| As you can see, I haven't blogged in over three years, mostly because I've been busy, but mainly because it was not a priority to let the world know what was on my mind. Today I felt compelled to share my thoughts as a result of a speech I heard by one of the political candidates in an attempt to defend his economic policy. Well, a more accurate description is disturbed, disturbed by the candidate's terrible lack of understanding. And it frightens me that his policy may become reality when he himself has a wrong view of the very policy he wants to implement. When queried about the opposition political party's objections to his policy, the candidate replied something to the effect of, "... when did selfishness become a virtue? I believe in the re-distribution of wealth ... the next thing you know, [the opposition political party] will be accusing me of being a communist ...". In sarcasm, he went on to say something to the effect of, "... I wouldn't be surprised if, when I was a kindergartner and decided to share my lunch with my friends, they would accuse me of being a communist then...". How did this man, who was projected to lose his Senatorial race to a former NFL football coach, with no political experience, until he decided not to run, make it this far? The difference between this Senator's economic plan and his awful analogy demonstrates his own lack of comprehension of both reality and economics - and this is why. Let us use the analogy he created in his mind, based on his own understanding, ie the kindergartner who shares his school lunch. Let's say the Senator's mother packed him 10 sweet, juicy, organic, fresh strawberries to school that day as a snack. All the other kids' mothers only packed them apples, oranges and bannanas, but they all wanted a piece of the Senator's strawberries. Now here's where we get into his problematic philosophy. Two things can happen. The first scenario is that the Senator chooses 9 of his friends and VOLUNTARILY shares them. The other scenario is, seeing his snacks are better than the other kids' snacks, the teacher FORCES the Senator to give up his strawberries against his will and then re-distributes them to the class. Is this the same thing? The Senator seems to think these are one and the same. In his economic policy, the Senator asserts that his plan to increase taxes on a small portion of the population (who make a given income) and distribute it to the poorer classes is equivalent to the child who VOLUNTARILY shares his strawberries! Last time I checked, nobody enjoyed having their hard-earned money taken out of their paycheck month after month and wasted by the federal government. And yet, is it right to do so because the majority of the people who stand to benefit greatly outnumber those who will be punished by his policy? The Senator has no problem with it. I wonder, does he truly believe in this policy, or is this a ploy to win votes? After all, after a long shpiel on the selfishness of Americans who don't freely give away their income to others, one must ask, "why did the Senator choose to author several books and promote them at every opportunity?" My assumption is that all the proceeds from the sales (and, of course, his salary) went to a charity of some sort, because, after all, he is above the rest of us, evidenced by his willingness to point the finger at selfish wage earners and condemn them on moral grounds for not distributing their hard-earned income. Furthermore, "selfishness" is not the issue at hand, but the Senator does not discern this. Selfishness has never been a virtue and, God forbid, may it never be. But when you are dealing with human, nature, how can anyone deny even their own inherent selfishness? Is not the will to survive selfish? Is not the competitive nature to succeed, knowing that you beat out someone else for the same job, a selfish act? If the Senator now classifies it in his mind as such, so be it. But the reality of life is that the driving force of capitalism is personal gain and there is nothing inherently wrong in that, but it is always vulnerable to the sinful tendencies of human nature and easily becomes an evil. Yet every good man is built to provide for his family and he works hard to give his family the best chance at a good, successful life. What do we call those fathers who don't work, don't help, don't support? We all call them "deadbeat dads" - because they lack the essence of what we are discussing here, the very drive that has made this the greatest country in the world. So why would the Senator de-value a strong work ethic and the individual freedom to provide the best for his family? So Senator, please understand what your policy IS, in it's very essence, a communist philosophy. It is "the re-distribution of wealth", your very words, and it is insulting for you to act as if we lack the intelligence to see through cheap words. I ask you to stop and think about your policy, its repercussions and the way it stagnates and demoralizes a nation. Phew,got that off my chest. When I hear a argument for a bad cause, I have to say something about it. Gotta go to bed now, I'm working 30 straight hours tomorrow so that the government can take 35% of my income, soon to be more if this Senator is elected. And you know what? This doesn't even get into the moral issues as to why I am not voting for this man ... but that's a topic for another night when I'm less sleep deprived. |
