Government and Fairness

As most are aware BO is turning to class warfare as his primary tactic in his re-election campaign. He claims the source for America's economic malaise is due to the rich and the business community who do not pay their fair share and do not play by the rules. Astonishing, when the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the federal income tax yet earn only 35% of the total national gross income. But in actuality it is the perfect strategy and one that will be very hard to beat since every individual has one vote and there are many more people on the bottom than the top. As I have mentioned in previous blogs this is an inherent defect in our democratic system and will necessarily lead to its undoing. The founding fathers likely foresaw this and is why voting was initially not a right granted just because one existed but only to land owners.

The Republican party will have a difficult time overcoming this demographic trend. Generally speaking, the poor will vote for BO to keep their checks and benefits coming and the rich will vote for the opposition to limit government's redistribution agenda. The question remains what happens to the vast middle? Will they support BO to take from the rich and give it to them? Or, do they want a system where one can strive to achieve wealth and keep it even though they may not be there yet. Perhaps, there are enough of those middle people that yearn for themselves or for their children to become future high wage earners and do not want the government to confiscate their hard work's rewards in their redistribution scheme. I am pessimistic and believe human nature would dictate people would rather sit at home and get a check from Uncle Sam rather than busting their butt.

BO talks of economic fairness constantly and he is right. But, the role of government is to make it fair for everyone to compete and achieve based on their abilities. Their should be a fair playing field where everyone can compete equally. No one should have an unfair advantage (bail outs, etc.) or an unfair disadvantage (discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc.) and this is the exclusive yet limited role of government. But government should not be used to ensure equal outcomes and this where government oversteps its role. BO equates fairness with equal outcomes and this is his fallacy since if equal outcomes are predetermined or if success is blunted to redistribute to the losers then what is the reason to put in the effort to outcompete others. Hence, productivity falls as people feel its not worth the effort to take risks and compete. The fairness comes at the outset where everybody must compete on a level playing field, not at the backend when the results are tallied.

We are in a period in human history where competition for goods and services is international. The lower and middle class compete against workers from all over the world and our workers are entirely noncompetitive. They have priced themselves out of the competition and government has over regulated US industry to be noncompetitive worldwide. Thus jobs are on the decline and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. As the number of people in the bottom of society swell they will vote in candidates who cater to their redistribution desires. As redistribution tactics expand productivity slows, jobs decrease, total wealth decreases, and more people are on the bottom of the ladder demanding more from the government. The vicious cycle keeps going. Eventually society disintegrates (see Greece).

BO's tactics are highly effective and likely successful in the short term but long term will lead to disaster for the entire country.

A somewhat disjointed blog but I can sum it up with a quote from Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."