I’m Envious of Billionaires Too!

At last night’s Democrat debate schoolyard brawl/whine-fest, the unifying theme was, “Let’s bash millionaires and billionaires!” No, wait a minute…let’s just bash billionaires because everyone up there, perhaps with the exception of Boot Edge Edge, (although his CNN or MSNBC contract is waiting) is already a millionaire.

This is one of the big problems of the Democrats. SUCCESS ENVY. Does anyone honestly think, if having invented a product or service that makes a billion dollars, Klobuchar, Buttigieg or Sanders would say, “No, I’ve made too much money?” The hypocrisy of the Left stinks to high heaven.

Hey, I’m envious of billionaires too. I wish I had invented a better service than Quotron (the predecessor to the Bloomberg product/service) and made billions. I’ll bet the “My Pillow” guy is doing ok too!

The problem with the Left is their envy has always manifested itself in a Robin Hood complex. Unable to achieve success on their own, they demand that those who have it give the fruits of that success to them. They argue that those who succeeded either gamed the system somehow, or stepped all over exploited workers, cheated, or were successful because the government was responsible for that success (“You didn’t build that.” – Barack Obama).

It’s the winners against the losers. Irrespective of how the billionaires made their money, let’s think through what would happen if Sanders or Warren were elected and able to impose confiscatory taxes on people making, I think one of the suggestions is, more than $600,000 per year.

  1. The arithmetic is extremely simple and everyone with half a brain already knows that even if you taxed ALL of that income at 100% there wouldn’t be enough money to fund the Democrat utopian dream list.
  2. If you imposed those taxes, would the high income earners put the same amount of money away in private equity, venture capital, hedge or mutual funds, the pools of capital that fuel innovation, job creation, and which indeed trickle down (sometimes flash flood down) to employees thereby boosting the economy and growth in general? And what would that do to the American Spirit and the American Dream? Would people still work hard to advance their careers, think out of the box, invent new things, hire employees, shop more at Saks or WalMart? Of course not. Their consumption and spending would decrease as they would be deprived of the incentive to make more than the specified threshold.
  3. If you actually confiscate wealth as some Leftists have suggested, i.e. say to the wealthy…”I’m going to demand you give us X% of your 401(k) or stock portfolio or savings account so we can redistribute it by providing healthcare or tuition free college for all” for example, how hard will you want to work knowing you’ll be penalized if you’re actually successful?
  4. Look at those people on stage in South Carolina last night. Even if you’re the most altruistic person in America, would you really want ANY of them to decide how to redistribute and allocate the money they’ve taken from you in taxes?

For further understanding of what happens when Democrats take your money and redistribute it, you need look no further than Obama’s 2012 $800 billion, “shovel ready projects”, so-called “stimulus package”. Here’s the breakdown of how that our money was spent:

First of all, it galls me that “Individual Tax Cuts” are called “stimulus” at all. TAX CUTS ARE THE ABSENCE OF INCOME OR WEALTH CONFISCATION, NOT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! (TAX REBATES, by the way, are a RETURN OF YOUR OWN MONEY THAT THE GOVERNMENT PREVIOUSLY CONFISCATED) It’s RELIEF, not STIMULUS. Are you stimulated by the act of a government bureaucrat taking out the nail they drove into your forehead?

Same goes for Alternative Minimum Tax Relief, the second item in the chart. It too was just the absence of additional taxation and had nothing to do with “shovel ready projects”.

State Fiscal Relief wasn’t infrastructure spending either – it was handouts to fiscally irresponsible states, particularly Democrat-controlled states. As with “Aid to Directly Impacted Individuals”, it trickled down only to the public sector unions to fund their entitlement (pensions and healthcare) spending shortfalls and to shore up welfare spending as well.

The final category…Public Investment Outlays… paid for the signs you saw on some of the highways and parkways around you. Did we really see much of any benefit to our nation’s roads and railways from that $270 billion? No. And so only 1/3 of the so-called “Stimulus” went to “infrastructure projects”. The rest went to reward favorite Democrat constituencies, i.e. into the ether.

I used to think Liberals were altruistic. I’ve learned over the years that their motivations are either the garnering of power for power’s sake, or an unbounded arrogance that if they have power and control of our money, they can make everybody happy. Both are evil because they deprive us of the impetus to work hard and achieve success for ourselves, and by extension, our families, communities and our country.

So do we really want Bernie Sanders, Elisabeth Warren, Joe Biden or any of the other megalomaniacal, power-famished hypocrites who were on that stage last night in charge of the government?

To Buffet and Gates’ credit, they’re working hard to give much of their wealth away and there are a lot of true needs and programs where philanthropy is the beginning of a solution. The various charities that build water purification plants in Africa such as “Action Against Hunger” or Doctors Without Borders are good examples, or here at home, the Tunnel to Towers Foundation or the Appalachia Service Project. Do you really want any of those Democrat candidates determining how money should be doled out for such projects? Not all, but the vast majority of Democrat controlled spending consists of handouts to “victims” who with hands out will vote to keep them in power.  

I’d like to be a billionaire too. I wouldn’t buy a yacht. I wouldn’t buy a bigger house. I would still insist that my kids and grandkids work at McDonalds when they turn 16, or stock shelves as mine did. And I’d find those meaningful charities that TRULY support the TRULY needy, or that promote self-reliance, meritocracy, the production of goods and services that advance the frontiers of science and health, human longevity, and natural resource renewal and preservation (NOT ENVIRO-FASCISM BUT CLASSIC CONSERVATION).

Please let’s stop allowing the Left to serve as our nanny, putting spoonful’s of pablum in and wiping the corners of our mouths while congratulating themselves over champagne on how well they’re taking care of us. Please America, just at the point where we’re starting to get back to basics, let’s not empower demagogues such as we saw at the debate last night to spew their utopian fantasies or, God forbid, enact more of their soul-crushing plans.

Helping Others Matters

It used to be so straightforward. The Scout Slogan is “Do a good turn daily.” And many a Boy Scout has lived up to that slogan, not just when the whole troop was engaged in a community project, but In individual acts of kindness and service.

In today’s self-absorbed society, however, we’re told we should help others because it benefits us! Research “helping others” and you’ll get an array of articles citing the psychological, physical, spiritual and career-enhancing benefits of undertaking what should be a fundamental human activity.

Ayn Rand devotees will recognize this immediately. Objectivists argue that helping others is motivated by selfishness – that the positive feelings and benefits one derives from doing so are and should be the driving force behind acts of compassion or support for our fellow human beings.

Those with religious beliefs will, however, be motivated by the teachings of their canon. I know of no religion that doesn’t preach some form of the Golden Rule, even those the doctrines of which involve destroying anyone who doesn’t believe as they do!

A business associate of mine had the privileged responsibility of heading a centi-million-dollar foundation that was charged with improving health around the world. Explaining what it was the foundation did in that regard, my colleague pointed out, “Do you know how hard it is to give away money?” He went on to describe how difficult it was to identify legitimate opportunities to put the foundation’s money to work doing real good. He recounted story after story of how seemingly valid situations to fund potential health-improving initiatives in third world countries exposed corruption that delegitimized the opportunities. Not all, but way too much of the money would have lined the pockets of politicians, intermediaries and administrators.

We as a society face the same problem as my foundation chairman friend, both as organizations as well as individuals. It’s often difficult to assess whether the cause we wish to support is legitimate. That’s why we have websites and companies that undertake that assessment for us, promising to score philanthropies and causes objectively, while skimming just a wee bit off the top for their service.

As we walk down the streets of our major cities and are accosted by panhandlers it’s hard to know who are truly needy and who have the ability to work and care for themselves but choose not to. As we listen to pitch after pitch on television and on our phone answering machines asking for “just X$ per month”, it’s hard to know for sure how much is really going to the cause and how much is paying for the supporting bureaucracy.

In short, doing good and serving others today has been institutionalized. An array of honest and legitimate on one hand and dishonest and illegitimate organizations on the other have made helping others into an industry. Think about what “I gave at the office” means. It means we’ve abrogated responsibility for doing good to others to organizational intermediaries, or worse, to politicians and officials who with our tax dollars dole out money in return for support and votes.

I recall getting off a commuter train one day among a hoard of people racing to move along the platform and up the stairs to the exit. Suddenly there was a commotion ahead of me. Someone had, heaven forbid, failed to keep up the pace! In fact, uncharacteristically for this time of day, a mother with a stroller, clearly not a commuter, was struggling to fold it while hoisting her toddler into her arms, swing her bag over her shoulder and preparing to climb the stairs. Scowls and under-breath “take the elevator ______” accompanied the rush of people navigating around her.

As I got closer to the scene, having decided to offer my help, a suit-cladded businessman had already stopped to assist the mom and her child. By the time I got to the spot where the human flow had been stalled they were on their way up the stairs.

As it happens, I knew the businessman who stopped to help. He was the multi-millionaire chief executive of an insurance company, but you wouldn’t know that from his outward appearance or countenance. But I knew that the “good turn” he had just done was typical of him, and as I passed by him at the top of the stairs I caught his eye and smiled, saying, “I thought that was you!” and to myself said, “You beat me to it.”

A simple act of kindness. Service to another that cost absolutely nothing, where no recompense was needed or wanted. An example of helping another person not for the benefit it provided the good samaritan but simply because it was the right thing to do.

What would the world be like if everyone sought to help one another as a default state? Each and every day we are presented with multiple opportunities to help others, often in small ways.

May we strive to recognize those opportunities and live up to the Scout slogan.

Helping others matters.