The perfect society: A land without wealth?

The perfect society: A land without wealth?

Anthony W. Hager

Utopia! It’s the holy grail of egalitarian busybodies far and wide. If only outcomes were equal, as defined by the egalitarians themselves, the world would become a place of balanced chi and seamless harmony. These societal engineers have long believed in their unique intellects and superlative abilities, which qualify them to distribute wealth and contentment to a longing world. Sadly, there’s no shortage of these do-gooders.

A New York State Assemblyman envisions an increased millionaire tax. If passed, high income earners–who already bear a disproportionate share of New York’s tax burden–will pitch in an additional 11-percent. The broken record known as Hillary Clinton still laments how “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. Oregon, too, has joined the chorus.

Earlier this year Oregon voters passed Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on individuals and businesses that wealth redistributors, in their profundity, have deemed excessive winners in life’s lottery. Typical class envy tactics preceded that electoral outcome. Proponents argued that education, public safety and health would suffer if the initiatives failed. The poor, naturally, would take it on the chin.

The entire premise of a perceived “fair share” is ambiguous at best. Would the egalitarian consider taxation equitable if the “rich” surrender, say, 75-percent of their income to government? Hillary Clinton, Oregon voters and New York assemblymen might think so. But anyone with a toehold on reality understands that productive people shoulder the tax burden now. The top one-percent of earners pays 28-percent of federal income taxes. Additionally, over the last 30 years the taxation on incomes above $75,000 has steadily increased while declining on incomes below that threshold.

Arguing that wealthier Americans pay little or no taxes is misleading. No, make that an outright lie. And that’s not the only mischaracterization offered by the “soak the rich” crowd.

In promoting Measures 66 and 67 the Oregon Center for Public Policy claimed that “asking” Oregonians to “contribute” more in taxes would improve the state’s fiscal structure. Certainly some taxation is necessary for governments to execute legitimate functions. But referring to tax increases as “asking” people to “contribute” is unadulterated spin, sufficient to strain even the strongest gastronomical constitution. And it’s so typical of the egalitarian social engineer.

Charitable organizations solicit contributions, and contributors alone determine their level of participation. No such choice exists with taxation. Tax levies aren’t a request on government’s part, and taxes aren’t contributed sans duress. Taxes are compulsory and their collection is ultimately a matter of force.
 
Sadly, there’s little to be achieved in arguing taxation with egalitarians. Redistributionists are so devoted to equalizing all incomes and imposing their Marxist vision on society that debate has become futile. Equally futile are the protests of the productive, whose incomes are sacrificed upon the perverse altar of egalitarianism. The producer’s right to their production will never match the needs of the oppressed when it comes to conjuring empathy. Therefore the “rich” are safely marginalized, demonized and dismissed.

What would happen if busybodies like Hillary Clinton, New York legislators and Oregon voters fulfill their collectivist dreams? If there were no private wealth the economy would become void of capital investment. Innovation and production would decelerate, with a corresponding decline in employment and living standards. The resulting misery would create greater demand on government, which puts the do-gooders in position to distribute the remaining wealth as they so determine. They will achieve their socialist dreams, but only for a season.

Such idealism has no foundation upon which to build. Since government produces little, and that which is produced is a case study in inefficiency, the egalitarian society is doomed to failure. Only the most influential busybodies will benefit from their societal and economic transformation. The rank and file do-gooder will be destined to impoverished servitude alongside their once-wealthy neighbors, whose property they helped confiscate.

So goes the nation without private wealth. Utopia? I think not.


Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 200 published articles for various newspapers, periodicals and websites. He can be reached through his website, www.therightslant.com

The War on Sarah Palin Really is a War on Conservatives

The War on Sarah Palin Really is a War on Conservatives

2010 June 26

It’s getting rather old, but the Left continues to attack one of the most influential conservative women alive today: Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

When she was invited to speak at Stanislaus university in California last Friday, leftist students immediately went through trash cans, trying to figure out how much Palin was being paid. They organized protests, asked their friends of the mainstream media for help, and altogether did their best to ruin what eventually became the most successful fundraising dinner in the university’s history.

The material recovered by the students, which detailed perks such as first-class airfare for two and deluxe hotel accommodations, prompted California Attorney General Jerry Brown to launch an investigation into the finances of the university’s foundation arm and allegations that the nonprofit violated public disclosure laws.

Would they have done the same thing if Palin was a leftist? Have you ever heard of progressive students protesting against the speaking fees of, say, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton? No, of course you haven’t. That’s because this is not about fairness or money but about Palin’s ideology. She is a conservative, and that’s reason enough for leftist students to ruin her evening and to disgrace the university that invited her.

This non-scandal once again proves that conservatives are engaged in a political war with progressives. Too often conservative pundits and politicians think we should be ‘civilized’. We should not, because our enemies certainly are not either. When you are engaged in a war all that matters is that you win. If this means you have to fight dirty every now and then, so be it. The Left understands this, too many on the Right do not. Let Palin’s treatment at Stanislaus serve as a wake up call for those who still believe that manners matter.

Crisis not ‘wasted’: Obama to nationalize oil companies?

Crisis not ‘wasted’: Obama to nationalize oil companies?

June 7th, 2010

By Drew Zahn, WND

 Will Obama Nationalize Oil?

While management of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has shaken many Americans’ confidence in the current administration, some voices in entertainment, news and academia see the crisis as reason to give the federal government even more power – namely, the ability to take over the oil industry.

The notion is catching on with the public, too. A CBS poll recently tabulated 63 percent of Americans believe the Obama administration should be doing more in response to the spill, and activists working through the SeizeBP.org website are planning protests in 50 cities throughout the week demanding the federal government take over BP, the company that owns and operates the leaking oil drill.

The Seize BP organization is demanding BP assets be nationalized not only to clean up the spill, but also to compensate families affected by what the organization calls “this capitalist-made disaster.”

Since BP’s offshore drill began gushing crude into the Gulf of Mexico in April, the Obama administration has deferred to the corporation’s expertise in seeking to stop the flow.

But as the ongoing environmental disaster has extended beyond 40 days and counting, entertainer Rosie O’Donnell, political pundit James Carville and former Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich have joined those calling for a federal takeover of the situation.

On her “Rosie Radio” program earlier this week, O’Donnell quoted Carville, who told CNN’s John King, “This president needs to tell BP, ‘I’m your daddy, I’m in charge. You’re going to do what we say.’”

“James Carville said the best thing,” O’Donnell affirmed, adding that she’d like to see Obama say, “’I’m signing an executive order and I’m taking over the BP oil spill.’ Like, boom, boom, boom. Someone has to do it.”

Read More:

It’s because they want to kill us, stupid.

It’s Because They Want To Kill Us, Stupid

2010 May 6

The night the NYC car bomb attempt went down, I was so grateful that, once again, the diligence of the public and the swift action of the NYC Police thwarted yet another potential attack. Shortly thereafter, while still incredibly grateful obviously, I became angry. I’ve had it. Firstly, because the current strategy of homeland security seems to be “Hey, guys, we’ve totally unclenched our fists. We can haz cookie now?” Secondly, because the left and their media lackeys are not only dangerously naive, but also purposefully misleading.

They are so deeply invested in both political correctness and in their violent, racist “tea baggers” meme, it clouds all else. Even common sense and the security of our country. It was swiftly apparent that they were *wishing* that the failed bomber was a tea partier, so that they could further their lame narrative and continue to try to excuse Obama and his administration for their failures and utter incompetence. Gee, Obama, how is that “unclenching of fists” deal working out for you?

That night, Attorney General Holder said “It’s important that American people remain vigilant.” Sadly, it’s quite clear that the administration and many on the left refuse to do the same; unless it’s remaining vigilant in their pursuit of demagoguing Republicans. It’s gotten to the point where I was honestly waiting for the release of a statement from Obama, consisting of a sternly worded apology and claims that he inherited the bomber, Faisal Shahzad, from Bush.

Michael Bloomberg started the insane blame the Republicans at all costs narrative off with a bang. When asked by the elfin Katie Couric for a guess as to who the bomber could be, Bloomberg offered this:

“If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything,” he said.

Oh, yes, Bloomberg. Those violent, hateful health care bill deniers! Man, someone has to stop those dangerously radical thugs! What’s next? The singing of the National Anthem?! Maybe finding photographs of Obama and fiendishly drawing mustaches and devil horns on them in a frenzied rage of rightwing extremism? I’m only surprised that Bloomberg didn’t also suggest that it was probably an evil smoker or salt eater.

When the information was released that the attempted bomber’s name was Faisal Shahzad, the delusional spin intensified. All across (alleged) newsrooms, thoughts of ” Wait; this whole Faisal Shahzad thing must be inaccurate. That doesn’t sound like a health care-hating, “tea bag-y” name” abounded. CNN quickly hypothesized that perhaps Shahzad was a victim of post home foreclosure traumatic syndrome , as a way to mitigate their sorrow over him not being a tea partier. Most tried to do it stealthily and keep the full extent of their sorrow to themselves, but not Contessa Brewer!

I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry. And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined.

No, really. It’s on video. I think that Contessa Brewer should be more frustrated and oh-so-sad by the fact that she’s, you know, Contessa Brewer. I also think she should just stop talking. Now. I’m certain the two people who watch her network can somehow manage to muddle through without her “insight.” This was all topped off by the CBS/AP headline today:

Faisal Shahzad’s Motive Shrouded in Mystery

Hey, media, you know what might help uncover the shrouded mystery? How about you try mentioning the word “Muslim” or “Islam”? Even just once. Note, it doesn’t appear anywhere in that entire article. And the omission of either word has been glaring in all accounts. Well, except for one. When that bastion of stupidity, Mayor Bloomberg, spoke out, not against the perpetrator of the crime, but pre-emptively against American citizens; the potential victims of a terrorist attack. (Via allahpundit)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says New York City “will not tolerate any bias” following the arrest of a U.S. citizen from Pakistan in the Times Square car bombing attempt.

Bloomberg said Tuesday that also applies to potential backlash against Muslim New Yorkers.

Sigh. Listen, everyone has the right to be stupid, but you, Mayor Bloomberg, totally abuse the privilege. It is rather telling that the only time the word Muslim or Islam is even acknowledged is when the rest of us are being accused of being racist half-wits.

Andrew Breitbart summed it up, in a nutshell, in his response to Contessa Brewer who, while personally astoundingly mockable, really just epitomizes leftist thought as a whole. He asked if she was aware that “tea baggers” would save her life, while Islamists want to take it.

That’s the crux of their willful ignorance right there; sometimes, being an Islamic terrorist IS the motive itself. As Leon de Winter wrote at Pajamas Media, “Faisal Shahzad is a Muslim terrorist motivated to kill by his religion, not by the loss of his house to the bank.”

 Instead of busily demonizing American citizens, apologizing to those who wish to kill us, and frantically avoiding perceived “profiling” out of the insane fear of looking non-politically correct, they should learn that lesson.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Political correctness is no longer just annoying. It’s deadly.

It’s because they want to kill us, stupid.

White House To Tea Parties: It’s Bush’s Fault

White House To Tea Parties: It’s Bush’s Fault

April 19th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

UT0090183

Fox News:

Tea Partiers, the Obama administration is on your side.

That’s been the message from the White House over the past few days, as top officials dispute charges that Washington is on a spending binge and encourage conservative protesters to count their blessings.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, when asked about the Tea Party protests, said in an interview Sunday that the Obama administration is paying more attention to deficit and spending concerns than the Bush administration did.

“We’ve just been through eight years where many people said deficits don’t matter. We can pass huge tax cuts, pass huge new programs without paying for them. That debate has changed fundamentally,” Geithner said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“You don’t hear people say anymore deficits don’t matter. You don’t hear people saying we can pass enormous expansions in government without paying for it. That’s an important change.”

And President Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Thursday that Tea Party activists should “be saying thank you” to him for the tax cuts passed by his administration.

The change in tone comes as surveys show distrust in the government is rising to historic levels. A Pew Research Center survey released on Monday found almost 80 percent of Americans say they don’t trust Washington.

Dana Perino, former White House press secretary under the Bush administration and a Fox News contributor, said that the Obama administration is wise to try to appeal to the Tea Partiers. But she said the claim that Obama is tackling the deficit is off base.

“He’s right, in one sense, to finally stop degrading people who affiliate with the Tea Party movement. But if his policies meshed up with his rhetoric, it would probably be a stronger sell point,” Perino said.

Obama has established a bipartisan commission to study ways to bring down the national debt and rein in deficits. But his spending has far outpaced that of his predecessor.

President Bush ran up a $458.6 billion deficit during his last full year in office. Obama ran up a $1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal 2009 — that covered part of Bush’s final year, but budget projections show deficits will continue to top $1 trillion for several years under Obama.

Dictator Uses SEC As Political Weapon: Wall Street Suspects Goldman Charges ‘Not Coincidental’ To Financial Reform Effort

Dictator Uses SEC As Political Weapon: Wall Street Suspects Goldman Charges ‘Not Coincidental’ To Financial Reform Effort

April 17th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

Obama Economy

New York Post:

Wall Street is more than a little suspicious of today’s charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has accused Goldman Sachs of lying to investors about who was really behind junk mortgages securities it sold to clients.

Barclays banking analyst Roger Freeman comes right out and blasts the SEC effort as “a well-timed, and perhaps not coincidental, effort to sway some on-the-fence Republicans” to get tough on financial reform.

“Targeting GS, given the flurry of anti-Wall Street press that has centered around that firm, offers the publicity that the administration needs at this critical juncture,” Freeman says in a note to clients today.

He says Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has targeted a vote on the Senate bill for April 26, “and given the short span of time between now and the end of the month, we are not surprised to see the stepped up support for the bill.”