Pity the poor working chump

Fifty years' worth of war on poverty has produced little benefit, save for a few valuable lessons. For instance, we've learned about the valiant struggle the disadvantaged wage against capitalist oppression. The homeless, the hungry, and the downtrodden are victims of free market greed. But there's one participant in Washington's war on poverty who's routinely ignored, one whose plight the pointy-headed elites never champion: the working chump.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, a working chump isn't identified by their intellectual prowess but by their productivity. Their status ranges from the professional to the tradesman, the rich to the poor. Such people are driven to meet their own needs and become agitated when others shun that responsibility. While such productive people represent a declining socioeconomic class, they are indispensable. The entitlement wagon is overloaded with passengers who favor the free ride. Did someone not pull that wagon, it would stall. No one would get what they need, much less what they want. Working chumps are the mules who pull the wagon.

Leftists promote entitlement programs as necessary to meeting essential human needs, and there's an element of truth in their position, for there are essential human needs. However, leftists omit a key fact. There exists no right to receive life's essentials at another person's expense.

Voluntarily contributing to a neighbor's well-being is charitable. Being forced to provide for another's needs is a form of servitude. How else can we describe someone who is forced to relinquish their property -- expressed as the return on their labor -- for their neighbor's personal benefit? Just as charity isn't a vice, forced contribution isn't charity, even when the needs of the "entitled" are life's necessities. How much more when entitlement extends from essentials to convenience?

Perhaps you've heard of Assurance Wireless? If not, it's a program that provides clients with 250 minutes of free cellular service each month. More talkative Assurance customers can receive 500 minutes for $5 a month, and 1000 voice minutes plus 1000 text messages for $20 a month. But there's a flaw: Assurance isn't free. Someone must subsidize the free or reduced rates. That someone is the working chump.

Assurance is funded through the federal Universal Service Fund (USF). Basically, the USF is a tax that appears on phone and wireless bills. In theory, this tax is collected from communications companies to ensure affordable telecommunications services in remote or high-cost areas. In reality, customers pay the USF. Therefore, the working chump who pays the USF tax is subsidizing yet another welfare program.

Now, labeling Assurance Wireless a welfare program is a stern accusation, one in need of substantiation. Fortunately, confirming evidence is readily available. Qualifying for Assurance is as simple as participating in an approved entitlement program: Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, public housing, free school lunch, or low income energy assistance programs. To coin an old phrase, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Likewise, when a program's qualifying criteria is participation in a welfare program, and the program's cost is covered or subsidized through government imposed taxes or fees, it's a welfare program.

The economy isn't technically in recession, but it's far from robust, causing many productive families to trim their budgets. One way to stretch their dollars is through no contract, or prepaid, cellular plans. While prepaid cellular options are sometimes limited, they are affordable. However, prepaid cellular customers work not only to maintain their limited services but also to provide the entitlement class with better cellular plans than they themselves can afford. Productive people are being played for chumps, working chumps. Count me in their number.

Successful cultures aren't built upon a premise where unproductive people have the right to necessity or convenience at another's expense. But more and more Americans perceive themselves entitled. Whether it's necessities like food and shelter or luxuries like cellular phones, working chumps continue to meet the demands of an ungrateful entitlement class.

The government, media, and intelligentsia are quick to defend those who ride in the entitlement wagon. Yet no one defends the working chump, whose productivity keeps that wagon rolling. But they can't pull the load forever. Someday the weight will become too great, and both the wagon and its riders will be left sitting by the side of the road.

This article first appeared at American Thinker: Pity the Poor Working Chump.

Investing in government is a losing proposition

There's no questioning Warren Buffett's ability to invest. People who sink their money in dry oil wells and earthworm farms don't become billionaires. Buffett is one of those rare people who can spot a winner, act on it, and turn a tidy profit. Thus he's amassed a sizeable fortune. What's wrong with that? Ask Warren Buffett.

Buffett is one of the "super rich." He controls vast capital resources and he enjoys his wealth. But he doesn't believe he or his super rich friends pay enough federal income tax. The tax code, according to Buffett, includes too many loopholes through which the super rich can shelter their earnings. According to Buffett's own assessment, he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than do the people who work for him. To rectify that disparity he looks to the federal government -- under the leadership of Barack Obama, the man he endorsed for president -- to equalize the playing field.

Right on cue, one of America's wealthiest men echoes the White House's call for "shared sacrifice." However, Buffett's apparent love for taxation isn't new. The Oracle of Omaha is known for endorsing higher income taxes and the estate tax, as are many of his super rich friends. But there's something dangerously wrong with this mindset. If the super rich are indeed concerned with the fiscal struggles lower economic classes face, they have the means to singly address the issue. Why do they need government to do for them what is well within their individual power?

Buffett lamented his "low" tax bracket in a recent New York Times editorial. According to Buffet's numbers, America's 400 richest people reported a combined taxable income of $90.9 billion in 2008, an average of $227 million each. If the top 400 contributed half their incomes to people of lesser means, they could make instant millionaires out of 45,450 of their countrymen. Such charity would be private and voluntary, without a dime being filtered through the federal government, except for the gift taxes of course.

I'm not suggesting wealthy people actually surrender any portion of their fortunes to anyone for any reason, nor am I denying their authority to do so. Indeed wealthy people, including Warren Buffett, have entered a compact to contribute at least half their fortunes to charitable causes. That's fine; their wealth is theirs to disperse as they please. But no wealthy person need lobby government to tax their incomes and redistribute their wealth when they alone are perfectly capable of doing so.

On the other hand, let's suppose Buffett succeeds in raising taxes on America's top earners. What then? Well, for starters, even if the federal government had confiscated every nickel of the $90.9 billion the top 400 earned in 2008 it would barely dent the federal deficit and wouldn't scratch the national debt. In fact, $90.9 billion dollars will fund government spending, which exceeds $3.6 trillion annually, for only nine days. We can share the sacrifice until everyone sings Kum Ba Yah and still not solve our fiscal ills.

For Warren Buffett to scratch out an editorial about being under-taxed is utter nonsense. No one who pays a tax based on their earnings, whether great or meager, is under-taxed. Washington receives enormous revenues no matter the income tax rate. Buffett's own numbers prove that lower tax rates create more revenue for government. Decide for yourself if that's beneficial.

Citing IRS data, Buffett points out how the top 400 earners in 1992 produced $16.9 billion in taxable income and paid 29.2-percent in taxes. As mentioned earlier, the top 400 earned $90.9 billion in 2008, but paid only 21.5-percent in taxes. In using these numbers Mr. Buffett misled his readers, prompting them to believe the rich paid fewer taxes in 2008 than in 1992. Actually, only $4.93 billion in taxes were collected on the 1992 incomes while $19.54 billion were collected on the 2008 incomes.

The highest earners obviously netted more income and paid a lower percentage in taxes in 2008 than in 1992. But they paid more in real taxes, meaning Washington received more actual dollars. Furthermore, America's wealthiest people have for years shouldered the highest percentage of the tax burden.

There's nothing to be gained in demonizing wealthy Americans. As long as their wealth isn't the product of criminal endeavor, shady dealing, or government cronyism, it's no one's business how the rich became rich or how rich they became. Class envy dogma is as disingenuous as it is deceptive, and it's equally disingenuous for multi-billionaires like Warren Buffett to preen and crow about the need to pay more taxes. Such rhetoric seeks public admiration for offering a fraudulent solution that ignores our fundamental fiscal problems, government's profligate spending.

If Mr. Buffett harbors guilt over his vast wealth he can write a check to the U.S. Treasury anytime he wants for any amount he deems suitable. There are other options at his disposal, too. He can shun the tax loopholes and shelters he considers an unfair advantage. He can ignore the accountants and lawyers whose advice reduces his taxable income. Each action is unilateral and voluntary; each can be pursued without infringing on his neighbor's liberties. There's no need for Buffett, or anyone else, to invoke government's heavy hand to dispense private wealth.

The rich are too poor to satisfy Washington's spending appetite. Like a gluttonous eater, Washington gorges on the fruits of productive Americans from all income levels. The federal government could gobble up Warren Buffett's net worth in less than a week with room left for a hearty dessert.

Even if raising taxes on the rich increased government revenues there's no evidence to suggest Washington would properly manage those funds. Warren Buffett is a wise investor. But he's dead wrong if he truly believes higher taxes on the rich will improve life for the lower or middle income classes.

Judge Judy tackles entitlements

Arguments persist over just how America arrived at insolvency's precipice. There may not be a single reason, program, agency, policy, or bureaucracy to shoulder the entire blame. The fact that we're here is the culmination of a methodical, long-term process. However, there's one culprit that is central to nearly all government expansions, and thus to our fiscal deterioration. It's one that every productive member of society from the street sweeper to the CEO should blame . . . the bum.

A bum is everything the name implies, from irresponsible slacker to societal parasite. However, America is afraid to blame bums for their lowly condition; it's politically incorrect. People who were yesterday's bums, loafers, and freeloaders are today's disenfranchised and less fortunate. They are the losers of life's lottery, relegated to poverty because someone else stole a disproportionate share of America's prosperity.

Thank God for television's Judge Judy. She isn't afraid to blame the bum for being, well, a bum. Her public courage has earned my respect and gratitude. She should earn yours, too. Watch the video and you'll agree.



Judge Judy is 100-percent correct in her assessment of both the plaintiff and defendant. The two parties in this case exemplify greed in its purest form, the "me" attitude that hampers America's economic growth and leads to fiscal insanity. Their general disdain for self-sufficiency reflects the core of the entitlement mentality. One sues to collect rent that she herself never paid. And the other considers government grants and subsidies a birthright. These two people, and millions like them, are drains on society, contributing nothing while believing themselves entitled to their heart's desire.

According to a quote attributed to economist Arthur Laffer, "When you tax something you get less of it. When you subsidize something you get more of it." Liberal politicians have done a thorough job of taxing productivity and subsidizing unproductiveness. Therefore they have generated an ever-increasing segment of the population with no compunction about living off the production of their neighbor, as the two people in Judge Judy's court demonstrate. And Judge Judy wants to send the aforementioned video to Congress, as if most members care?

Congress, through 40-plus years of various welfare, entitlement, and Not-so-Great Society programs, created the parasites in her courtroom, people who believe they're entitled to enjoy life's necessities, pleasures, and perks at someone else's expense. Such entitlement parasites are the liberal voting base, and an exponential expense to the rest of us. Not only has the entitlement mentality become a drain on federal revenues, it has deprived the marketplace of what the entitlement recipient would've otherwise produced. We lose on both counts.

Go ahead and send the video Judge Judy, with my blessings. But frankly, you're wasting your stamp.

Nancy Pelosi: A ruler of fools

Nancy Pelosi isn’t long as Speaker of the House. But if there’s one constant in our ever-changing world it’s that Pelosi will prove unconscionable until the gavel is wrested from her hand. During a recent speech on the House floor she expressed opinions about unemployment insurance and tax policy that seem irrational even for her.

Pelosi supports extending unemployment insurance beyond the current 99 week limit. To substantiate her position she touted unemployment benefits as a burgeoning economic catalyst. All we need do is and tap into their power. Pelosi informed Congress, “Unemployment insurance . . . returns $2 for every $1 that is put out there.”

A two dollar return for every one invested is a lofty promise. No financial advisor would make such a guarantee, especially in these days of stagnant stocks, miniscule interest rates and sunken real estate values. Not even a gold-plated, platinum diamond could augur a 100-percent return on investment.

Is Pelosi a pecuniary Nostradamus? If so, it’s imprudent to squander her financial perception. To realize the full economic impact unemployment insurance portends, every American from restaurant bus boys to Fortune 500 CEOs should cease work immediately. According to Pelosi’s two-for-one estimations, living on unemployment alone would boost our gross domestic product from 2009’s $14.1 trillion to $28.2 trillion. In an instant the U.S. economy would exceed that of the European Union, China and Japan combined. And this can be accomplished while we sit home watching reruns of Hogan’s Heroes.

Does Pelosi sound crazy? As the old saying goes, “Brother, you ain’t seen nothing yet.” If Pelosi’s take on unemployment benefits has your blood boiling, you’ll erupt over her thoughts on taxation.

“Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion to the deficit,” Pelosi claims. Of course, extending the current tax rates gives nothing to anyone. Furthermore, Congress doesn’t have to “pay” for tax cuts even when reductions are on the table. But remember, in Pelosi’s world a static tax rate equals a cut because all wealth is first and foremost government property.

Even the casual observer knows that when tax rates are static, or reduced, Congress doesn’t send the taxpayer a check. Tax rates simply determine the percentage of wealth that remains with its rightful producer instead of going to Washington. Money that never arrives in Washington cannot add to the deficit. The $700 billion budget hole that Pelosi laments--superficially, I might add--didn’t result from insufficient taxation but from Washington’s lust to spend like drunken sailors in foreign ports.

At this point it’s natural to conclude that Nancy Pelosi is the stupidest woman on earth. If not stupid, she must certainly be ignorant. Would that either case were true, for both stupidity and ignorance are correctable.

If Pelosi is stupid, teaching her will be yeoman’s work, for she knows very little and resists learning. Yet she can learn if her teacher is patient and persistent. It will be difficult, but not impossible. Correcting an ignorant Pelosi is much easier. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge or understanding, nothing more. Expose an ignorant Pelosi to facts and the ignorance dissipates like vapor.

Nancy Pelosi will benefit from neither approach because she isn’t stupid or ignorant. She is a spin master, an epic fraud, an insufferable boor and a pathological liar. But she isn’t dumb. No one could attain her position while drinking the sociopolitical Kool-Aid she serves up. No, Pelosi isn’t stupid or ignorant. She does, however, credit those characteristics to her constituents. Sadly enough, she’s correct. Otherwise, her seat in Congress wouldn’t be so secure.

A people’s representative respects the intelligence of the people he or she represents. That may sound outdated, but it’s nonetheless true. A ruler expresses utter contempt for their subject’s intellect. Therefore rulers, unlike representatives, treat people like stooges and serfs. Rulers quickly become proficient in the artistry of condescension and falsehood, confident that the masses are too dense to discern the truth.

Is Nancy Pelosi a representative or a ruler? Anyone who can’t answer that simple question needn’t worry about representation. They should prepare to be ruled.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

Atlanta’s mob scene results from Democrat policy

One sure way to draw a crowd is to offer a benefit paid for with someone else’s money. That’s why 30-thousand people congregated in Atlanta to apply for taxpayer funded federal housing subsidies. You needn’t be an Old Testament prophet to foresee how such a gathering would unfold. There was shoving, pushing, cursing and a mob scene or two. Big surprise, huh?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution attributed the lack of public decency to impatience, frustration and confusion brought on by the high summer temperatures. The mercury hit the low 90s before the crowd dispersed around 2 PM.

You know what? Summer temperatures are hot in most cities at two in the afternoon. In fact, on the day Atlanta’s Section 8 housing chaos unfolded the temperature reached the mid to upper 90s for quite a few people whose day didn’t end at 2 PM. They were at a place they visit each and every day. It’s a place that helps them provide for their families and meet their financial obligations; a place called work.

Work serves another purpose, too. It’s allows productive people to earn the money their government will confiscate to construct the dependent mentality that prompts 30-thousand people to gather in search of a slice from their countrymen’s pie.

“But Hager,” you say, “times are tough and people need assistance.”

Yes, the economy is tough and I’m quite thankful for gainful employment during these down economic times. But the incivility and near-riots on display in Atlanta aren’t the result of the recession or of industrious people who’ve caught some bad breaks. They are the result of a long-standing problem that was created, apparently with malicious intent, when the welfare state was initiated.

Government has excused and rewarded a lack of productivity for so long that indolence has become a celebrated lifestyle. Subsidies, paid for with tax money, are now considered rights. The entitlement mentality these attitudes have fostered is a contributing factor to our nation’s fiscal abyss. It is a death knell for personal and economic liberty regardless of how Democrats spin it.

Don’t bother telling me about how your Uncle Joe spent his entire life working his fingers to the bone and is now dependent on government programs to make ends meet. The claim hasn’t been made that everyone seeking government assistance--even among the 30-thousand in Atlanta--is a worthless bum. But the mentality that produces the Atlanta episode isn’t compatible with people like your Uncle Joe. It is, however, compatible with your Uncle Joe if he votes based on which politician will best help him live at his neighbor’s expense.

There is no question that social welfare programs have created a dependency attitude wherein government is seen as lord and savior. There are indeed women who consider pregnancy an opportunity for a pay raise and men who bequeath to government their family responsibilities. There are people who have no qualm with having government provide for them from cradle to grave.

What happened in Atlanta, similar to the scenes in New Orleans following Katrina, is the predictable result of regressive social policy. Democrats have long preached dependence under the guise of civil rights. The lack of decorum at this gathering identifies people who have lost their moral compass, disregarded their talents, ignored their purpose for living and become comfortable with entitlements funded by their neighbor. No amount of federal subsidy or government program will change their social status.

The façade of elitist empathy

Few expressions are more vacant than the political elite’s public displays of empathy. Empathy is a vicarious emotion, allowing empathizers to feign compassion for other people’s hardships without the actual experience. It is a handy device, and one the elite class routinely utilizes.

Elitists relish the opportunity to parade their empathy before their underlings. Who better to provide an example than Vice President Biden?

Biden credits the administration with saving our financial system and preventing an economic disaster that would’ve sent Western Civilization spiraling toward a quasi-Stone Age existence. Everyone now has health care and the sewer called Wall Street--whose alleged abuses the federal government initiated, exacerbated and subsidized--has been thoroughly sanitized. These steps were necessary because Biden’s opponents (meaning Republicans) “are wildly out of touch” with America.

Mr. Biden has suffered yet another recurrence of foot-in-mouth disease, a chronic malady among elitist empathizers. Biden championed the administration’s achievements during a speech he delivered to $500-per-person Democrat donors in Chapel Hill, NC. How many truck drivers, welders, nurses and retail sales clerks attend $500 political fundraisers? Tell us again, Mr. Biden, who is out of touch?

The elitist’s empathic expressions are a façade intended to conceal their love for the private luxuries they publicly condemn. If only Biden were alone in is condescending attitudes. Sadly, he has ample company on Empathy Hill.

President Obama stands on that hill too, sided by the wealthy real estate potentate Neil Bluhm. Don’t let Bluhm’s apparent capitalist successes fool you. He is a Regressive to the core, having contributed more than $60,000 to various Democrat political causes over the last two years.

Mr. Bluhm also hosted a birthday party for our 44th President. But the downtrodden, toward whom Regressives extend their boundless empathy, didn’t attend. They couldn’t afford the prerequisite $30,000 donation to the Democrat National Committee that Bluhm assigned to his extravaganza. If the attendees were truly concerned about the unfortunate, why not make $30,000 contributions to the nearest children’s home? After all, to paraphrase ex-President Clinton, no donation to the DNC ever fed a hungry child.

The Clintons are also elitists in good standing. Chelsea’s recent nuptials are estimated to have cost between $3 and $6 million dollars. Chelsea herself was reportedly adorned with a quarter of a million dollars worth of jewelry. The driveways at the wedding’s plush mansion locale were widened, not to accommodate an influx of public transportation buses but swanky limousines.

The portable toilet facilities cost $15,000. Minimum wage employees--routine targets for elitist empathy--will barely earn that amount for a year’s labor. Even the electricians were instructed to wear tuxedos, perhaps with a combination cummerbund and tool belt. There was no word on the dress code for stand-by plumbers.

In all honesty, the Clintons, Obama and Bluhm can spend any sum they desire on their parties; it is their business. Their extravagances would be wholly inconsequential save for one small detail: their duplicity. Elitists, illuminated in the Clinton-Obama-Bluhm triumvirate, wallow in the wealth and luxury they condemn for anyone outside their clique. Small wonder Rasmussen polling finds an extensive disconnect between “regular” Americans and the ruling political elites.

Wealth is acceptable only when the elite class controls its use. A person must adhere to the elite political ideology; otherwise their attainments are attributed to avaricious philosophies. Achievers are deemed winners in life’s lottery, born to the silver spoon. The elites’ strategy is to divide and conquer, leaving the elites themselves to determine for whom wealth and luxury are acceptable.

The elites who lead the Regressive Movement are experts in smugness and sophistry. They think nothing of flaunting their wealth and status while claiming empathy with the poor and obscure. Elitists then ease their consciences with “charitable” government entitlement programs funded through legislative theft.

We of the great unwashed are to stoke the elitists’ egos, marvel at their wisdom, praise their compassion, beg their generosity and grovel for their acknowledgment. We are to unquestionably adhere to the diktats of our superiors, forsaking our individual goals for their vision of the collective good.

The elitists’ empathy extends only to the point that their agenda is served. Actually, elitist is a misnomer. They are the contemporary royalty, bidding us live as they decree while they indulge as they wish.

Home of the free? Or land of the slavish?

Americans take pride in being the world’s freest people. We celebrate freedom on Independence Day. We sing of it before our sporting events. But haven’t history’s most brutal regimes concealed tyranny behind veils of patriotism and rhetorical allusions to liberty? After all, dictators don’t gain power while pledging chains and slavery. They gain power with glowing promises to free the masses.

Any 20th Century communist regime you’d care to name has followed this model. Hitler did, too. Islamic republics boast of the liberation wrought via their revolutions. And Hugo Chavez is utilizing this game plan to solidify his hold on Venezuela, much as did his Cuban hero, Fidel Castro.

To argue that the United States now mirrors Venezuela or the defunct Soviet Union is premature. However, it’s seems clear that Americans have less regard for liberty--and less liberty for that disregard--than did our forebears. Certainly our political leadership holds individual liberty in low esteem. We have ignored Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom and surrendered large chunks of liberty in return for temporary security. Just as Franklin warned, we have less liberty and security to show for our submission. To confirm the point let’s look at traits common to the free and slavish mind.

Free people revere the rule of law and its role in preserving civility. Yet it’s also understood that law enforcement’s prime purpose is to investigate crime scenes after the fact. Seldom are police able to foil crimes in progress.

Liberty requires it’s possessors to shoulder the burden of self-defense. Toward that end free people rely on some combination of mental preparedness, physical strength and weapons proficiency. These qualities, especially regarding arms, are paramount to that defense.

The slavish mentality accepts nothing related to self-preservation. Personal protection means petitioning governments to restrict or abolish the legal possession of arms. Ignored is the reality that criminals, by definition, disregard such laws. In absence of self-preservation the slavish person will demand surveillance cameras on every street corner. The just and the unjust are then treated as equals, which is the greatest of inequalities.

Freedom asks nothing more than an opportunity; a free person seeks only a chance. Liberty’s desire is to utilize individual talent, ingenuity, initiative and intellect to their greatest capacity and profitability. There are no guarantees and success is unpredictable. Whatever the results may be, that which was gained was earned, not granted.

The slavish mentality wants government to alter the starting line. It isn’t opportunity that slavish minds demand; it is advantage based on known or arbitrary criteria. What’s more, there must be an artificial outcome. Predictability, even when producing poor returns, is preferable to the risks of an unknown future. The product is invariably the equal distribution of mediocrity, which is considered preferable to the “inequalities” of the bourgeois meritocracy.

Personal responsibility is tantamount to the free individual. Meeting obligations is as natural as drawing breath. That may mean working one job, two jobs, or launching a primary or secondary business. Conversely, one spouse may drop from the work force to raise children, accepting the corresponding loss of income and necessary reduction in expenditures.

No so for the slavish. Only so much responsibility is acceptable. They will generally tolerate the burden of providing for their leisure and entertainment. But beyond that the onus rests on government. Nearly everything under the sun has become a collective concern. It is the state’s responsibility to keep human needs adequately supplied.

The fact that government can provide nothing to the slavish and indolent without first confiscating it from the free and productive is immaterial. Tragically, the demands of the willingly dependent eventually enslave the free as well, despite their best efforts to maintain independence.

Whether America remains the land of the free or becomes the home of the slavish rests on which mentality prevails. The free must love, protect and incessantly preach liberty. We haven’t yet descended into irreconcilable servitude. But we stand at the precipice.

Next stop, The Robert C. Byrd pearly gates

Robert C. Byrd has received a much friendlier valediction than conservative Senators of like stature. When Sen. Jesse Helms died he was treated like Satan’s baby brother. Likewise for Sen. Strom Thurmond. Sen. Byrd, conversely, has received praise for his work and absolution for his faults.

Friend and foe alike have hailed Byrd as the conscience of the Senate. Quasi-worshippers glorified his knowledge and use of Senate rules and his staunch defense of the chamber. His understanding of historical literature has garnered admiration, as has his perceived devotion to the U.S. Constitution.

Robert Byrd the family man should receive the kindness and sympathy due to the dead, if only for his family’s sake. But frankly, even in death, Robert C. Byrd the Senator is open to satire. He was, after all, a public figure. Never shanghaied, he doggedly defended his Senate seat for half a century.

Byrd made quite a name for himself in the U.S. Senate. But he made an even greater name for himself in West Virginia. Bluntly, he should be remembered not for the qualities previously mentioned but for the notorious manner in which he manipulated the federal budget to fortify a voting base in the nation’s poorest state. To accentuate the point let’s examine what the Senator’s funeral procession might’ve resembled.

Sen. Byrd’s remains arrive at the Robert C. Byrd Aerodrome in West Virginia. The plane lands on runway 32-RCB, approaches Senator Byrd Terminal on the R. Byrd taxiway and stops at the Byrd Passenger Access Gate. Sen. Byrd will be then be transferred to the R. C. B. Public Railway, which will carry him to Grand C. Byrd Station in his hometown of Sophia, crossing the Robert Byrd Trestle along the way. There the motorcade waits in the Senator Robert Byrd Public Parking Lot.

The motorcade exits the parking area via the R. Byrd Ticket Booth and creeps onto Robert C. Byrd Drive to begin the journey to the burial site, Robert C. Byrd Memorial Gardens, in Charleston (he’ll be buried in Virginia, but please play along). The hearse passes the Robert C. Byrd Elementary School, the Robert C. Byrd Middle School, the Robert C. Byrd High School, and BIT (the Byrd Institute of Technology). At the Robert C. Byrd State-Federal Liaison Building (a.k.a. the Robert C. Byrd Pork Processing Center) the motorcade turns onto Byrd Boulevard.

Byrd Boulevard guides the procession past the Robert Byrd Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Robert C. Byrd Water Works and the main offices of the Byrd Public Utility, predictably located in the Robert C. Byrd Business Complex. The caravan turns between the Robert C. Byrd Courthouse and the Robert C. Byrd Hospital and Blood Pressure Research Center and continues toward Interstate 64. After passing the Robert C. Byrd Honorary City Limit Sign the Senator leaves Sophia behind.

Byrd Boulevard now becomes Byrd Parkway, which carries the cavalcade to Interstate 64. The procession accesses the interstate via the Robert C. Byrd On-ramp and gains speed across the Sen. R.C. Byrd Overpass. The trip through West Virginia’s mountains is scenic. There’s Byrd Mountain, Robert’s Hollow, Byrd’s Valley, Robert Byrd Creek and the Byrd Rainwater Deluge Conduit (know locally as Byrd’s Ditch). To the right is the Robert C. Byrd Dam, which houses the R. C. Byrd Hydroelectric Station and retains the Robert’s Lake Reservoir.

Recent improvements to the Senator Robert C. Byrd Intermountain Expressway (I-64 until shovel-ready stimulus came to them there hills) hastens arrival at Byrd Memorial Gardens. The Byrd Off-ramp guides the procession from the expressway to the Senior Senator Scenic Highway, which the hearse follows to Byrd Gardens. Entrance is via the R.C. Byrd Access Gate.

Pallbearers escort the late Senator’s remains up the Byrd Pathway to his final resting place at the crest of Robert C. Byrd Knoll, which overlooks the Byrd Bike and Fitness Trail as it winds through a majestic corner of the Robert Byrd State Forest and Habitat Preserve. Senator Robert C. Byrd is there eulogized and remanded to the custody of his Creator, interned in a pork barrel.

Rest in peace, Senator.

The perfect society: A land without wealth?

Utopia! It’s the holy grail of egalitarian busybodies far and wide. If only outcomes were equal, as defined by the egalitarians themselves, the world would become a place of balanced chi and seamless harmony. These societal engineers have long believed in their unique intellects and superlative abilities, which qualify them to distribute wealth and contentment to a longing world. Sadly, there’s no shortage of these do-gooders.

A New York State Assemblyman envisions an increased millionaire tax. If passed, high income earners--who already bear a disproportionate share of New York’s tax burden--will pitch in an additional 11-percent. The broken record known as Hillary Clinton still laments how “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. Oregon, too, has joined the chorus.

Earlier this year Oregon voters passed Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on individuals and businesses that wealth redistributors, in their profundity, have deemed excessive winners in life’s lottery. Typical class envy tactics preceded that electoral outcome. Proponents argued that education, public safety and health would suffer if the initiatives failed. The poor, naturally, would take it on the chin.

The entire premise of a perceived “fair share” is ambiguous at best. Would the egalitarian consider taxation equitable if the “rich” surrender, say, 75-percent of their income to government? Hillary Clinton, Oregon voters and New York assemblymen might think so. But anyone with a toehold on reality understands that productive people shoulder the tax burden now. The top one-percent of earners pays 28-percent of federal income taxes. Additionally, over the last 30 years the taxation on incomes above $75,000 has steadily increased while declining on incomes below that threshold.

Arguing that wealthier Americans pay little or no taxes is misleading. No, make that an outright lie. And that’s not the only mischaracterization offered by the “soak the rich” crowd.

In promoting Measures 66 and 67 the Oregon Center for Public Policy claimed that “asking” Oregonians to “contribute” more in taxes would improve the state’s fiscal structure. Certainly some taxation is necessary for governments to execute legitimate functions. But referring to tax increases as “asking” people to “contribute” is unadulterated spin, sufficient to strain even the strongest gastronomical constitution. And it’s so typical of the egalitarian social engineer.

Charitable organizations solicit contributions, and contributors alone determine their level of participation. No such choice exists with taxation. Tax levies aren’t a request on government’s part, and taxes aren’t contributed sans duress. Taxes are compulsory and their collection is ultimately a matter of force.

Sadly, there’s little to be achieved in arguing taxation with egalitarians. Redistributionists are so devoted to equalizing all incomes and imposing their Marxist vision on society that debate has become futile. Equally futile are the protests of the productive, whose incomes are sacrificed upon the perverse altar of egalitarianism. The producer’s right to their production will never match the needs of the oppressed when it comes to conjuring empathy. Therefore the “rich” are safely marginalized, demonized and dismissed.

What would happen if busybodies like Hillary Clinton, New York legislators and Oregon voters fulfill their collectivist dreams? If there were no private wealth the economy would become void of capital investment. Innovation and production would decelerate, with a corresponding decline in employment and living standards. The resulting misery would create greater demand on government, which puts the do-gooders in position to distribute the remaining wealth as they so determine. They will achieve their socialist dreams, but only for a season.

Such idealism has no foundation upon which to build. Since government produces little, and that which is produced is a case study in inefficiency, the egalitarian society is doomed to failure. Only the most influential busybodies will benefit from their societal and economic transformation. The rank and file do-gooder will be destined to impoverished servitude alongside their once-wealthy neighbors, whose property they helped confiscate.

So goes the nation without private wealth. Utopia? I think not.

This column originally appeared at American Thinker.

The role of proper government

Congratulations to Gaston County (NC) resident David Williams. It’s not everyday that a man gets the opportunity to speak before a congressional committee. What’s more, Mr. Williams apparently gave a good account of himself. He presented his material logically and reasonably, qualities which are in short supply in Congress these days.

Mr. Williams’ focused on one of the federal government’s legitimate duties, the census. Article One; Section Two of the U.S. Constitution directs the central government to conduct the census every ten years. The purpose is to determine appropriate representation and taxation. Adherence to such constitutional processes hasn’t been high on Congress’ list either.

However, I found one of Mr. Williams’ points troubling. He said the census is used to distribute federal money. If more Gaston County residents complete the census the county will receive more funds from Washington. I assume that would hold true for any county. It is Williams’ goal to ensure that his county doesn’t get shortchanged.

This isn’t a criticism of David Williams or his role in promoting the census. He has a job to do and seems to do it quite well. I’m not placing any blame on him. But it disturbs me that the federal government considers the census a tool for distributing money that first belonged to us.

Leave it to Congress to twist a constitutional duty into a self-perpetuating rewards system. It is not government’s role to distribute wealth by the numbers. So, let’s consider government’s purpose.

Food and shelter are basic needs. Is it government’s role to provide them? To think so requires an unusual view of rights. For a right to be a right and not a privilege it must demand no forced sacrifice from another person. Otherwise there would be no check on what government can confiscate in the name of the common welfare. It is no more the role of government to meet the needs of able-bodied individuals than it is to corrupt the census.

How about the equal distribution of wealth? In order to accomplish that goal some government bureaucracy or commission must possess the wisdom necessary to determine what constitutes equal distribution. Can any such board or panel exist? Who, other than God, is qualified to arbitrarily establish a person’s worth?

The only fair method for wealth distribution is an individual’s contribution to society. Free exchange between people, not government whims and biases, is the only legitimate means of distributing wealth among free people.

How about saving the earth? Is that a function of government? Perhaps in part, but not in the context of current climate debates. It is highly presumptuous to believe that man’s activities can render earth unlivable. Certainly we can cause environmental harm to a degree, meaning sensible laws to curb pollution are worthwhile. But it’s not government’s role to use conservationism as a tool for spreading collectivist doctrine.

It isn’t government’s job to manipulate the housing industry or the mortgage market in pursuit of “social justice”, to force free people to purchase health insurance, or to ensure the perpetual reelection of incumbents. So what is the role of government as it pertains to free men?

All men are created equal. They receive from their Creator certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure and protect these rights is the role of government, the proper authority for which comes at the consent of the governed.

Government’s most basic role, plain and simple, is to ensure that each individual can live freely and pursue their happiness without guarantee that happiness will be found. It is my hope that David Williams’ diligence in promoting the constitutionally mandated census won’t be used to further the power of self-indulgent politicians. But I suspect it is a false hope.

Confusion on the meaning of charity

I say that America is confused on the meaning of charity. Let’s go to the dictionary.

According to Random House, charity is generous aid given to the poor. In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law charity is “a gift for humanitarian . . . or other purposes beneficial to the public.” For something to be given it’s understood that the act is voluntary.

I also say that America is confused on the meaning of slavery. Let’s go back to the dictionary. Random House defines slavery as a state of subjugation. American Heritage reads, “the condition of being subject . . . to a specified influence.” Slavery grants a person no choice of options.

When a person contributes willingly to the benevolence of their neighbor they’ve established charity. It is spiritually pure and morally just. However, when one person is compelled via force to surrender the fruits of their labor for another’s benefit there is no charity. When government wields that force a state of subjugation is established. It’s neither just nor pure and dangerously similar to slavery.

Slavery need not be enforced with chains. Physical shackles do not typify its existence and no cotton fields are required. There is neither black nor white; there’s no race, ethnicity, or heritage of any kind. There is only misery, poverty and servitude. American political culture has so perverted charity that it allows the taking of property from one party for the benefit of another, thus we’ve rendered charity synonymous with slavery.

At some point, in the not so distant future, we could find our nation right back where it started. Not only can slavery exist, but it won’t be targeted toward any one group. It will encompass the whole of society, just as it did under the British Crown.

If we awaken as slaves in our own land, bound by the dictates of an oppressive, intrusive and unconstitutional government, who will we blame? Will it be the fault of the Democrats, or the Republicans? No, the prime author of our subjugation won’t be a political party. They will have played a key role no doubt. But we can’t place the blame solely on them.

Maybe we can blame Barack Obama, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, or some other politician? Most have contributed to the demise of the American experiment. Most have used their power to expand the role of government in our lives and usurp our natural liberty and right of self-determination. But no president or politician, past or present, can take all the credit for our waning autonomy.

The Founding Fathers; they started this country. Can we blame them? Hardly. The Founders created a constitutional republic that limited the size and scope of the central government. The Constitution and its amendment process also established the means to end slavery as it then existed, although that didn’t happen as fast as it should have.

Maybe we should blame God? Absolutely not! God made man to be free, to think and to reason. This is evident throughout the Bible, wherein God repeatedly grants a choice to man. No, we aren’t compelled through divine authority to be enslaved, or to enslave one another. Nor are we compelled to think it charitable to force a person to serve the needs of their neighbor. Spiritual charity is inherently voluntary.

The blame for America’s descent toward servitude lies directly on us, the electorate. Not only have we ignored our impending chains we have openly embraced them. We have defined charity as government taking the production from one American and giving it to another. And we have lost touch with the practical definition of slavery.

We’ve become gutlessly apathetic concerning freedom and wholly ignorant of both charity and servitude. When we awaken as slaves in our own land the lion’s share of blame will fall on no one but us.