Oregon: proof democracy empowers stupid people

by Seth Stern

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Digg this
  • Add to del.icio.us
  • Blogger
  • Comment feed
  • |
  • Print
  • Email
bookmark this page
last edited: 8:59 pm 02/08/2010
SternSeth

Seth Stern

When a state’s population exercises its voting and Tenth Amendment rights I typically find myself in an exuberant mood. Last week’s election in Oregon however, has taken me another direction.

First, I have to explain for the unaware, Oregon voters approved a targeted tax increase designed to reduce the state’s budget shortfall. I have no problem with a population making the difficult decision to raise taxes on themselves. Seriously that is fine with me.

Oregonians, however, raised the taxes on the top 2.5 percent of the state’s earners. While I am willing to accept some of you have been brainwashed by your professors, liberal politicians and other supporters of Karl Marx, and as a result see wealthy persons as evil, some of you will reject the “epic fail” of Marxist principles and see logic instead.

Though preceded by California, Oregon just proved conclusively that direct democracy is as guaranteed to fail as any other political system. When the masses –– comprised mostly of middle-to-lower income people –– realize they can legislate taking from the top, those who have succeeded lose their incentive to continue.

There is a misconception among liberals that people have some sort of moral obligation to take care of those less fortunate than themselves. What I find truly appalling is this idiotic concept of using government in any form as the vehicle to carry out this mandated altruism.

The reality of government is inefficiency. Period. Not once in history has government represented the most efficient means of doing anything. The president’s plan to distribute vaccines relies upon the U.S. Postal Service as the lead agency. Go to the Post Office off John F. Kennedy Parkway around noon someday; let me know how it goes.

If your life depends on the government’s efficient response, buy a bullet, rent the gun.

Back to Oregon, one of the most amusing responses to this lunacy comes from one of the patrons of modern liberalism. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley told the Wall Street Journal this week, “I’ve always thought America stands for (rewarding success). You finish high school. You work hard, go to college and you hope to succeed in life. I never knew it’s a class war — that those who succeed in life are the ones that have to bear all the burden. I never realized that. It will be a whole change in America that those who succeed and work hard, we’re gonna tax ‘em more than anyone else.”

When a Chicago politician is criticizing you for being too liberal, you may want to reconsider what it is you did to accomplish such a feat.
There is good news: The dim-witted Oregon voters have ensured the loss of most inbound residents in the targeted income brackets and many of the existing residents and corporations are now seeking residence elsewhere.

Mayor Daley applauded the shortsightedness of the Oregon voters for the simple reason they expect the revenue from soon-to-depart Oregonians will end up in his city.

In fact, Mayor Daley expressed his intent to recruit the besieged businesses to move to Chicago.

The fact of the matter is the successful have not done anything wrong by being successful. The businesses suffering at the hands of legislated socialism are largely the biggest employers in the state.

Now the unemployed who voted for this epic stupidity are chasing employers ­­–– prospective and existing –– out of the state.

The president has proposed a targeted increase in taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year to make up for his exorbitant budget shortfall. If he succeeds, the bottom 50 percent of the nation deserves to have the top 50 percent revolt.

This all comes down to a perception of entitlement. Apparently a great number of people feel the top performers financially in this country have done something wrong simply by being successful. That my friends, is an erroneous assumption.

If we allow the federal government to take from a population what they rightfully earned, we open the floodgates to them taking anything they want.
Believing in the benevolence of a government has never ended well. This one is no different.

Seth J. Stern is a senior journalism and sociology major. His hatred of liberalism is on display Fridays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Digg this
  • Add to del.icio.us
  • Blogger
  • Comment feed
  • |
  • Print
  • Email
bookmark this page
Related Stories
Comments

The comments posted on this board are monitored, but we can not be held responsible for what others say.

Michelle

02-05-10

3:14 PM

I love this! It gives me hope that there are still some smart and locial thinkers in this country.

 

chris

02-05-10

3:38 PM

thanks for publishing this!

 

Sneed Hearn

02-05-10

7:42 PM

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”

And where do you think we are now?

 

MoralMoney

02-05-10

8:19 PM

“The state will thereafter be redundant and will wither away.”

 

David Klausa

02-08-10

5:34 PM

Yes, most rich people have worked hard to get there. However, a constant ratio of work to income does not exist. Does someone making 5 million a year actually work 100x harder than someone making 50k a year? Probably not. The rich/poor gap is the biggest class separator in the world today, even more important than nationality. I can’t imagine that the relatively skyrocketing incomes of the rich is wholly justified, so I think it is a worthy goal to try to get income distributed more fairly. I think it is also worth trying to improve government efficiency rather than completely condemn government. We must accept that our modern lifestyles depend on the existence of government. We have some major problems from the Bush administration, who happened to agree that government should be minimized and the rich should be protected. Some things don’t run very smoothly with the free market in control either (health care). I’ll also add that if you used derisive language less (stupid, idiocy, etc), you’d have more room to support your points.

 

Andrew

02-08-10

6:27 PM

David – You said “get income distributed more fairly” and I laughed. That might seem like a feel good idea until other people, acting without your permission, are “redistributing” YOUR goods to anybody/everybody. If you want to share your money, give to charity. It is a much more effective means for providing to less fortunate.

 

Language aside, Klausa, you're wrong..

02-08-10

6:47 PM

Wow, Klausa, you used no “stupid” or idiotic language and yet your point is still completely wrong. Thanks for the lesson in language usage during arguments.
Your socialist arguments give context to the country’s waning support for Obama and his power grabbing ways. It’s so fun, once again, to hear another liberal state how a Republican president wanted to protect the rich. Because, as we know, all Democrats are poor, working class people making less than $250,000 a year who only care about the little guy. You saints. It’s especially good to see how, after Democrats controlled congress for 40 years, blacks feel equal, homelessness is ended, poverty is no more, the national debt is gone, … it’s just a big love fest of tolerance, uncorrupted government, a socialist utopia…. Oh, goody! Let’s have a group hug. Oh, sorry, is my tone offensive to your educated, nuanced sensibilities?
Thanks for trying to redistribute your wisdom, but no thanks.
I’m poor. I plan on earning my way. And I plan on using what I earn however the hell I want.

 

Please be respectful to others when commenting on our comment board. Comments that are decided to be overly offensive, off topic, derrogatory or unnecessarily cruel in nature will be erased.

All fields are required. Your email address will not be published.

HTML is not allowed.

What are the LAST three letters of the alphabet?

OCSS-HousingFair
Recent Multimedia
photo slideshows
video
poll

Who do you want to perform at a burlesque show?

privacy policy

copyright 2010 The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Powered by Detroit Softworks