Lear Envy

Sometimes, one wonders if the left is capable of admitting error. Oh, not just the simple "I screwed up" offered by the President when he appointed a tax evader to a high cabinet post, but a "mea culpa" for repeatedly making the same basic, ideologically-driven mistakes.

Liberalism, like Marxism, finds its roots in the belief that government can alter human nature, and in its appeal to baser human emotions, like envy. One might think that, faced with an unbroken record of policy failure, the left might reassess the merits of its philosophy. But, if it did that, it could not longer advocate for Big Government and its entire raison d’etre would vanish. In short, honesty and leftism are mutually exclusive.

The latest target of leftist ire is those benighted corporate executives who DARED travel to DC in corporate jets. (Curiously, the 500 or so big shots who flew such jets into the capital for the inauguration get a pass from the angry left) As a matter of public relations, flying a corporate jet into DC while begging for a governmental handout ranks pretty high on the dumb meter, but let that pass. Assume, for the moment, that every corporation in American, fearful of incurring Barney Frank’s wrath, bags the corporate jet. Who gets hurt?

Righty-o: the not-rich folks who make them, sell them, crew them, and service them. Once again, the left allows envy of rich folks’ toys to hit those who make the toys right between the eyes.

You may recall, during the Clinton Administration, that the left took aim at the rich and their yachts, and, in high dudgeon, fired a fusillade of new taxes on yachtmakers. Now, any reasonably bright ten year-old could predict the consequences, but in their righteous fury, the left aimed a mighty blow against the rich, and struck a knock out blow against boat builders. A few months later, they sheepishly repealed that silly tax, but not until wrecking the livelihood of a lot of not-rich folks.

But do they LEARN?

Leftists see government as an engine designed to "spread the wealth around", as our chief envycrat opined during the late campaign. The difficulty is that a division of said wealth inconsistent with rewarding those with talent and drive, who take risks and devote long hours to earn it the first place, tends inexorably to discourage them from doing so. As NJ demonstrates, a graspy, greedy government succeeds only in driving its most productive folks, and most investment, away.

Now, we’ve taken McGreevey-Corzinism national. The same policies which produced such economic misery in NJ have now come to DC. If the point of those policies is to produce prosperity, any honest leftist would be compelled to admit the futility of that endeavor; they have never worked anywhere before and, therefore, cannot be expected to work now.

Which raises the inevitable question: are there any honest leftists?

Leftists prefer "fairness" – in the sense of offering massive guarantees to every resident (I dare not say "citizen") – over freedom. They believe that the market reward for talent and effort produces unfair results; not everyone can afford (fill in the blank: a home, a college education, health insurance, etc.). And, so, leftists believe government exists to compel the taxpayers to make the distribution of present income "fairer".

Not that such proposals – (say) Pell Grants or Medicaid – aren’t popular among those with little idea of how an economy works. Folks conflate that which should happen with that which must happen. And, then, they’re puzzled when the economy stagnates, jobs go overseas, etc.

Leftists inevitably prevail in the debate when the jury is composed of economic illiterates. While the citizenry can see the direct benefit of a subsidy, they fail to connect the resulting economic collapse to the cause: the high taxes and Big Government necessary to underwrite these nifty sounding programs.

That economy prospers most which is freest. Unlike leftist ideology, for which no real world evidence of efficacy exists, examples abound of how economies respond to freedom. China ditched communism in 1975, embracing a very free economy instead, and, in the next 30 years, saw astonishing growth. Singapore, perhaps the freest economy on the planet, routinely sees growth rates in double digits. Meanwhile, Europe, even further down the socialist path than are we – for the time being – muddles through, with persistently high unemployment and paltry growth.

Interestingly, some of our European friends, belatedly aware of the pitfalls of socialism, are incrementally ditching it. Sweden eliminated its wealth tax and is cutting business taxes. Ireland, which boasts among the lowest business tax rates in the world is, unsurprisingly, repeatedly at the top of the scale for growth.

So, consider an honest discussion of economic policy with the polity:

"We can enact all sorts of social guarantees and pay for them through massive taxation or borrowing which will eventually fall upon your children’s shoulders, but which will certainly result in a moribund economy. You may lose your job, but we’ll make sure you have unemployment insurance and that you get health insurance, even if you have to wait months or years to actually see a physician.

"Alternatively, you can be independent, without any legal claim to what your neighbor earns or owns. If you lose your job, you may have to depend upon your family, friends, neighbors, church, community or charity to muddle through. But the chance of losing your job will be much less. There will be much more work and much greater prosperity. You may see others getting rich because of their particular skills, talents, and efforts. But that does not come at your expense; it’s newly created wealth, not money stolen from you. And we ALL benefit when the economy booms, even if we don’t all benefit equally. As noted above, if someone is flying a corporate jet, someone has to build it, maintain it, and crew it. It’s not hard for government to kill all those jobs in the name of envy; the question presented is why anyone would want to do so.

"If you want egalitarianism, we can all live together in poverty through the simple recourse of confiscating wealth, which will result in no one bothering to produce any. It’s your call."