheated for so long, and they have almost become used to the idea that they would always be poor and disadvantaged.

The Republicans would turn that around and call it "class warfare; and then blame the president for pointing out the discrepancy, the imbalance and the inequality in an economy in which the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

The media, or most of them, would rather question Obama and urge him to change his policies, instead of clamming down on the wealthy to succumb to a measure that would change the direction of the present economy toward a better life for each and every person in the country.

Their (media's) support for the public would have been misplaced, if they went with the Republicans. They should advise the rich to follow investor Warren Buffett's example instead. America would be better off then.