Two Weeks and Wealth Envy

The First Two Weeks of Obama

"Change We Can Believe In" was an effective slogan. So was the the line from the 80's commercial that asked"Where's the Beef? " (Bonus points if you can name the politician who used it). And where President Obama is concerned, he's not putting out.

Many of the accusations over the last eight years have been the standard ones: Corruption, incompetence, etc. So let's look at what we've seen over the first two weeks of the new administration:

(I'm leaving out the social issues and GITMO, which he did deliver on for his base. There was change there, but the kind we expect of any politician.)

Three nominees who have pulled shit with their taxes, two of which have pulled out.

One of his "changes" was to get rid of the influence of lobbysts. So he hired some lobbyists.

And finally, the obscenity that is Porkulous, which was started under Bush in the form of the Dastardly Bastardly Bailout.

It's early, and the administration has yet to face it's first defining moment, so it's still possible we could "hope" to see Obama "change" DC. More to come.


Wealth Envy is Still Envy

There's a reason envy got billing as one of the seven deadly sins. It's a cancer of the mind. It eats the soul. And it poisons the heart. It comes from a desire to see others suffer as you perceive you suffer. It's driven by the desire to tear down, not to build; to destroy, not to create; to kill, not to give birth.

And yet, when it's applied to the wealthy, it's a liberal Democrat vote-getting slogan.

I'll spare my liberal bloggers the pleasure of being quoted and mocked for their predictable and tired diatribes of how the "rich" are screwing everyone. Suffice it to say, an example is in order. Now for clarification, this example is based on a world where laws are not written to manipulate, nor is there illegal activity. Those two things are problems involving government and must be dealt with there.

The question at the end will be thus: Has each brother earned what he has, or should the money be taken and distributed by another man's definition of "fair?"

Three brothers work in a business together making shoes. The first brother is a bookkeeper and manager, and specializes in getting materials cheap. The second works the factory floor, and leads in the production. And the third runs the retail store, selling the shoes. And all three do their job well and are compensated.

The first, being shrewd with finances, invests heavily, earning a good return on his money. The second remembers the old days when the market crashes, and sticks to a combination of savings accounts and his mattress. And the third, being popular with the ladies, buys nice cars and scores regularly.

The brothers, being brothers, fought vociferously, but as all prospered and lived as they chose, all was well. Then hard times came upon the land. Changing tastes, a shrinking customer base, and an opportunity to get out before the bottom fell out forced the brothers to close and sell the factory. This bred some anger among them, which led to silence amongst them over the following years.

The first brother, with his share, moved on to another company where he continued to grow his wealth. The second, having enough to invest in tools and the knowledge of shoemaking, opened a shoe repair shop (I know, but go with me on this) and, while he was not wealthy like his brother, lived a decent life. But the third, having nothing saved, and facing an economy, was forced to find work where he could. But without the facade of the shoe business, he was shown to be lackluster at selling at best. So he mostly lived off the money from the sale of the shoe business until it too was gone.

Then the third brother went to the second brother for a job, or for money. And the third brother said, "I have no money available but for what I have invested in this business. And the business does not justify a second person working. I am often idle, myself. And while I live well enough, to give you a portion of my money would mean I would be poor. You chose this, I did not."

Then the third brother went to the first brother, and seeing he was quite well off and not wanting to be subordinate to his brother, sought only money. The first brother was incensed in his response, "You are a squanderer of money. When we were all prosperous, your brother an I grew our wealth. But you chose to spend every penny you earned to entice women with large breasts, creamy thighs, and expensive tastes. And even when the money became finite, you chose to continue this until you were at the end of your money. I would not waste a nickel in this bottomless well."

The third brother stewed in his anger, wondering, 'Why will he not share the wealth he does not need?' But being unable to meet his own needs, he went to his representative in government and explained the situation. "I have two brothers. One lives a humble life, ans one lives an extravagant one, while I live in squalor. It is not fair that we all received the same salary and are now so unequal. Can you pass a law to make us equal?"

The politician, being shrewd, realized that if one brother could ask this from government, then all could. And the law was passed, the first brother lost some of his wealth, the second lost a little, and the third was propped up enough that he could subsist.

So, has each brother earned what he has, or should the money be taken and distributed by another man's definition of "fair?"

In the end, the choice is clear. While charity is a virtue, it is not the role of government to take money from our brothers and sisters to support our other brothers and sisters. And it is simply not right. And the principle does not change, no matter the number of zeroes, because we still possess the freedom to choose.