Robin Hood Economics

I’ve heard this notion of “Robin Hood” economics several times, both from those who admire it and those who despise it.  To be clear, I rest firmly in the latter category.  I think the idea of politicians stealing money from people who earned it and giving it to those who they think deserve it is a moral crime and a horrible, ineffective economic policy.  Furthermore, I’d go so far as to say that people who spent their youth hanging out, partying, and getting pregnant don’t deserve a cent of the money others have earned through hard work and dedication.

That being said, I think the idea of “stealing from the rich and giving to the poor” has become muddled into a nonsensical slogan dumbed down for people who don’t care to learn the truth (the inevitable result of any idea that remains in the political world for long).  Those who support the idea (i.e., thieves) justify their criminal behaviour by saying something like, “the right of a starving person to eat overrides the right of a wealthy man to buy a yacht.”  Of course, this ignores the fact that in a country like America (and this would be more evident if America were a true capitalistic country and not the mixed result of the thieves’ utopian vision), no one is starving.  And if they were, it would be by choice.

Those who oppose Robin Hood economics (i.e., honest men), justify their position by saying that in a free society, no one – especially not the government – has a right to decide when you’ve become “too” successful and therefore should have your money taken by force and redistributed.  Ayn Rand even mentioned (and decried, of course) Robin Hood economics in Atlas Shrugged.

But I think both sides are missing the point.  Robin Hood did not simply steal from the rich and give to the poor; he stole from the corrupt.  He stole from thugs who had unearned and undeserved influence, men who deceived and oppressed to keep control over others, men who contributed nothing to society, men who lived off the honest work of others.  In other words, he stole from politicians.

Robin Hood didn’t steal from the idea of “the rich” touted by President Obama and his merry band of thieves as those who need to contribute more: Successful businessmen.  Businessmen earn their money honestly.  They have no power except the worth of their product or service.  Only those who turn to the government for favors are the thugs.

Make no mistake: Wealthy businessmen and corporations are not “the rich” of the Robin Hood fable.  If people want to emulate Robin Hood’s notion of putting money in the hands of honest folks, then they should be waylaying Obama’s tax collectors and cadre of “czars” and other bureaucrats.  These are the thugs, the men who contribute nothing to society, the men who live off the honest work of others.  These are the men who pass legislation to stifle the effort of ingenuity of free people and blithely walk over their rights in the interest of a failed and criminal ideology.

President Obama

The other night I heard Ann Coulter call Barack Obama a “socialist who wants to surrender.”  What’s funny about a statement like that is a great many of Obama’s supporters and political allies probably wouldn’t disagree!  (Imagine that, Obama supporters agreeing with Ann Coulter.)  I mean, he surrounds himself with America-hating, Marxist-leaning scumbags like “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and some of the people in groups like Acorn.  He’s comfortable with George Soros, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos.  Louis Farrakhan and Hezbollah have voiced their support for him.

Let’s look at the two charges in Ms. Coulter’s statement.  First, Obama wants to surrender (in Iraq).  What would have happened, had we listened to Obama’s plan a couple years ago and pulled out Iraq in defeat and humiliation?  What would have happened to Iraq if we’d listened to Obama and decided that the Surge wasn’t going to work?  Maybe Obama doesn’t consider this “surrender,” but I guarantee that al Qaeda would have.  How would Obama like to see thousands of Muslim extremists cheering in the streets that they “defeated America?”  Christ, he still can’t even admit that the Surge was the right plan!  And where was his vote to condemn the “General Betray Us” ad created by his political pals?

I’m inclined to agree with Obama that going into Iraq was probably the wrong move overall.  If we could do it all over again, we wouldn’t take that route.  But that doesn’t make Ms. Coulter’s statement any less true.  Surrender is still surrender.  The point here is not whether we were wrong about Iraq in the first place; the point is whether pulling out (surrendering) would be yet another mistake.

Then we have the term “socialist.”  Okay, we all know that Obama isn’t a socialist in the strictest sense.  But certainly it’s fair to say that he subscribes to some socialist tenets.  We’re talking about a guy who wants nearly a trillion dollars in spending entitlement programs.  A guy who continuously spouts a populist message of class warfare and wealth redistribution.  I read The Audacity of Hope:  Obama supports salary caps for CEOs!  He had the audacity to claim that wealthy Americans have too much by giving a list of what he sees as extraneous luxuries!

Then we have his vice president on TV saying that it’s “patriotic” for the wealthy to pay more taxes.  Biden even shamelessly used the word “take” when talking about taxing the rich.  So now you’re unpatriotic if you disagree with non-producing politicians deciding how much of your money they should take and where it should go.  I find that absolutely amazing.

If left-wing guys like Alan Colmes want people to stop referring to Obama as a socialist, maybe he should tell him to stop preaching a message of taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  Obama shrouds it thusly: “There are things we must do, and the only way to pay for these things is by taxing those who are doing well.”  He makes it sound like he’s only doing what’s necessary, like making the best of a wave that’s crashing over us by surfing it.

Of course, the operative word here is “must.”  Things we “must” do.  What a crock.  What Obama really means is, “There are things I think we should do to remake America in my very left-wing vision.”

America’s First Left-Wing Radical President

Maybe I’m way out of the loop here, but I just don’t understand why Americans are voting for Barack Obama.  A man with this many questionable ties and friendships is going to be in the Oval Office.  A man who sat listening to a racist scumbag like Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and then has the temerity to tell us he never knew the extent of his views.  Christ, Obama acts like Wright just said his controversial statements in a vacuum, like he got drunk one night and started spouting off.  This “reverend” paints these sickening notions as the main thrust of his message.  They’re on the church’s website, they’re on fliers in the lobby!

Yet Obama defends this guy, then decides to drop him when it might hurt his political career, then tells us he never knew the man had those views.  And America doesn’t care.

We have a similar situation with Bill Ayers and his wife.  Again, Obama’s piddling little excuses come out.  He was eight years old when Ayers committed his bombings.  Okay, but how old was Obama around 9/11, when Ayers stated that he should have done more?  How old was Obama when he sat on boards with this guy or wrote a blurb for his book?

This is mind-boggling to me.  We’re going to put this guy in the White House!  One of the most liberal leaders in America is going to have a very Democratic Congress at his beck and call.  A guy who is comfortable hanging out with – and even choosing as his mentor and spiritual advisor – radicals, racists, and domestic terrorists.  How is Obama going to fight terrorism?  He doesn’t even have the moral fortitude to tell a guy like Bill Ayers: “You’re an unrepentant terrorist who hates this country – I’m not going to talk to you or have any dealings with you whatsoever.”

I’m a convicted felon and I wouldn’t shake hands with a guy like Bill Ayers.  But Obama needed the guy for his political career.  And America doesn’t care.

This isn’t about partisanship.  If McCain had ties to people like Wright and Ayers, I would absolutely be calling for his head.  But it wouldn’t matter – if McCain had friends like Wright and Ayers, he would have been forced out of the race long ago.  He never would have had a chance.  Jeremiah Wright talks about “white greed” and America being run by racist white men and the “United States of KKK.”  What if McCain had chosen as his lifelong spiritual advisor someone who said equivalent things?  And what if McCain’s excuse was, “He’s really a good man who taught me about Jesus.  Don’t listen to that time he called all black people crack-smoking gangbangers.  That was just one stupid thing he said.”

Even without his connections, the future Obama envisions for this country appears rather ominous.  More government spending, more social engineering, wealth redistribution, mandated health care, an apologist approach to dictators like Ahmadinejad, a blame-America-first stance.  But hey, he’s charismatic and he promises to give all the voters money.  So elect away, America.  Put your hands out and Obama will smile and pat your little heads and give you your allowance.  He knows what’s best for you.  Just ask him.

As I’ve said before, I hope Obama does well.  I hope things improve.  I don’t wish harm on him and especially not on America.  But this seems to me absurd.  Wake up, people.

Obama and McCain on Economics

The economy’s not doing all that great, so Obamais making some headway in the polls.  For some reason, people equate the current economic crisis withGeorge Bush, and then George Bush with John McCain, so they start to lean toward Obama.  And of course, the Obamacampaign is playing this up for all it’s worth, putting forth the notion that if you want the economy to get better, don’t elect McCain because he’ll keep doing what Bush has done.

I’d love them to answer exactly what President Bush has done to make the economy this way.  In fact, every single person I’ve talked to or heard can’t name one single bill Bush has approved or vetoed that is responsible for the economy.  Neither can they think of something McCain will do that will be along the same lines as Bush.

Okay, I’m kind of a dunce in some areas, but do Americans need to go back to freaking high school?  Do they not realize that the Democrats have been in charge of Congress for the last two years?  And that Congress is responsible for making laws, passing spending bills, and changing economic policy?  Has Obama every blamed his own party for anything in the last two years?  Using the Obama logic, shouldn’t we avoid putting a Democrat in the White House?

I think one thing about Bush’s policy is bad for the economy: his spending.  He spends like a Democrat (he just doesn’t raise taxes to pay for it).  I think we can all criticize him for that.  Now the taxpayers have to pick up another $700 billion-dollar bill for the bailout for AIG.  Again, I’m very far from an expert in these matters, but doesn’t a bailout of that magnitude only push the problem ahead farther?  Doesn’t it simply cause more inflation, the same inflation that brought about the home mortgage crisis in the first place?  What good does a bandaid do, if the wound doesn’t get better?

People are always so quick to name the rich fat cats on Wall Street as the crooks.  Bill O’Reilly does it almost every night on his program, calling CEOs”villains.”  He equates greed with evil.  Even President Bush comes out and says that people short-selling stocks are “parasites,” as if making profits by predicting that stocks will go down is somehow morally different from making profits by predicting they’ll go up.  Every politician, whether Republican or Democrat, keeps promising more help to the American people by taxing the American people.  Joe Biden said his wealth redistribution plan is a call for “patriotism.”  Now you’re unpatriotic if you see something wrong with a non-productive politician taking money from people who produce and arbitrarily deciding where it should go.  Absolutely stunning.

You know what I’d like to see?  You know what would make me stand up and cheer?  I’d love to see a politician (whether Democrat or Republican), when asked about a solution to the mortgage crisis, look the American people in the eye and say: “Don’t buy a house you can’t afford.”  Maybe it’s heartless, but they’re adults; they can take it.

Why We Should be Proud of the Rich Getting Richer

Politicians (especially presidential nominees) are always promising to “make things fair for the working class Americans.”  Of course, rarely do things immediately and magically turn around after one of those politicians is elected.  Surprise, surprise.  Have working-class Americans ever noticed that they constitute most of America?  I mean, every politician has to appeal to them if they want votes.

Besides, I don’t mean to sound cold-hearted here, but is there something inherent in being a working-class American that requires help?  Are they at some sort of disadvantage?  Why?  Because the “rich are getting richer?”  So what?  Why do you care if the rich are getting richer?  If anything, shouldn’t you be proud that they’re investing and managing their money wisely?  Shouldn’t that inspire you?  Maybe you still don’t think it’s fair that some people have so much, but how does it help your position to complain about what someone else is doing?

I’m so tired of hearing people whine about America not being “fair,” and hearing politicians promise them that they’ll make it so.  Didn’t their parents ever tell them, when they were sniveling little children, that life isn’t fair?  That they’re going to have to work their asses off from adulthood on?  That sometimes they’re going to make bad choices and suffer the consequences?

Making things “fair” in American rings kind of hollow for me.  Don’t get me wrong – there should be fair opportunity for everyone, absolutely.  How about we start with tax cuts for everything?  Wouldn’t a flat tax be the very definition of “fair?”  How about we get rid of all government subsidies?  How about we let everyone compete in the free market equally?

But some Americans don’t want fair opportunity; they want their subjective idea of fairness enforced by legislature.  They think wealthy Americans should be taxed more heavily and have to follow different rules.  For some reason, they’ve decided that people should have the right to pursue success, wealth, and happiness – but only up to a certain arbitrary point chosen by them.  For some reason, they just don’t think it’s fair that others are earning a lot of money and they’re not.

I don’t think the definition of “fair” is to take other people’s money and redistribute it.  Furthermore, “fair” doesn’t seem like a very respectable goal to me.  Why settle for fair, when everyone can have the opportunity to go as far as they want?  These people have a rather defeatist view: Rather than attempt to elevate themselves, they want to lower others.

Why is it that people who complain about the wealth distribution in this country always think the solution is to steal from the prosperous, rather than urge everyone to become prosperous?  Do they have such low opinions of themselves and humanity in general?  Do they think these people they want to “help” are incapable of helping themselves?  How about none of us settle for being handed “fair” and instead strive to earn excellence?

How Obama Will Steal Your Money

Two things Obama has promised to do as president is rescind the Bush tax cuts and double the capital gains tax (from fifteen percent to around twenty-eight percent).  I am against both of these steps, so I’ve been informed that the Bush tax cuts and low capital gains tax are responsible for “decreasing revenue and the continuing plight of the poor.”

First of all, what “plight” are the poor in?  The poor in America are much better off than the poor in any other country on Earth.  The poor in America have a major problem with obesity.  The poor in America overwhelmingly have cable TV and cars.  Of course there are problems in America, but a host of starving, suffering poor is not one of them.  Free-market capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any method yet devised, and it is politicians like Obama (with their love of government intervention) who hinder this process.

Secondly, lower taxes for wealthy Americans are not causing the current economic troubles in this country.  The Bush tax cuts are not causing problems, but Bush spending certainly is.  I have no problem criticizing him for that.  Republicans are usually the same as Democrats when it comes to government spending (the Republicans just generally do it without raising taxes).  Even under Reagan, government spending skyrocketed.  Will we ever get a libertarian as president to save us?

Thirdly, raising capital gains taxes isn’t going to bring in more revenue.  You want evidence?  In 1986, the Tax Reform Act hiked the capital gains tax from 20% to 28%.  But surprise: Revenue from capital gains actually went down.  The year before the reform, the government collected $213 billion from capital gains taxes.  Five years later, it was down to $108 billion.  It sounds counterintuitive, but it’s true.  When capital gains taxes are raised, people simply avoid them by not earning capital gains.  Why does Obama think it will be any different now?

Fourthly, it’s an outright lie for people like Obama to claim that raising capital gains taxes only penalizes the rich Americans.  Not only does it affect the millions of middle-class Americans who invest in the stock market or sell their homes, it also reduces venture capital for small businesses.  Needless to say, this will not help the economy.  People are worried that Americans are investing in other counties instead of at home.  News flash, Senator Obama: If you raise capital gains taxes, you give investors an even greater reason to go overseas.  (And investing overseas isn’t necessarily evil anyway.)

Of course taxes are required.  The free market couldn’t operate if the government didn’t tax us and use the money for infrastructure, law and order, national defense, and so on.  But we don’t need the government for much more than that.  We certainly don’t need higher taxes to pay for the socialist dreams and bankrupting promises of pandering politicians.

Let’s all say this together:  Obama wants to transform America into a European social welfare state.  That’s the “change” he keeps talking about.  And I hate to admit it, but he’s almost certainly going to win.  There’s no reasoning with the hordes of people who are going to vote for him.  Is it still too presumptive to say that capitalism is dying?

Why We Should Pay for Our Own Health Care, Part II

I’ve been told that if Obama’s universal health care plan is implemented, the only thing that will change is who pays the bill.  While this is bad enough (I’ll get to why I think so in a minute), it’s simply not true.  The medical institutions may still be privately owned, but they wouldn’t have to compete for the business of those receiving health care benefits.  There won’t be scrutinizing consumers to demand lower prices anymore, just a bloated bureaucracy answering every problem with more money.  I’m sorry, but quite a lot changes in this nightmare scenario.

This is like saying that if a nation made the switch from private education to public education, the only thing that would change is who pays the bill.  Take one look at the shambles of the public education system in America, and you’ll see what happens to an industry that’s bogged down by government handouts and regulation.  If the government stepped in and mandated health care for everyone who couldn’t afford it, we’d see a similar result.  We know this because we’ve seen it time and again.  History makes a compelling case.

The only thing that would change is who pays the bill.  Of course, the “who” in this case is the American people, the taxpayers.  My question is, why should we?  I don’t mean to be a heartless bastard here, but why should I have to pay for a stranger’s medical bills?  This is a two-way street: I certainly don’t want someone else to be taxed to pay mymedical bills.  According to Obama, he even wants us to pay the medical bills of illegal immigrants!

Maybe I am a heartless bastard.  Here’s something else to reinforce that: Consider the hundreds of thousands of Americans who require health care every year because they spend their whole lives eating junk food, smoking, drinking, an not exercising.  These problems are massive for the poor who can’t afford health care, but they are problems created by bad choices.  Should hardworking people be forced to pay the medical bills of people who willingly and knowingly smoke, drink, and gorge themselves into hospitals?

Next, how about we pay for nutrition counselors, and diet pills, and personal trainers, and stop-smoking programs, and self-esteem seminars?  Remember Big Brother’s solution in Orwell’s 1984 that required citizens to exercise in front of the TV/camera every day?  Should we expect something like that from the Obama administration too?

What You Earn is Whatever You Can Get

I got into a discussion with someone a while back who was very earnest about the wage gap in this country and the plight of middle-class Americans.  His point was that a blue-collar worker toils at physical labor all day long for his entire life.  He does it knowing he’ll never be rich or live comfortably.  He does it to support a family.  He works hard, much harder than many people who make a lot more money and don’t deserve it (like actors and rock stars, for example). 

It was a matter of proportion.  He was arguing that a blue-collar laborer should be making more since he’s busting his ass, providing a useful service, and probably doing it for a nobler purpose.  Conversely, the entertainer is a millionaire only because of the whim of some fans, and doesn’t really work hard comparatively.  It wasn’t fair, he said, that people make so much money for frivolous reasons.

I shocked him by disagreeing.  I told him that I think that rich actors and rock stars earn every penny of their money. (How they might squander it later on is a separate issue).  I told him that I don’t think a man’s sweat and physical toil are the measure of what he earns.

Predictably, of course, he accused me of being a “rich white kid.”  Though it’s irrelevant to the point, I had to dispel that assumption by telling him that I grew up in trailer parks and low-income housing with a single parent, eating hot dogs and Hamburger Helper.  When I turned fourteen and got a job, I was never given a single thing again; not even clothes or school supplies.

People who think like this guy are always certain that some should be “earning” more money, and some are “making” more money than they’re earning.  But they’re not talking about what is earned here – they’re talking about what they think these people deserve.  They’re basing their opinion about what a person earns on how much they need.  A blue-collar laborer has a family to feed and barely makes ends meet – he might not even be able to pay for his kids to go to college.  Therefore, he should be earning more.

I was called callous and heartless when I told him that “deserve” is not the same thing as “earn.”

What you “earn” is simply this: the amount of money people are willing to pay for your good or service.  That’s it.  That’s the only rational way to determine it.  How else can the amount someone has earned be measured objectively?  You may think a blue-collar laborer deserves more for his service (and maybe he does), but stop and think for one moment what it would mean to legislate it:  It means you would have to force someone else to pay more for that service than they are otherwise willing to pay.  How is that fair?

What do you think would happen if people were awarded money based on what they need, rather than what they earn?  It’s called communism, and it’s horrible not simply because it’s a bogeyman word, but because it doesn’t work.  No one would have any reason to produce any good, provide any service, or work at all.  Think about it:  The harder you work, the more that’s taken away from you and given to others.  You are punished for achieving, and rewarded when you do nothing.  Guess which one people choose.

How much a person needs is not an indicator of how much they’ve earned.  This does not in any way suggest that we should ignore those in need.   It does, however, suggest that we should not take from those who earn – even if it’s to give to those who need.

Why We Should Pay For Our Own Health Care

After John McCain showed up on The O’Reilly Factor and talked about his plan for health care (giving people vouchers so the companies will be forced to compete and lower their prices), I was drawn into a discussion with a few guys.  They liked Obama’s plan:  The government simply pays for everyone’s health care.  One guy even told me that it’s “not fair that rich people get to have better health care than poor people.”

I was incredulous.  Let me get this straight:  Wealthy Americans are just trying to get the best health care their money can afford, and somehow they’re doing something wrong?

Rich people can afford better health care, just as they can afford better lawyers.  Maybe you don’t think it’s fair, but what’s the alternative?  Should the government force rich people to purchase health care from less competent doctors?  Make a law that one can’t spend over a certain arbitrary amount on health care?

No, here is what the people want:  They want the government to force the best doctors and pharmaceutical companies in the field to lower their prices so that everyone can afford them.  It sounds great, right?  Maybe if you don’t think about it any further.  You don’t need a degree in economics to know that if you do that, those doctors and pharmaceutical companies won’t be the “best” anymore.  The “best” will disappear because they’ll have no incentive to do any better than meeting a government baseline.

This guy told me that countries like Canada, Sweden, and even Iraq gives every citizen free health care, so the United States should be able to do it, as well.  In return, I asked him where the richest people in the world go when they need an operation.  Where does the best medication come from?  Where are the best hospitals?  Where are the best advances being made in the medical field?

“America” is the answer to those questions.  If a billionaire Saudi prince needs a dangerous operation, does he go to Sweden, Iraq, or Canada to get the best care his money can afford?  Of course not; the very notion is laughable.  He comes to America.  The free market is what drives success.  If doctors and pharmaceutical companies are forced to compete to survive, they’re forced to get better and more efficient – and more affordable.

I don’t much like this country’s fascination with cosmetic surgery, but it’s a prime example of the power of the free market.  Cosmetic surgery is continuously getting better, safer, more cutting edge, and more affordable.    The reason is that health insurance doesn’t pay for it; the government won’t give you money to make your tits bigger.  Those in the industry are forced to compete for your business, and you can shop around for the best deal.  As a result, cosmetic surgery is advancing like Moore’s Law is chasing it.

Why is it that the Democrats’ solution to any problem in America is at the cost of someone else?  Besides rescinding the Bush tax cuts to pay for his health care handouts, Barack Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax.  Are the millions of Americans who invest in the stock market doing something wrong?  If not, why does he want to punish them?  Should they earn less so that others can be given more?  Democrats always say we should work together, that we have a social responsibility . . . what about the social responsibility to not consume more than you earn?  What about the social responsibility to not take the money that other people earn at the point of a gun, Senator Obama?