Friday, June 22, 2012

Obama’s Fairness

Obama’s willingness to redistribute wealth is anything but fair. Fair is defined as having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds. Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.

Is Obama, or any Democrat or Republican for that matter, fair and impartial judges or mediators on the subject of wealth distribution or taxes? No, they all have their own agenda which is both biased and favors the special interests that fund their campaigns. So this is not fair. The best way to settle these types of disputes is to let the individuals of each state decide them at the polls. The more people voting (a larger sample size) on issues helps to eliminate bias or favoritism. This is exactly why the more constituents a politician represents the power the politician possesses.

Is increasing taxes on the wealthy a fair compromise? No, because the wealthy, middle class, and poor have no say in the decisions made by Obama or legislators. For something to be a compromise, it must be decided by all people that will be affected by the decision. For something to be a fair compromise both sides must make some sort of sacrifice. The wealthy are making a sacrifice by giving away their hard earned dollars. But what sacrifices are the middle class or poor making to receive these hard earned dollars? Nothing! That is why this is not fair. Paying people to do nothing is not fair, logical, ethical, just, or any other word used to define fairness. To receive a fair share one must earn it. If entitlement recipients worked to fix up their neighborhoods or did work to fix our crumbling infrastructure then they would have a claim to a fair share of pay. Is it fair that some people collect entitlement handouts their entire lives without ever being accountable or responsible for their own welfare? No! Is it fair that high wage earners have no say in where their hard earned dollars are spent by the government? Absolutely not! Nothing about the redistribution of wealth is logical, just, a compromise, unbiased, or fair.

If individuals or corporations want to give more money to charities or the government by paying higher taxes – nothing is stopping them. This is their decision. And let’s not forget that top wage earners (individuals and small businesses) and corporations already pay over 90% of the taxes in this country.

Nothing Obama or the government does is fair. Is it fair that Obama and Democrats are claiming GOP policies are a war on women when female White House staffers earn 16% less than male staffers? Is it fair that Obama and Democrats turn every issue into an excuse to polarize Americans - a war on gender, unions, ethnicity, and gays? Is it fair that the White House portrays stay at home moms as lazy? Is it fair that people who bought homes they could not afford are bailed out at the expense of responsible taxpayers? Is it fair that government bureaucrats, who know nothing about engineering, create the rules and regulations for CO2 emissions or automobile gas mileage? Is it fair that oil companies are fined for activity that kills wildlife, but wind or hydro energy companies are not? Is it fair that renewable energy companies have more access to government land than oil companies? Is it fair the government subsidizes some industries but not others? Obama claims that the reason Solyndra failed is because China subsidized solar companies which made their products cheaper. This is the same reason why it is illogical to tax U.S. corporations or individuals more – they can no longer compete globally or contribute to charities. Besides, does it make sense to subsidize renewable energy companies using money borrowed from China so they can compete with China? That is just plain stupid!

Life is not fair; everyone is going to face adversity. It is how individuals and corporations deal with adversity is what will define them. Individuals and companies can learn from their adversity and become a better person or industry or they can give up and become irresponsible and unaccountable.


  1. We were talking the other day about how the Left’s agenda defies common sense and this is another good example. When you want to defy common sense, it helps to re-define words so that your argument looks less absurd than it really is.

  2. I am so bad with words and definitions that I have to continually look up words that should have simple meanings such as fair. It seemed to me that the Left was not defining the word correctly and I was right.

  3. Yeah, I know what you mean. Bill Clinton had me looking up the meaning of the word "is."