It is time to go back to the basics for the final push in
the elections. I believe the best way for an individual to be a country of altruists. Therefore, I am a Democrat. I
believe that is the definition of democracy. We vote for what is best for the
majority—that is what is best for each other. Redistribution of wealth is only through
salaries and taxes. Entitlements are
there for everyone just as everyone in a rich family the benefits from the
family wealth. I recognize there is a moral hazard; therefore, we have to be careful
to be sure the government is big and expansive enough to apportion and regulate
entitlements fairly and divides the tax burdens fairly.
The other side of the ledger is individualists, those who feel the successful form a moral group who
deserve all the benefits of society. Thus, they treat society as if it was a
church, only their members will go to heaven and no one else counts. They make selfishness
a virtue. Rather than everyone grows together, they seem to feel that the only
way to grow the economy is for them to be rich so they can create jobs. Trickle down economics like in many if not
most third world countries.
Both sides have one thing in common which is a belief that government
should be there to do what we cannot do for ourselves. Both agree on national
defense. Nevertheless, in all other areas what millionaires can do for them
selves is a lot different from what a person working for a minimum wage can do
for himself or herself. If everyone voted his or her genes, Obama would win by a
60% margin. Tommy Franks in his book What’s
the Matter with Kansas explains why Karl Rove can make it 50/50—why 10% of the population vote against their own interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment