Redistributionist Protestors, Part Two

Sean Hannity’s redistributionist guests from the G20 protest said some things that were pretty out there.  I doubt that every socialist leftist in this country would ask a question like, “Why should anyone need to make more than five hundred thousand dollars a year?” with a straight face.  (However, let me note that the philosophy behind such questions and such thinking is fairly simple and always the same at its base.)

Something else this young woman said was to recount a tale of her family.  She said that she was fortunate to be enrolled in college, but that the rest of her family had worked brutally hard for all their lives and make only “ten thousand a year,” and now are going bankrupt because they can’t afford medical care.

I have no reason to cast any doubt on her story, just as I have no reason to doubt that similar situations exist among Americans.  My question is, so what?

Some would surely call me cruel for that attitude, but by asking, “so what?” I don’t mean that no one should care about such a situation.  What I’s trying to say is that this young woman’s family bears the responsibility for how their lives unfold.  We all do.  Plenty of people live hard lives and eventually go on to be successful.  Plenty of kids stay home and study hard while their friends are partying and hanging out on the street.  Plenty of adults work two jobs and go to night school.

Is there something preventing members of this young woman’s family from getting educated and finding a better job, or starting their own business, or investing in the stock market?  Is there an obstacle that she failed to mention?  A greedy elected official who taxes them too harshly, perhaps?  A crooked employee at their bank who skims their savings?  A prejudiced employer who ignores their applications?

I doubt that such an obstacle exists, but if it does, it should be abolished right away.  Such obstacles are morally wrong and certainly not a part of a free capitalistic society.

What is a part of a free society, however, is that everyone must earn what they consume.  Furthermore, the only worth that your product or service has is whatever others are willing to pay for it.  If your particular job doesn’t pay you enough, then perhaps you should provide a more valuable product or service.  If you instead demand that you should be given more than others are willing to pay for your product or service, you’re demanding that which you didn’t earn.  That is called begging when a private citizen does it, and thievery when men with guns do it.

All of this is assuming, of course, that there are no criminal obstacles in your path.

Redistributionist Protestors

I saw a couple of college girls on Hannity who’d taken part in the G20 protests.  Both were earnest young Americans who believed in the utter righteousness of their cause.  After all, they simply want to give poor people money.  They want to eradicate poverty.  A nobler goal one would be hard-pressed to find.

Of course, a noble goal does not imply a noble method of achieving that goal.  It would be noble to rid the world of a particular genetic disorder, but accomplishing this by murdering everyone with that disorder so they couldn’t breed and pass on the disorder would not be noble.

Hannity’s guests wanted the abolition of capitalism and the redistribution of wealth.  They spent the entire segment griping about how it isn’t fair that some have a lot and others have a little.  They claimed, for example, that 225 human beings control 50% of the world’s total wealth.  If this is true, my response to them would have been a simple, “So?”

Most telling, one of the young women asked, “Why does anyone need to make over 500 thousand dollars a year?’

Why indeed?  Hannity gave the appropriate response: “What business is it of yours?”

Redistribution may serve a noble goal, but it’s thievery all the same.  Taking money from people who earned it (that is, they did so without fraud, intimidation, or government favors) is theft no matter what you plan to do with the money.  If you steal to pay for the operation of a helpless baby who will otherwise die, you’re still stealing.

So what, people might ask.  Stealing may be bad, but allowing people to languish in poverty and die of malnutrition and easily preventable diseases is worse yet.  I think they’re missing the point.

As I said above, the method of achieving a noble goal is not necessarily noble.  But also, the point must be made that the method of achieving a noble goal is not necessarily the most effective one, either.  Murdering everyone with a particular genetic disorder would be morally disgusting, but praying for the genetic disorder to disappear from humanity would be simply ineffective.  Obviously, a solution that is both morally decent and effective would be to make advances in the science of genetics capable of correcting the disorder (without any harm to its sufferers).

Likewise, taking money from productive people and giving it to those who didn’t earn it has both moral objections and, I would argue, a serious problem with effectiveness.  Foreign aid and charity has helped people, absolutely, but it has done next to nothing to transform nations and insure long-lasting economic security for their people.  It is also important to note that the more you take from the successful, the less successful people you have, and this is clearly self-defeating to the redistributionist cause.

The point is this: Empowering poor people across the world to earn their own money is both nobel and effective method of alleviating poverty.  This method has been working for generations, and it continues to work right this minute (evidenced, for example, by not only the booming economies of India and China, but by the rising incomes of their lower classes).  This method is called, of course, free-market capitalism.

Joe the American

I was watching Hannity & Colmes when their guest was “Joe the Plumber,” and he said something that almost brought tears to my eyes.  Something that Obama and his socialist-leaning friends and colleagues could never understand.  Something the snivelers of the left-wing media will probably ridicule. 

Alan Colmes said that Obama’s tax cut to middle-class Americans would essentially put another thousand bucks in Joe’s pocket.  So, Colmes asked, wouldn’t you want to support the candidate who is going to give you that break and make it easier on your home budget?

I thought Joe’s response was inspirational.  He sad that he wouldn’t, in fact, want that extra thousand bucks.  Why?  Because it would come from the pockets of those who had worked harder than he had or caught a better break.  I was agog.  I swear I wanted to plug in my guitar and play “The Star-Spangled Banner” at top volume. 

It was about values for Joe, not about whether he thinks he deserves more money.  Being a leftist, Alan Colmes didn’t know how to respond.  I suppose that in his America , the politician that buys the most votes by telling middle-class Americans how pathetic they are should be the one seen as more “in touch” with the people. 

As is typical with Colmes, he brought out the old tactic of rushing to the bottom.  He pointed out that America has always had a progressive tax system, that we’ve always expected the wealthy to foot more of the bill, that even Reagan and Bush taxed the rich more, that even McCain is leaning toward a socialist move like buying up bad mortgages. 

Guess what, Mr. Colmes?  Saying that “everyone else does it” does not excuse it.  And neither does it make it a good policy.  The progressive tax system is wrong.  McCain is wrong.  Reagan and Bush were wrong.  We should get rid of the IRS and institute a flat or fair tax.  And here’s a big surprise for you: The wealthy would still be footing most of the bill even if they paid the same percentage as everyone else!

What Joe the Plumber said was one of the most refreshingly American things I’ve heard on TV in a long time.  No wonder everyone’s paying attention to him.  No wonder the left-wing media is ridiculing the man.  Imagine that: The choice is between a free check for a thousand dollars, and adhering to your belief that social welfare and wealth redistribution is wrong.  This country would be in a lot better shape if everyone would choose like Joe the American did.

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?