-
Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?
May 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
We’re Still Going Backward
April 18, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Street Level Anti-Capitalism
April 8, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Snazzy Sequestered Screeners
March 8, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Welfare’s Failure Amid Red Ink
February 7, 2013 | 23 comments
The Tax and Spend Spectator
Winehouse Government
Here’s what the sober rich are going to have to pay.
It feels like we’re dealing with an Amy Winehouse form of governing.
“These overdoses happen because these guys drink 20 beers and then reach for their heroin,” a friend of mine said after the late star’s recent death, at 27. “You can’t think straight once you’re totally blitzed.”
It seems the same with our politicians, overdosed on their own importance. Their non-straight thinking and out of control spending has already put us $14.3 trillion in the hole at the federal level, not counting the tens of trillions in unfunded entitlement liabilities, and they’re still racking up $4 billion per day in new red ink.
Even with the deal in Congress to supposedly cut $2 trillion or $3 trillion in federal spending over the next 10 years, the national debt would still firmly be on a trajectory to increase by another $8 trillion to $10 trillion over the coming decade.
Part of the problem in all this is that eighth graders can’t vote. The self-absorbed politicians, always fixated on their re-election, know it’s safer to play Santa Claus than Scrooge, and so we get more and more “free” goodies from the government and the re-elected politicians just keep passing the bill onto our children and grandchildren.
Per person, the national debt now comes to nearly $50,000 for every man, woman and child in America — $200,000 for each family of four.
But not everyone’s going to pay. No kid is going to pick up the tab from the sales at his lemonade stand, about 50 percent of households don’t pay any federal income taxes, 20 percent of working-age American males between the ages of 25 and 54 are not working (and layoffs are increasing), so it’s clear that the $50,000 debt burden per capita is going to be far from equally distributed.
“The national debt per taxpayer calculates to $128,000,” reports Roy Filly at The Rugged Individualist.
But everyone shouldn’t pay, according to President Obama’s “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” redistributionist philosophy and leveling goals.
“According to our President, the ‘rich’ are the top 5 percent of earners,” writes Filly. “If we divide the national debt among the top 5 percent of earners, then each of them owes $2,539,068. Importantly, the top 5 percent of earners range in earnings from something a bit more than $150,000 (which, by the way, is household income, not individual income) on up.”
Obama doesn’t adjust his definition of the “rich” for the different cost of living in different locations. A two-income couple living in Manhattan with total annual earnings of $150,000 aren’t likely to see themselves as living high.
So let’s change the target to the real super-rich to pay off the debt, the guys Obama likes to portray as joyriding around in their corporate jets. “Honey, let’s gas up the Gulfstream and shoot over to Dairy Queen for some chocolate-vanilla twisties.”
The “fair share” of the current national debt for these targeted super-rich? “The extremely affluent — those making more than $1,500,000 per year — would each owe $96,230,700, or every penny they make for the next 64 years,” writes Filly.
Add the nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the $14.3 trillion national debt and it’s clear that we’d have to wipe out the entire upper class in order to make even a small dent in the red ink.
In an earlier era, pursuing his egalitarian utopia with vigor, Stalin slaughtered millions of kulaks, Russia’s “rich” peasants, identified as those whose ramshackle shacks had two windows instead of one.
About the Author
Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ralph R. Reiland
More Articles From The Tax and Spend Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/04/winehouse-government
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- The Welfarians
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 8.4.11 @ 6:37AM
"... it's clear that we'd have to wipe out the entire upper class in order to make even a small dent in the red ink."
Eliminating the rich and capitalism is the goal of King O and the Marxists masquerading as Democrats. They have accomplished their goal and now must only let time, and inflation, complete the destruction of the USA.
Bob K.| 8.4.11 @ 7:26AM
Speaking of the kulaks here is this comment on the movie made from Steinbeck's Novel "The Grapes of Wrath" showing some of America's poorest people, the Okies, moving west across the desert in old ramshackle automobiles:
"For a Russian or Ukranian peasant in the thirties the scenes and the people of "The Grapes of Wrath" would have evoked not pity but wonderment: to them these indigent Americans would have seemed super-kulaks, perhaps even amerikanski millionaires."
From "A NEW REPUBLIC A History of the United States in the Twentieth Century"--By John Lukacs at page 107. Lukacs was born and raised in Hungary before and during WWII.
Stan| 8.4.11 @ 1:23PM
Great comment, as great an author as Steinbeck was the utopianist, progressivism is a little nauseating. Watching the Henry Fonda version is almost a Soviet propaganda film. Ironically, Steinbeck probably thought things would be better if we had a Soviet style government.
oldfart| 8.4.11 @ 7:28AM
From indebthinfo.com
The Russian Kulaks were a class of peasant farmers who owned their own land. The term "Kulak" was originally intended to be derogatory. Soviet propaganda painted these farmers as greedy and standing in the way of the "utopian" collectivization that would take away their land, livestock, and produce. "Kulak" means "fist" in Russian and may have had something to do with the supposed tight-fistedness of the Kulak class.1
Peter Stolypin a minister under Czar Nicholas II undertook agrarian reform in 1906. His program was to dissolve peasant communes and buy land from the nobility, then to divide the land among the peasants. This actually increased efficiency and boosted food production in the country-side by over 40%. Stolypin felt that by making peasants actual owners of the land and the product of their labor they would take a keener interest in land improvement and productivity. He felt that these peasants would also be more supportive of a stable Czarist state. In this he proved to be correct.2
During the Russian Civil War (1918-21) the Kulaks generally supported the White Russians who were fighting to restore the Czarist regime.3 The Kulaks in general understood that the Bolshevik government was antithetical to property ownership and would strip away the rights and land the Kulaks had worked so hard to acquire and maintain. Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks won the Civil War.
After the Russian Civil War there was widespread famine throughout Russia. This was partly due to the war and partly due to the inefficiencies of collectivization. To relieve the hunger, Lenin attempted to confiscate grain from the peasants, including the Kulaks. Because not enough grain was collected he blamed the Kulaks and ordered not only that the Kulaks be deprived of grain themselves, but also any seed grain. He declared "Merciless war against the Kulaks! Death to them."4 This, of course, only had the effect of making the shortage more severe.
After Lenin's death, Stalin took power in the Soviet Union. He continued the policy of collectivization. But the repeated failure of communist policies continued, and supply problems became even more endemic as the policies were more rigidly enforced. A scapegoat had to be found. The Kulaks were blamed for recalcitrance and a campaign of deportation was begun that amounted to wholesale slaughter. Kulaks were transported to Siberia, which was bad enough. However, they were simply dumped off in the middle of nowhere, without food, supplies, or resources of any kind. Many more were forced to work their farms but not allowed to keep any of the their production - even for sustenance. Literally millions of Kulaks died. The exact number is not known, but estimates range from 4 to 8,000,000.5
Once dispossessed, the Kulaks no longer existed, except as an excuse to be used by the communist regime to attack the peasant class whenever it seemed convenient. Many of the people who died as "Kulaks" were shocked to find out that this accusation had been laid upon them and that they were to suffer or die for it.
The collectivization of Russian farms proved to be such a dismal failure that shortages would occur year after year. Even the Soviet Army was sent into the countryside to help sow, tend, and harvest food. Even so, five year plan quotas were never met. Even by the 1970s farm production could not be brought up to levels that would feed the Soviet population. Food had to be imported from the United States merely to maintain subsistence levels.6 This was a factor in the RAND Corporations suggestion to the Reagan Administration that the United States could win the Cold War by outspending the Soviets militarilly, forcing them to deprive their economy even further.
The unfortunate demonization and destruction of the Kulaks would be among the many factors that would ultimately weaken the Soviet Union - leaving it susceptible first to the massive invasion by Germany during the "Great Patriotic War", and to final economic defeat in the Cold War. The Kulaks could have made valuable contributions to the Russian nation. However, this vital human resource was tossed aside by the ideologically blind communists, and the need to maintain power of the dictator, Stalin.
Notice how the visionary thug - Lenin was replaced by even more brutal thug - Stalin - whose actions (purge of the Soviet military leadership) almost allowed a German victory in WWII.
Pecos Pete| 8.4.11 @ 9:12AM
Could it be that Kulaks = Tea Party?
JP| 8.4.11 @ 10:18AM
The problem with the analogy is that Stalin possessed hundreds of thousands of dedictated polititical soliders who were motivated by political hatred to such an extent that murder and genocide were perfectly acceptable.
In the US, our government is full of lazy incompetents. And even the most radical Leftists do not possess the skills, let alone the will to carry out whole-sale murder. Underneath thier rhetoric, you will find middle aged, portly Baby-Boomers who want nothing more than to retire to thier gated communities and send the bill to thier unborn great grand children. Bong pipes,Viagra, and trophy wives fill thier arsenal, not Molotov Cocktails and tommy guns.
Stan| 8.4.11 @ 1:30PM
Don't think that things could not change. Recent history shows that the left bases it's policies on emotions. And that people can be easily swayed by the left when economically pressed. Russia, China, Italy, Germany. To a lesser degree we nearly saw communists governments in Greece, Italy, Spain.
WalkingHorse| 8.4.11 @ 8:17AM
The Winehouse metaphor is good, but has a key defect: Amy Winehouse's excesses ended with her demise; the political class's excesses will end with our demise, and they will be hiding comfortably in their personal bolt-holes.
Bill| 8.4.11 @ 11:41AM
I see the denouement as something like the situation that exists in Cormac McCarthy's "The Road": we, the people of average income, will be the dead, with the wealthy and the politicians wandering about, scrounging what they can from the detritus left over after the apocalypse.
Stan| 8.4.11 @ 1:30PM
You mean spider holes . . . right?
Petronius| 8.4.11 @ 8:18AM
If those Americans who have financial assets above $1,000,000 haven't moved it off shore by now, they better find a way and a place of exile PDQ. The IRS will soon target everybody with a net worth over just half of that unless they're liberals.
R Martin| 8.4.11 @ 9:01AM
"In an earlier era, pursuing his egalitarian utopia with vigor, Stalin slaughtered millions of kulaks, Russia's "rich" peasants, identified as those whose ramshackle shacks had two windows instead of one."
Or those who were productive enough to hire an employee or two. And we all know how that turned out.
Mr. Reiland may feel as though we're dealing with an Amy Winehouse form of governing. To me it feels more like the Three Stooges.
daddio| 8.4.11 @ 10:13AM
"The self-absorbed politicians, always fixated on their re-election,"
and this is the crux of the problem. Everything, everything flows from this.
LarryK| 8.4.11 @ 10:32AM
Well, we all know how that Winehouse thing ended.
POST American| 8.4.11 @ 10:35AM
STILL WAITING for even a single article
going into that 1.5 quadriion in FAKE USURY
dervivatives debt
-the unthinkable psychopathology of our
ILLEGAL, debt-serf generating, PRIVATE,
foreign owned 'FED'
-the ever more apparent 4 decades of
deliberate, systematic, coordinated Globalist
RED China set up, sellout and TREASON
(See the NOW declassified State Dept. memo
200 1975 for the prime role of Bush SR.)
-the state of full spectrum police state surveillance
being turned on the American people ---even as
Globalist collapsed Mexico sends tens of mllions
over the border --Napolitano's 'Trusted Travelers'
Oldefarte| 8.4.11 @ 11:14AM
The absolute truth of this article is that ITS THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS:
http://youtu.be/JJVZpWZzqhk
Their socialiszation of American for the last 50+ years has now led to this current budget defecit/debt crisis. The Democrats initiated each/every peice of political ligislation within that time frame in order to provide welfare to their indigent constituents, all at taxpayers' expense. Now sadly some of the tea partiers here are lambasting BOTH PARTIES with their simpleton phraseology 'RINOS'. One their worst days, any establishment Republican senator/congressman has faught against this extremism from the Democrats [who have dominated the political process for those 50 past years]. The cause of the porblem has been that the American public/voters have never given substantial political voting support to the Republican Party candidates in large enough numbers for same to take over our government and begin downsizing same. Republicans have had presidents, but not complete control of both houses of congress that is necessary for control. Vote Republican next year, give them the power of control and demand that they vote for conservative, tea party principles!!!!!!!
LiveFreeOrDie| 8.4.11 @ 3:48PM
"Republicans have had presidents, but not complete control of both houses of congress that is necessary for control."
Not trying to argue with you oldfarte but I think you have too much faith in the R's. Bush had both house for six years and accomplished bupkis on the conservative wish list.
lrgon| 8.6.11 @ 5:07PM
We should never close our eyes to RINOS socializing America under the name of "compassionate conservatism" (Bush) or national defense (Ike).
Perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas observed happily that more progress toward socialism was being made under Republican Ensenhower than could ever have been made had the voters picked Adlai Stevenson.
Who can argue with Norman when Ike gave us the Health Eduation and Welfare Department (HHS) and pumped 20 Billion dollars of fed money into a "works projects" called the interstate highway system! Up to that time that fed "make work" project was the largest socialist endeavor in history!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
Martin Owens| 8.4.11 @ 12:06PM
I remember a speech by Ronald Reagan where he pointed out the results of this get-the-rich thinking.
He noted that when the push against kulaks began, the Reds were after everyone who owned two farms. When it finished , they were targeting anyone who owned two pairs of shoes.
Rick V.| 8.4.11 @ 12:25PM
Eighth graders can't vote? Nonsense. As long as our elected aristocracy cultivates this perception of "Uncle Sam as Santa", they've created a nation of 18- to 78-year-old eighth graders, all eligible voters and all clamoring for their goodies. Eighth graders aren't expected to work either. It's all quite elementary, actually.
David| 8.4.11 @ 12:36PM
""According to our President, the 'rich' are the top 5 percent of earners," writes Filly. "If we divide the national debt among the top 5 percent of earners, then each of them owes $2,539,068. Importantly, the top 5 percent of earners range in earnings from something a bit more than $150,000 (which, by the way, is household income, not individual income) on up.""
Um, not exactly. It's been defined a few times, but let's ignore those numbers cause inaccurate press is better than good press.
I swear... TAS is doing more to turn me Dem than anything my goofy, tree-hugging, sandal wearing, dope-smoking liberal friends could ever accomplish with their years of silly rhetoric.
Stan| 8.4.11 @ 1:40PM
David, you need to point out your exact disagreement or your post is meaningless.
Not perfect but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....ted_States
Herb Tarlek| 8.4.11 @ 1:09PM
I don't understand how this is supposed to work. If you pay off the debt you would have no money in circulation. You would actually have less than zero because they don't create the money to pay the interest when they create the money through a bond. The best case scenario in the current monetary is no further debt growth. All talk of paying off the public debt is ridiculous & unnecessary.
Ron| 8.4.11 @ 1:52PM
Friends,
One of the problems I see (and hear) are all of the "Average Joes" who believe the class warfare spewage coming from NerObama. recently, in my local newspaper, one of the bloggers emailed in that he would be happy with a socialist state just to be fair.
There are a lot of people (I hate the terms "class" as it sounds too much like the Indian caste system) that just keep listening to the MSM, NerObama, and the rest of his ilk, promising happier days ahead, if they just do what he claims will right the inequities. Which really do not exist, given our "poor" live better than most European Middle Class citizens/subjects.
Those same people are the ones that flocked to the polls to vote NerObama in, and will probably do so again, along with the same "white guilt"/"rich guilt"/"poor guilt" (or whatever flavour of guilt will be popular in 2012) voters.
obadiah| 8.4.11 @ 5:29PM
"politicians, overdosed on their own importance... out of control spending has already put us $14.3 trillion in the hole at the federal level, not counting the tens of trillions in unfunded entitlement liabilities."
The worst one, IMO, was named Bush. Front man for energy, military and healthcare looters. I don't see any advantage in trading one gang of corruption for another gang of corruption.
Bob K.| 8.4.11 @ 11:52PM
Obadiah,
They are much better at it than Bush ever was! Bush and his crew were pikers compared to these guys!