A curious principle
Armstrong Williams | 12/14/2012, 12:24 p.m.
Right now, the president is demagoguing and blaming the rich, as he has been doing for his entire political career (which, come to think of it, actually isn't a very long time). That much is to be expected.
What is disturbing, however, is that it seems to be working, and that people are buying it. He was re-elected largely by portraying Mitt Romney as rich, and therefore either biased or unqualified to have opinions about anything affecting the non-rich. It is the classic left-wing reductionism: You are where you came from and you are what you look like.
The president is still campaigning, despite his re-election, this time to try to get people to pressure Congress into raising taxes on the rich. If they follow the president's plan, the government is expected to take in an extra $160 billion per year, which is about what we borrow every 10 days. In the face of all reality, he claims his intentions are not partisan, but "math." To make matters more embarrassing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes voting on the Geithner fiscal cliff plan. Why? Does he not support the Democrat administration?
Our country has been redistributing wealth en masse for so long that we take it for granted that we do so, especially since half the country just voted for an even bigger government, an even more redistributive and coercive central power and an even more comfortable safety net--by now it's more like a hammock. No matter that we can't afford these things, these people think that if reality gets in the way of our handouts, then so much for reality. But it's always worth re-examining our principles and asking why we do what we do.
How does one qualify for government assistance? Simply by needing it. It's a curious principle. To get something, you need only not have it. The less you have, the more you get. The less you do, the less you work, the more the workers will pay. In any economy, in any country, this is unsustainable. The evidence of this, of course, is that the richest country in history has, in a few decades, turned into the most indebted country in history.
Take, for example, the New York City man, Jeffrey Hillman, given $100 boots for free in a selfless and commendable act of charity by Officer Larry DePrimo. Hillman is already barefoot again, and, according to the New York Times, wants to get paid for the publicity of the story.
Or consider the Detroit councilwoman who demanded a bailout in exchange for voting for Barack Obama. Why should they be bailed out? Just because they want it?
A lot of people compare this to the Little League teams that give out trophies to everyone, no matter if they won or lost or even played. But it is so much worse than that, because this is a drain on productivity--the very thing that pays for this stuff. If we keep this up, soon we'll all be bootless.