In his latest masterpiece for the West Bend Daily News, Owen Robinson decries the "centuries-old push" to socialism. The latest shove? Po folks voting for Obama in order to get money from their betters.
This is why Obama’s promise of an “income tax cut” to 95 percent of Americans resonated so well during the campaign. Even though 40 percent of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes, Obama promised them cash. From where will that cash come? The other 60 percent, of course, and their kids. Those who voted for Obama on the basis of getting a handout acted completely within their own self-interest.
Herein lies one of the little ironies of human nature. Conservatives who want to see the government downsized can only do so by actually voting against their own personal interests. Liberals who want to grow government can do so by voting to line their own pockets with their neighbor’s money.
For example, a family of five that earns $45,000 per year does not likely pay any federal income taxes. When Obama comes to them and offers them a $1,500 “refund” on taxes they never paid, they’d be foolish not to take it. That $1,500 could help pay some bills and they will not see their tax burden increase at all. In essence, they are voting to have the government take $1,500 from someone else and give it to them. ...
As it turns out, the liberals who decry greediness in corporate America are engaging in an act of greed every time they vote to expand our government. And the conservatives who vote against growing government do so despite the fact that most of them are voting against their own interests.
Unfortunately for Owen, his assessment fails to account for millions of affluent folks -- and a majority of those making $200,000 or more -- who voted for Obama. So were they voting against their own self-interest? Or did they think that Obama's proposals offered a superior vision for the way ahead than the wrinkly old white dude and the governor from Alaska, whatsername, the one whose
son's daughter's mother in law is a suspected drug dealer...
Or are they just dupes who are buying the silk ropes with which they'll be hanged by the socialist rabble?
Speaking of "socialism," Owen's description of our "centuries-old push" toward socialism -- something that can't be stopped because "Human nature is kicking the rock down the path" -- makes this political progression sound like natural, organic, experience-based, and gradual piecemeal reform ... and wouldn't that make it an almost Burkean progression?