Soak the Rich and Kill the Society?

I listened to President Obama's speech on fiscal deficits and debts this afternoon. I was not surprised. He used his usual socialistic approach in recommending silly solutions to our budget and debt crisis.

What made me really angry was his repeated attempt to establish economic class warfare by appealing to the jealousy emotion that normally rests in every human being to some degree. In effect, he said those who have benefited the most, should pay more in taxes.

However, for those who may be swayed by this approach to the dark side of human nature, let me bring into perspective what this actually means. President Obama is implying that the "rich" have accomplished their financial status through government benefit, and that is unfair to the average person. The fact is that in the majority of cases, the "rich" have achieved their success through imagination, risk, and hard work. Should an average "non-rich" person, who has not put in the required risk and effort be rewarded to the same extent? If so, why would anyone want to engage in hard work and risks, when the same benefits can be obtained by lethargy? He would not. That is the fundamental deficiency of socialism. There is a lack of incentive for anybody to do better. In most cases, the rich have achieved a better financial status The other implication of President Obama's statement is that the "rich" person has achieved his status in spite of governmental hindrances.

If we take the accomplishments of the "rich" and spread those benefits among the general public, do you believe that those "rich" people will continue on the same track of producing goods, services, and profits, which can be taxed. No! They will cease to produce and will live off their assets, or take their businesses to other countries, which are more favorably inclined to business ventures. The net result is fewer businesses, with fewer jobs for the middle class and a forced lower standard of living. Even government will not profit by the operation, since the companies and owners, which previously supplied tax revenue will no longer be available.

Andrew Carnegie privately established the steel industry in the United States. The steel, which he and his organization produced, went into the manufacture of automobiles, bridges, rails, and skyscrapers. Andrew Carnegie became rich through his steel operations, but did the public suffer? No. We owe those automobiles we have, and the bridges and skyscrapers we use to Andrew Carnegie's ingenuity and efforts. Government in those years was not an impediment. Andrew Carnegie could not achieve the same success in the present governmental climate.
Similarly, John D. Rockefeller established an international railroad system, which led to the development of all parts of the United States. Without the rail system, we would still be a disorganized set of white tribes, possibly still fighting Indians.

Am I implying that private industry can do everything and that it is completely honest in all of its endeavors? No. But that does not mean it should be abolished or even unreasonably hindered. It only means that government should exercise some control to keep the playing field level for various competitors and the general public. It does not mean that we need a government of tremendous size that will compete with private industry or overtax them to the extent of driving them out of business.

Bottom line: Do not soak the rich. Be sure they are getting their fair share, as an incentive to continue doing and expanding their good work. Private industry makes jobs, and improves finances in the average working-class family.

Government is a leech on society. When small, we can tolerate it, and in some respects need it. In its greatness, it is an abomination.