I think it has been a while since I did one of those essay titles with a colon in it, the way that Ph.D. candidates title their doctoral dissertations to make them sound like, well, other people's doctoral dissertations that resulted in actual degrees. A radio commentator I am a big fan of is fond of reading from published books and articles, and pausing dramatically after the title if it has a colon, saying "The left loves colons."
This topic seemed particularly colonic.
I know I have addressed aspects of income inequality before, but lest my points languish like a congressionally-mandated study on a shelf somewhere, let's dust them off and add some seasoning. I would certainly refer you to this piece and then over to this one as introductory material, but I want to get to today's point pretty quickly.
You know that I've written that the left loves to talk bout "fixing" income inequality, because it resonates with their far-left base, which wants government to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor", as if that will solve anything at all, let alone solve anything for any length of time -- give a man a fish, as Jesus said but Hillary does not believe.
To "fix" something, though, you not only have to have the ability to repair the perceived problem, but a sense of what you will end up with -- the "end state", as I like to call it. The left never talks about an end state, because it is important for them always to perceive a problem. If anything is ever actually fixed, there is no need for more and more government. And in the view of the left, we always need more government, if not an ability to pay for it.
When you build a house, you end up with a house, and an expectation that its foundation will survive for 200 years, and its roof for 15 years, its frame for a hundred years, whatever. The materials are selected, and the construction planned, both with the expectation that at the conclusion of the process the house will be there and be done.
But God forbid that the left, whether from the mouth of Hillary Clinton (were she ever to answer any question, let alone this one) or Bernie Sanders, or Michael Moore, actually define the operating, final state when income inequality is actually fixed, and at an acceptable level -- in their view.
"Mrs. Clinton", I would ask, if she would deign to look my way, "You have railed about income inequality and want to fix it. Since income is a simple, quantitative measurement and nothing else, it should be really easy to decide what the USA will look like when all your policies fix it. So answer this multi-part question:
- In actual, numeric terms, how will we know when we are "done fixing"?
- Are we done when the highest income that anyone can earn -- including, by the way, you, your husband, George Clooney, Michael Moore, Tom Brady and Mark Teixeira -- is no more than two times the income of the poorest American? Three times? Five? What multiplier is fair, and why?
- Are we done when individuals' incomes are capped? Would that be when the maximum income of anyone is $50,000 per year? $100,000 per year?
- What laws do you propose to force that to happen?
- How will you incentive diligent, intelligent, talented Americans to work hard, if their income is capped along with lazy, stupid and incompetent ones?
- How is the result of your approach any different from the Soviet Union?
She can't possibly answer that, because it is an immutable law of human nature that people gravitate toward a position of best return. If you drop an apple, it will fall to earth, pulled by the natural law of gravity. If you are diligent, intelligent and/or talented, you will be attracted to a situation where your capability is rewarded and wild horses won't be able to keep you away. If you are lazy and/or not as intelligent, you will be attracted to a situation where your smallest effort produces the biggest return, whether it is via a low-level job in the Federal government, reproducing subsidized children or just accepting welfare as your lot.
Human nature is a tough force to fight, much as is fighting gravity. If, for example, Mrs. Clinton were to achieve her end and take all the capital in the USA (except hers, of course) and completely redistribute it to the 300+ million Americans equally, within five years it would manage to assort itself right back to the various levels it was before her interference. The formerly high earners and wealthy would set up high incomes all over again due to whatever got them there before. The lazy, dumb and untalented would squander whatever they got and be right back here they were.
If, on the other hand, Mrs. Clinton were to implement wage cap laws or other liberal legislative pap that did not allow the diligent, intelligent and talented to earn whatever they can, eventually they will all leave for Canada, or New Zealand, or Mars, taking their assets with them, along with their talents, skills and intelligence, before she can confiscate them.
It is really that simple. Trying to "fight" income inequality is exactly like opposing gravity, or teaching a pig to sing (it's not worth the effort, and it annoys the pig). Trying to "fight" income inequality without an actual plan, and without a vision of what you want to end up, with is not only stupid, it is corrupt. And if that is what you want from your leaders, you'll have a chance to vote for it in 2016 by pulling the "D" lever.
Now, if you happen to see Hillary, please ask her those questions before she walks away.
Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."
No comments:
Post a Comment