Taxing Billionaires To Fund The US Government- More Liberal CNBC Bias

In this recent post I discussed comments on Europe's troubles by Kyle Bass from his Barefoot Economic Summit 3 in Texas.

Bass was interviewed as part of David Faber's noontime CNBC program. Faber proclaims that he and Bass are 'old friends.' Probably from Faber's days as a regular morning SquawkBox co-anchor, when he cultivated sources like Bass, then a debt trader at Bear Stearns.

However, it's clear the two part company on politics. Consider the exchange between Bass and Faber when the latter asked the former for his take on US sovereign debt and the economy.

Bass pointedly noted that the fortunes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett would only fund a month's federal government spending.

"So who pays for November," Bass challenged Faber?

Then Bass observed that confiscating all of the wealth of the Forbes 400 only funds the US government through the end of the year.

'So who will pay for 2012,' asked Bass rhetorically?

Faber grew increasingly uncomfortable with Bass' aggressive challenges on 'tax the rich' policies, replying rather meekly,

'But nobody's actually suggesting that the government do anything like that.'

It was a weasel-like comment for Faber to make, because he, like every viewer, knew that Bass was not suggesting that any Congressman or the president wanted this. Bass' point, which even Faber understood, is that you can confiscate all the wealth from the so-called wealthiest 400, probably even 2,000 Americans and you still can't fund the US government for a full year.

Thus the emptiness of calls to 'tax the rich,' or claim that they 'don't pay their fair share.'

Faber's dumbfounded reaction and, then, silence, once more illustrated CNBC's latent liberal bias. The liberal on-air reporters and anchors can never back up their liberal bias with facts. When confronted with facts they don't like, they just sort of stare at the offending guest, then change the subject.

In this case, Faber couldn't think of a comeback to refute the obvious point that no amount of 'more' and 'their fair share' of taxes from the wealthy which are designed to be above-average will ever actually close any federal funding gap.

It's an appeal to class warfare, pure and simple.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn from Bass' anecdotal statistics is that only by allowing the wealthy to invest their capital to allow business creation and expansion can new jobs be created in the US, thus aiding economic growth, from which the government can collect taxes on new economic activity.

Merely soaking the rich for more of their current wealth will do nothing serious nor sustainable to make a dent in America's horrific debt levels.