What's the Matter with Danny?

Philadelphia's Daniel Berger is a rich man who has made millions being a class-action attorney. He thinks rich guys like him should pay more taxes. But he won't give the government any more of his own money voluntarily, unless all his fellow millionaires are forced to give involuntarily.

Also, he thinks that many people who attended the Tea Party protests did so because they are "white supremacists." Specifically, they reminded him of the "Ku Klux Klan."

Nice!

According to the story, Berger thinks taxes on the wealthy should be increased 13 percent. I doubt he means that the federal tax code should make the top marginal rate 49 percent for rich guys like him, but it isn't clear what his plan is from the article.

Mr. Berger sees no problem with the amount of money the federal government spends, either by taking it from citizens or by borrowing it from future generations. It is Berger's considered opinion that the federal government needs more money and he, being a "Patriotic Millionaire" is willing to provide it, as long as others are coerced into joining him.

A skeptical journalist might wonder if Berger is playing him for a sucker. After all, Berger knows there is no reasonable chance for such a tax increase to pass in the near future and so he is quite safe in proposing it.

Berger has already failed the test of putting his own money where his mouth is when it comes to voluntarily giving more of it to the government.

Furthermore, he has already made his millions. Any future tax increase would be on future income, not past windfalls of his class-action settlements, which notoriously benefit lawyers more than their clients or anyone else. (If you've ever been sent a voucher or a check for $1.13 thanks to a class-action lawsuit, you'll know what I mean.)

And Berger promoting himself as a generous and "patriotic" citizen as he slanders working, middle class Americans because of their concern about government overspending is far from admirable. Actually, it's kind of tacky.

One more thing, the headline: 21st-century Robin Hood advocates higher riches for poor to help middle class What does that even mean? And how do higher "riches" for the poor "help" the middle class? It sure doesn't say in the article.

What a mess.