11 September 2008

Redistributing Your Wealth

I didn’t quite believe what I read on Neal Boortz’s site this morning (I’m always a day behind on his “Nuze”), so I did a little research. Apparently, Sen. Obama said the following on Monday night’s portion of his interview with Bill O’Reily:

“What I believe is, is that there are certain things we have to do. We've got to help people who are having tough times affording college, so they can benefit like we benefited from this great country. People who are having a tough time -- they don't have health care; people who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills…”
How are we supposed to help people benefit from college, get health care, and pay their bills? Through higher taxes on the wealthy. According to Sen. Obama, the rich can afford it, and really ought to do it anyway. But the taxation issue is only half the problem here. The other half is that the “beneficiaries”

The greater half – the more telling half – is that those who would supposedly be helped might not want or be ready to get that help. What is the point of sending thousands of high school graduates to college if they themselves are not ready (or willing) to handle the challenges of a college curriculum? Sen. Obama would make higher education an unearned right, paid for (or at least more subsidized than it already is). Colleges and universities would have to do one of two things: remediate and scaffold and accommodate for unprepared students or drop standards. That doesn’t sound like it is worth once more cent in taxes on anyone.

The health care issue is somewhat the same. While there ought to be some things done to change the current bureaucratic nightmare of our healthcare billing and insurance system, having a government subsidized take-over is not the answer. It would layer bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy – always a recipe for wild inefficiency. Additionally, “universal health care” won’t really do a thing to make people healthier. Wider, easier availability through “free” health care may tend to reward those with self-inflicted health problems and simultaneously give those same people no reason (other than their own discomfort) to change their behaviors. That’s not worth another penny of taxes, either.

The last one is the kicker, though. Why in the world should anyone be taxed so that some other citizen can pay his bills? We already have massive mortgage bailouts for both lenders and borrowers. Is the next step bailing out satellite dish owners who run afoul of their provider? Will the government subsidize SUV owners who are “unfairly” penalized by high gas prices? Will there be a Starbucks stipend for those who can’t afford their five macchiatos a week because of soaring energy costs? And what would stop these same people in “trouble” from blowing our money just like they squandered their own? Is that worth a cent of anyone’s tax dollars?

At what point would a president Obama leave us alone with the money we’ve earned so that we may do with it what we please? At what point would those “less-fortunate” be able to stand up for themselves, without an unasked-for government program hauling them up as high as the government thinks they ought to be? Marx famously wrote, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Sen. Obama, showing his Marxist stripes, would graft that tenant onto the tax code of the US. That’s not a guess, that’s not speculation, that’s what the man said.

Just say no to Obama’s Marxism.

No comments: