Demonizing the "rich"

I heard that Al Sharpton recently used the "S" word referring to President Obama, saying that Americans voted for socialism when they voted for Obama. (While I'm sure that many did, I also think the media did an outstanding job of covering for Obama, and he did a pretty good job of convincing everyone he was "moderate" as well.)

And Max Baucus just came out and said that ObamaCare was about more fixing the "mal-distribution of income" than fixing health care.

This, and imposing limits on bonuses, the progressive tax hikes, the rhetoric about "spreading the wealth," and complaining about people who earn too much money sounds so nice and good, so kind. But let me ask, when did it become right to confiscate something that someone has earned. Think of the definition of "earn." When someone earns something, it means that they've worked for it, they've earned it, they deserve it. Do we really want to say that someone shouldn't keep what they earn? In our new great society, who will want to put in the effort to gain an education, to work hard, if they will be forced to pay for inefficient Government entitlements?

A friend of mine recently lamented that she wished that she had more money, so that she could do more good with it. I wanted to say, "You can still do good without it," which is true. But it is also true that you can do more good if you have more to give. And when you do give, wouldn't you like to know that the money is being spent wisely? That the money is actually going to those in need, and not in the pockets of union leaders, corrupt bureaucrats, that it isn't going to pay for abortions, or Viagra for sexual offenders?

While yes, some are greedy, I believe that people generally are good, even the wealthy ones. Those "evil" rich people are the ones who give employment, who donate thousands upon thousands to humanitarian aid, who create educational foundations and give scholarship money to deserving kids who have earned it.

I actually heard Eleanor Clift say that ObamaCare was a reversal of Reagan era policies. She said that Reagan redistributed the wealth from the bottom up--that he served the evil rich people. First of all, that isn't true, he simply eased the burden of the wealthy to pay taxes for everyone else. And even if it is true, it obviously worked because the 80's were a prosperous time for America! Our current recession is largely due to acts by Congress to give handouts to those who haven't earned anything.

More for my collection on Education

Two articles recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal. One that argued against school choice and charter schools, and one that refutes the first article. Which one is more convincing to you?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109443305343962.html?KEYWORDS=Diane+Ravitch

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123470465841424.html

Hillsdale college

I've never heard of it before, but this piece in Big Hollywood gives a very nice description.

I don't care so much about its theater arts department (I'm a little irritated by the entire theatrical community at the moment), though it sounds like a place that you could maybe go as a theater major and not have to strip or smoke on stage. What is more interesting to me is the fact that the school does not accept federal or state taxpayer money. I wonder how much tuition is?

Meanwhile, students attending public-run universities are seeing their tuition go up significantly, and their protests have gotten some news coverage lately.

So while we're at it...

And because no one is paying attention because of the health care debate, let's sneak in something else:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187204575101663745849200.html

Bad Congress, Very bad, indeed.