Opinion> David Harsanyi> If It Redistributes Like A Duck

	15 Feb 2012 Commerce Is the Culture War It's always curious to watch the champions of "choice" decide what choices to champion and what … Read More.
	8 Feb 2012 Obama's Halftime Hypocrisy On Super Bowl Sunday, America was treated to the most expensive political commercial in history — … Read More.
	1 Feb 2012 Republicans' Obamacare Problem Once the presidential nomination process is settled — and Lord knows that day can't come fast enough … Read More.

If It Redistributes Like a Duck …

Barack Obama is going to fix the economy by "spreading the wealth around"?

Now, I'm not attempting to demonize Obama, God forbid. It's just that, as we all know, that's what Obama told Joe the Plumber.

Obama laughs off the charge of socialist behavior — and to be fair, socialism isn't the precise term to affix to his ideas. It's more like Robin Hood economics. On a recent campaign stop, Obama joked that by the end of the week, McCain would be accusing him "of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten."

A funny line. But of course, Obama's lofty intellect must comprehend the fundamental difference between sharing your GI Joe with a friend and having a bully snatch your GI Joe for the collective prepubescent good. It's the difference between coercion and free association and trade. In practical terms, it's the difference between government cheese and a meal at Ruth's Chris.

Now, I'm not suggesting Obama intends to transform this nation into 1950s-era Soviet tyranny or that he will possess the power to do so. I'm suggesting Obama is praising and mainstreaming an economic philosophy that has failed to produce a scintilla of fairness or prosperity anywhere on earth. Ever.

If you believe that "fairness" — a childishly subjective idea that ought to be quarantined to playgrounds and Berkeley City Council meetings — should be meted out by the autocrats inhabiting Washington, D.C., your faith will be duly rewarded.

You know, once upon a time, the stated purpose of taxation was to fund public needs — such as schools and roads — assist those who could not help themselves, defend our security and freedom, and yes, occasionally offer bailouts to sleazy fat cats.

Obama is the first major presidential candidate in memory to assert that taxation's principal purpose should be redistribution.

The proposition that government should take one group's lawfully earned profits and hand them to another group — not a collection of destitute or impaired Americans, mind you, but a still-vibrant middle class — is the foundational premise of Obama's fiscal policy.

It was Joe Biden who said (not long ago, when he still was permitted to speak in public), "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." The only entity that "takes" money from the middle class — or any class for that matter — is the Internal Revenue Service.

Other than that, there is nothing to give back.

And who knew we needed such a drastic renovation of an economic philosophy we've adhered to these past 25 years (yes, counting Bill Clinton's comparatively fiscally conservative record)? Despite a recent downturn and with all the serious tribulations we face, Americans have just lived through perhaps the most prosperous and peaceful era human beings ever have enjoyed.

From 1982 until now, every arrow on nearly every economic growth chart — every health care chart, every chart that matters — points in one general direction, and that's up.

Obama, who, it seems, is running not only for president but also for national baby sitter/accountant/daddy/icon, ignores this success and claims he can "invest" (will that euphemism ever go away?) and disperse your money more efficiently, smartly and fairly than you can. How could any American accept the absurdity of that position?

Then again, it is doubtful that Obama is on his way to the presidency because of any revolutionary idea. It's about performance. And by performance, I mean the performance of President George Bush.

Bush's failure, however, should not be counted as a failure of markets or capitalism. And even if it were, history shows us that the failures of capitalism are a lot more fun than the absence of capitalism.

Conservatives have been accusing liberals of being socialists since, I don't know, liberals have been accusing conservatives of being fascists.

But when a candidate explicitly endorses a collectivist policy … well, words still have meaning, don't they?

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of "Nanny State." Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com. To find out more about David Harsanyi and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

Sir;... I know you are used to living in a world of ideals... Most people of a political frame of mind are.... But you should distinguish between an ideal economy and a real economy... Now, Capitalism is an ideal economy, which is not to say it is ideal in fact, but that it is supposed to work after a certain ideal understanding of human behavior... Socialism, also has an ideal quality to it... Hegal, and his student, Marx were idealist philosophers... But that has nothing to do with socialism as a fact... And here let me state something I take as a universal truth... It is that no one can impose their ideals upon others... The Greek philosophers seemed to believe that the ideal society could produce the ideal individual... I don't think so... I think we get what we get no matter what our form of relationship... You can get a sense of perfection from ideals, but you cannot create perfection with ideals... You have an ideal of a perfect house... What you get with turning that ideal to reality is a house... What you get with an ideal of an economy is an economy... What the Russian communists got with an ideal of society was a society that did not begin ideally nor end ideally.. They got an economy that half assed worked.... But the object of socialism where it worked was never to produce excess, or excellence; but was aimed purely at survival... It evolved, as every relationship evolves out of need, to support survival.... Capitalism was only possible where technology had advanced enough to support a class divided society... Once you have that, and a sense of individualism, it is hard to get society to de-evolve into a survival first form... We will never have more socialism than we need... As an ideal, equality of rights, and resources is the hardest thing to sell... Why bother, and by the same token, why spread fear of it since all it does is hinder government??? Pragmatists like Mr. Obama are not idealists... Their ideal is success, or what works... And that is what we need... If depression is on our door step, we are going to have to get into survival mode... Or would you rather we not prepare, and end up with mass starvation, because that might reflect ill on the rich??? No matter what ideal motivates the society, it has to work, and work for all.. What we have now does not work for all, and barely works at all... I mean sure; if you are willing to accept crime, pollution, waste of resources, poverty, ill health, war, and injustice then you might say capitalism works for you... It does not work for me.. And again, Ideal socialism is not real socialism, and you should do some reading before writing about a subject upon which you are ignorant.... Thanks...Sweeney

Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:03 PM