Thursday, May 31, 2007

Civics Class Anyone?

From the New York Sun:
Senator Clinton is pitching herself as the "progressive" candidate for president, proposing to raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations under an economic plan that is drawing an immediate rebuke from Republicans.


"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few, time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity," she said. "I prefer a ‘we're all in it together' society."

Under a nine-point plan, Mrs. Clinton proposed to let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire, scrap subsidies for oil and gas companies, and require large oil companies to invest in alternative energy or pay into a national research fund. She also called for greater scrutiny of the salaries of chief executives. In a bid to keep jobs in America, she is pushing to eliminate an element of the tax code that allows companies to defer taxes on profits they earn overseas.

In ending what she called Mr. Bush's "irresponsible" tax cuts, the former first lady said she would revert to the tax rates for "upper-income Americans" during the 1990s. ...
"Irresponsible" tax cuts? Does somebody want to explain to Ms. Clinton that the government has had more tax revenue than ever before since Bush's "irresponsible" tax cuts? "But how can cutting taxes lead to more tax revenue?" you might ask. Because people spend what they make. Last I heard, the average American spent $120 for every $100 they brought home. So by cutting taxes, Americans (even if it's those darn "upper-income" Americans) have more money to spend, and they spend more. And when they spend money, they pay ... everybody together now ... sales tax (among others)!

Seriously Hill, I'm all for shared responsibility and shared prosperity, but not because of government mandate. You know what "shared prosperity" in government is? Socialism. Combine that with extreme liberal gun control polices, and you get ... communism! Yay, communism! Just ask the former USSR how that worked out. Or China, where the internet is filtered, so I'm sure nobody in China will read this - especially if I type this word: democracy. Or Cuba - unless you're Michael Moore and want to make another propaganda film, I mean, "documentary," showing how great the Cuban health care system is for rescue workers injured on 9/11, all the while failing to mention that Cuba actually has two health care systems: is for party officials and foreigners like those Mr. Moore brought to Havana. “It is as good as this one here, with all the resources, the best doctors, the best medicines, and nobody pays a cent,” [Cuban defector Dr. Leonel Cordova] said.

But for the 11 million ordinary Cubans, hospitals are often ill equipped and patients “have to bring their own food, soap, sheets — they have to bring everything.” And up to 20,000 Cuban doctors may be working in Venezuela, creating a shortage in Cuba.
Can anybody tell me when the great American success story became a bad thing - when innovative men can go "on their own" and basically build a computer in their garage, ultimately leading to corporations like Microsoft and Apple?

Socialism is a good idea in theory. But we don't live in utopia. We live in a fallen world full of sinful people. I know this because I know myself. As much as I like the theory of sharing with those less fortunate than me, I'm not that good at actually practicing it. So why should we believe somebody like Hillary, herself an "upper-income" American, when they say that we should all pool our money and distribute it equally? Even if she were elected and "implemented" it, it wouldn't happen. The red tape would be ridiculous, the freeloaders would be plenty, and those trying their hardest but still needing help would find themselves endlessly waiting for help from the government.

So Hillary, or anybody else who advocates socialism or who has a concern for "the least of these:" lead by example. Give of your own time & money. Give people a hand-up, not a hand-out. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

No comments: