Sitting here in a Denny's on the outskirts of St. Louis, I can't help but notice a delightful elderly couple a few tables over. She's small framed, her white hair pulled back while she sits there demurely, her slender hands around a cup of coffee as she smiles softly at a person I assume is her husband. He's wearing one of those beige lightweight jackets that has the word "Members" on the front. Peering through his silver metal framed glasses, he's diligently applying just the right mixture of butter and syrup to his pancakes. They arrived about ten minutes ago in a white Lincoln Land-Yacht, which is parked just outside the front door.
I wonder how much money he has in his wallet? I'm sorry, is that an untoward thought? Does it strike a jarring chord? Stay with me here, because I'm not done. What are the odds that he has a hundred, or maybe two hundred bucks on him? Yes, let's say he's got that much on his person. Unless he's armed, which I doubt, I'm pretty sure that I could quickly relieve him of the contents of that wallet. But since I choose not to rob this couple, can we conclude that I've just given them two hundred dollars? Then again, after considering my own bank account balance, I think I need the money more than they. In fact, I'm sure of it. What's more, I don't have two hundred bucks to give him, which is what I would be doing if I didn't rob him, so I have no choice but to go after the wallet. Bad luck for you, Gramps.
If any of the preceding made sense to you, your position in the Obama administration awaits. David Axelrod will welcome you with an open wallet, though not his of course. On Meet The Press yesterday, the President's senior advisor rationalized raising tax rates for those earning over $250,000 thus: "...we can't afford to borrow another $700 billion to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." So people keeping what they earn is akin to the government borrowing money? Earth to Axelrod: It's not your money, dweeb.
Yes, I understand the economic stipulation that the government is supposed to plan expenditures based upon anticipated revenue, and that a decrease in revenue equals a shortfall in expenditures. I get it. But the planted axiom in Axelrod's formulation is that your earnings do not belong to you, but rather to the government. Therefore, whatever portion of your earnings you get to keep is not the result of your toil and talent, but of government benevolence. This is the working assumption of the left, from the White House to the editorial page of the New York Times, from the ivory tower to Havana. Your property is really not yours. And when you successfully lay claim to it, it is the despot who feels that he has been cheated.
Why is it wrong for me to rob this gentle old couple of their property, yet entirely acceptable to some that such as Mr. Axelrod can stake a claim on the earnings of them and others? Does an official title erase the distinction between right and wrong, between charity and theft? In the last analysis, government is force, and theft in the name of compassion or utopia is still theft. If the Obama administration's moral compass is so horribly askew as to make these truths incomprehensible, then the "change" they advertised was nothing more than a euphemism for the sort of thuggery the Founders warned against.