As I have observed earlier in this blog, Obama's attack on the "rich" is not really intended to help the "poor," for whom the President rarely expresses any concern. Rather, he seeks to punish the inventors, innovators, job-creators and wealth-creators (derided as "the rich"), for no apparent reason other than to punish them, and certainly not to help those in poverty. Thus, Obama doesn't wage a War on Poverty; he wages a War on Prosperity. O'Rourke completely gets it, and he says it much funnier than I can:
In this zero-sum universe there is only so much happiness. The idea is that if we wipe the smile off the faces of people with prosperous businesses and successful careers, that will make the rest of us grin.
There is only so much money. The people who have money are hogging it. The way for the rest of us to get money is to turn the hogs into bacon.
Mr. President, your entire campaign platform was redistribution. Take from the rich and give to the . . . Well, actually, you didn't mention the poor. What you talked and talked about was the middle class, something most well-off Americans consider themselves to be members of. So your plan is to take from the more rich and the more or less rich and give to the less rich, more or less. It is as if Robin Hood stole treasure from the Sheriff of Nottingham and bestowed it on the Deputy Sheriff.
A faithful reader offers this comment: Kudos on this entry, but you are not cynical enough. In addition to the motives you mention for redistributing income, I would add the irreducible primal urge to seize the power to organize the lives of others--here, that the left all want private-sector workers to turn their assets over to the public sector, so the public sector can design he world they want. (This urge explains much of the conduct of career politicians, many civil servants, many professors and many high-level executives.)
ReplyDelete