Who’s Stealing our Peas: Fat Cats versus the Beast

George Will was right when he said that this battle on debt and the budget and taxes can’t help but be political, because it goes right to the heart of the ideological battle between the left end of the political spectrum (with its entitlements and redistributive/progressive tax structure) and the right (with its espousal of free markets and limited government). Conservatives want to cut government down to size (“starving the beast” through more modest taxes) while liberals want to increase government’s revenues for “new government programs” (which Obama stated in his last press conference).

So, since our president also said it’s time to “eat our peas” and this is coming down to the wire on this particular battle, I brought back the blog to address this conflict head-on—particularly for those of my friends who I know to be bright and fair, but who seem to reflect a common disdain for Wall Street and the wealthy and, perhaps, our entire free market system. And to those of you fed up or disinterested in politics—it’s time to give this a few minutes of your attention, I beg of you. I’m not an economist and I wouldn’t begin to defend corrupt or immoral practices, but I would like to stand up for the system that our president and his party’s leaders are intent to, as he put it, “fundamentally change.”

I just watched a trailer for a new documentary on Bernie Madoff, and it ended with this line:“The basic concept of Wall Street is that, by benefiting one person, you’re disadvantaging another person.” Though this was obviously the case with this criminal, it is not at all true of the free market system, but is instead true of those who now seek to denigrate it.

In principle, free market capitalism is based on trading—I provide you with a good or service, and you provide me with the comparable value for it. It’s a win/win on its face, and the beauty of it is that it also incentivizes growth. Since both parties wish to provide more value on their side of the trade, they work and innovate to produce and provide more, and the prosperity grows. Wealth is not a static quantity and neither, by the way, are the wealthy. Many people who are wealthy today were not wealthy 10 years ago, and they did not become so (in most cases) because of gov’t or ill-gotten gain, but because of this land of opportunity in which we live.

Government-imposed redistribution of wealth (a growing phenomenon endorsed by our president and his party), on the other hand, disincentives both the successful and the so-called impoverished—taking hard-earned (in most cases) money from one party and handing it to those who’s only qualification for earning it is that they have done nothing (produced nothing) to earn it. This is, at best, a lose/win scenario… though I would contend that both sides ultimately lose as this does nothing to encourage or affirm the value of the recipient.

What about fairness? I’m afraid it’s a mirage… a socialist pipe-dream. If you want fairness, you can come whine with my kids and then explain how it could be fair that you should be born here and now at all, and how you should be beautiful or talented or well-loved or educated or quick with a joke. That’s not fair… how can you not feel guilty about it? How can you not provide compensation to others because of it? Because we do not deal the hands, we play with what we are given. We are not the creator or re-creator (driver of evolution) as the progressive dream dictates, we are free agents and stewards of that which we’ve been blessed.

I contend that it is not possible for us to increase equal opportunity while mandating equal outcome—the two are at odds. My previous post, “The Inequality of Equalization”, addressed this issue. In it, I quoted people much smarter than me who affirmed this very thought… Aristotle: “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” Voltaire: “All the citizens of a state cannot be equally powerful, but they may be equally free.” Alexis de Tocqueville: “While democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” In that post, I also addressed the following point….

What about helping people? Is it not enough that the U.S. (non-coincidentally, considering our economic system) has given more and done more to help people all around the world? No… let us do more and do it better, and let us show mercy and love and do so generously and without compulsion (as my faith guides me to do)! I pray “on earth as it is in heaven”, and I’m learning more about what this looks like for the disadvantaged and minorities and the addicted…for “widows and orphans”—those who cannot help themselves. But, huge and crucial though this question of mercy is, it is a separate question from justice. Generosity does not equal progressive tax rates and gov’t programs that create division and dependency through forced “sacrifice”, guilt, and suppression of prosperity.

What about corruption? It’s hideous in all its forms—corporate, political, or personal. And unfortunately we’re seeing it in spades in every sphere. It does not indicate a broken system (as our president indicates), but rather broken people. More transparency, accountability, and justice is what is called for—but only to weed out the corruption, not to stamp out the freedom that inevitably breeds it time and time again.

That initial quote about Wall Street is just one of the many misleading falsehoods spread by our media and our own government leaders about our financial system. I think you’d agree that a majority vote still would not justify oppression or segregation, so why would it justify theft? How can you think that you or I have a right to money that we have not earned (and someone else has). “But the government has a right to tax”, right? Of course it does… for the common good, not for targeted distribution. Equal protection under law indicates that everyone plays by the same rules and receives the same benefits (a flat tax, for instance). This “progressive tax” structure with all its loopholes (benefiting whomever) is the opposite of just, and though it looks nice in moderation, it cannot stay moderated and will only grow to envelope as much as the lower-income voters are willing and able to extract. What is “a fair share” if not an equal percentage?

I read a comment last night—like many I’ve read—that Republicans want to slash government and reduce the help that people get so the poor and elderly will be deprived and the rich can get richer. This is akin to the opposite sentiment I’ve heard on talk radio, for instance—that our Democratic leaders want the U.S. economy to completely collapse so we can have a revolution and institute socialism or some other form of anti-capitalist utopia. Though I have no doubt that there are people out there who wouldn’t mind one scenario or the other, I believe the vast majority—for all their flaws, compromises, or even corruption—want what’s best for our country and the people in it. But their good intentions and even intelligence does not mean they are discerning, or that their ideology will lead to what is best.

Ideology, often a dirty word these days, is just what you believe is ideal in contrast with how you perceive current reality. This comes down to values and priorities—that’s what it’s all about. I heard a woman say on the radio earlier this week that she didn’t understand how any poor person could vote for a Republican. Perhaps it’s for the same reason a rich person can vote for a Democrat—there are some people (and we need more) who vote for ideals, values, and principles instead of just expedient self-interest. In order for this great republic to survive, we need more of those:  We need more people willing to engage and have constructive dialogue to learn from and inform others.

As for me, I believe strongly that where we are currently headed—with the increasing “progressive”-focused class warfare and unbridled spending—is poison to our present and future freedom and prosperity. You may have voted for “change” because of the positive promises of a growing economy, a balanced budget, international popularity, a drawdown of hostilities, government transparency, or bipartisanship… but none of them have materialized. Instead, our president’s promise to fundamentally change our financial system is being pursued at this very hour, by spending (other people’s money… primarily your children’s and grandchildren’s!) to the point that higher taxes are required to pay for more spending and… it’s a never-ending cycle that’s been underway for an entire century but is reaching a fever pitch. We who are trying to preserve/conserve what we believe are the fundamentals that have made this country great are supposed to take a “balanced approach”, which means that the process slows as progressives/liberals only get some of the changes they want to smaller degrees over a longer span of time. But the cycle is not intended to stop until entire industries (auto, healthcare, etc) are overtaken by unelected federal agency regulations and increasing taxes on supposed “fat-cats” (with, again, targeted loop-holes and rebates)—whatever it takes for those who apparently know better to enforce their vision of fairness in our society.

Do we need better regulations? I’d say so… it’s an increasingly complicated world with complicated industries and competing interests. Do we need a cleaner tax-code than either party wants to submit to or commit to changing? Absolutely… it’s been overtaken by special interests that increase government power and decrease fairness. Do we need to help those who lack opportunity or the ability to care for themselves? Of course… the poor we will always have with us, and it is sometimes not their fault and, in any case, still our duty to love them and help them. But, this president’s vision for our country as reflected by the current policies and direction is not what is best for our country—the poor or the wealthy and, more importantly, the cause of liberty and justice for all of us.

Advertisement