A great one from Vin Suprynowicz: "Taking away their surplus at gunpoint is 'only fair.'"

My thanks to my son Matt for suggesting this one to me from Vin Suprynowicz' blog. I wish I could write as well as he does.

Mike
III

Taking away their surplus at gunpoint is 'only fair'

Posted by Vin Suprynowicz
Wednesday, Jul. 22, 2009 at 07:38 PM

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Obama to tell nation that health reform is key to economic recovery, controlling deficit," said today's 3:06 p.m. news flash.

No, actually, the key to economic recovery and controlling the deficit is giving me 10,000 ounces of gold, a nice bungalow on Maui, and all the unblended Scotch whisky I can drink.

This is hilarious. This guy is convinced they'll believe ANYTHING. If having government pay for just the health care of the poor and the elderly has driven us to the brink of hyperinflation and bankruptcy, surely having government run THE WHOLE THING will eliminate our debts and deficits in no time ... right?

Never mind the little man behind the curtain. That being the nonpartisan congressional budget director, who last week reported the current scheme would drive costs UP, despite the fact their goal is to let old people die while they wait their turn for increasingly out-of-date medical treatments. (See: "Life expectancy, Soviet Union.")

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to say "the key to economic recovery, controlling deficit" is slashing taxes and repealing Medicare and Medicaid, letting patients go back to negotiating their fees with their doctors?

Besides, what happened to "cap-and-trade"? I thought "cap-and-trade" was the key to economic recovery. Or was it card check? Yeah, I thought card check was the key.

One thing I have to say for the socialists; at least they're finally out of the closet. A letter writer this week complains our recent editorials "basically argue there is something unjust about the top 5 percent of wage earners in our country paying 60 percent of the income tax. ...

Since the top 5 pecrent of wage earners hold 60 percent of the wealth in our country, your objection is against what? Fairness?"

This, of course, while based on the same principles of jealousy and armed robbery, actually goes beyond communism, it having been Joe Stalin who famously said the best machinist in the factory should be paid more than the others, in order to keep him at his job, thus increasing the productivity of the whole joint.

One wonders how such characters escaped learning the lessons most of us picked up at our first summer job, watching the slackers and goof-offs get permanently sent home, while those chipper young characters with the ready smiles, always eager to pitch in and do a little more, got quickly promoted to "assistant shift supervisor," with a concomitant hike in pay.

Which do you suppose has a nice house and car, today? I'm hoping it's both; actually, though, if only because the slacker who got fired actually LEARNED A LESSON — one which still doesn't seem to have sunk in for our whining "equalizers."

Pragmatism doesn't seem to weigh on these folks, at all.

The fact that (unless Uncle Sam grabs it all) "the rich" have nothing to do with their "excess" but invest it in dividend-paying schemes that create jobs for everyone else? Just an unproven theory! Communist Cuba is going to spring forward as a new economic powerhouse, any day now!

The fact that higher pay is designed to encourage those with the rare skills necessary to be a doctor or an engineer to pursue those rigorous and exhausting fields?

That if the government required everyone to get "equal" paychecks, the best surgeon might just decide to go read a magazine while manning the counter of the slowest bait-and-tackle shop in town, waiting for his pathetic government "paycheck," while the guy scrubbing up to take out your appendix today would instead be whoever walked by the hospital early this morning and said, "What? Surgeon wanted? Wow, I've always wanted to give THAT a try!"?

No, apparently no practical, real-world considerations can trump the simple doctrine of "fairness" that those who have scrimped and saved and worked and worked to finally find themselves earning in the six figures in this, the final decade before they retire, must shoulder the tax burden of the great majority who have taken an easier path, because it's "only fair."

OK. Let's try one more lesson from earlier days. The young man turns 16 and informs his dad he no longer intends to either go to school or find a job. Instead, he intends to spend his days in bed, smoking, drinking whisky, and perusing girlie magazines.

We all know the answer, don't we?

(Assuming there IS a father in the house. "Single moms" sometimes seem to fail this test.) The answer contains the phrases, "When you're ready to move out and pay your own way," followed at some point by "As long as you're living under my roof and I'M paying the bills. ..."

Fairness? If our goal is "fairness," then explain to me why the top 5 percent of wage earners, now paying 60 percent of the taxes, should not get to cast 60 percent of the votes in all our elections?

Wouldn't that be "merely fair"? Any time you decide to pay the same amount that they're paying, you can vote, too.