Tag: income equality

Posted on

press picking & choosing

Pie1over5Noting the populist rhetoric of income equality but not necessarily the economic prudence, allow me to highlight the Pope’s message to the UN Secretary General last Friday — which, not surprisingly, some media sources promptly pounced upon.

Had the Intramuralist simply adopted the media’s rhetoric (note to all:  never simply adopt the media’s rhetoric), I would have walked away believing the following headlines…

From Time Magazine:  “Pope Francis to World:  Redistribute The Wealth.”

From MSNBC:  “Pope Francis Calls For Wealth Redistribution.”

Let’s look at what the Pope actually said…

It is true that he condemned an “economy of exclusion.”

It is true that he said that we need to have “future sustainable development goals” that “have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger.”

It is also true that he said:  “An awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands.”  Pope Francis has been a consistent advocate for the less fortunate — beginning his advocacy at conception.

Let us also then acknowledge what was omitted from the same media’s actual headlines — including the conception omission — aspects omitted which may point to a veiled bias within our press…

Pope Francis did not say government should embrace socialism, which equates to government mandated wealth redistribution — which by definition is a “stage of development in Marxist theory,” which eventually suppresses a country’s citizens.

Pope Francis did not dismiss the individual responsibility for caring for the hungry, poor, and essentially “least of these,” which is indisputably the biblical mandate.

And when Pope Francis addressed sharing the “good which God’s providence has placed in our hands,” he spoke not only of material goods, but also of “intellectual and spiritual ones.”  To focus on only the material would omit 67% of the Pope’s encouragement.

One of the aspects that absolutely amazes this semi-humble current events observer is that we quote the seemingly most popular when it appears to make us look good.  For example, Time and MSNBC rush to quote the Pope when it looks like he’s endorsing government-mandated wealth redistribution, but they oft seem to omit his perspective when it comes to government-funded abortion-inducing drugs.  They seem to shy mightily from the Pope’s encouraged, accompanied, spiritual teaching.

The point of this post has zero to do with wealth or drugs or our government’s role.  The point is that the press picks and chooses when and what to publicize, seemingly emphasizing their desired perspective.  The press thus does not always accurately represent all that any have to say.  In other words, the media manipulates the news.

As for Pope Francis’s perspective, the wise pontiff does seem to emphasize an unparalleled compassion for the poor that is respectful and contagious.  How far he presses in economic understanding and socialist priorities is a different conversation, and the press would be wise in acknowledging such.

They would also be wise in acknowledging the Pope’s stated desire to seek God first…  something seemingly far too convenient to also omit.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

Obama’s equality

Stack Of Cash

Let’s be frank.  As I’ve said from the onset of the Intramuralist, no one need to agree with me.  Really.  I’m comfortable enough in my own skin to omit my opinions… and to admit that some of them may be wrong.  I also may not know which ones are wrong.  Guess what?  Some of yours are wrong, too…. and you may or may not know it.  That said, we must still trod through all discussion and debate respectfully; such is key to solution.

 

My right-or-wrong opinion shared this day concerns the upcoming policy push by Pres. Obama.  You can expect it to be hammered home in this week’s State of the Union address.  Friends, allow me to play most all my cards on the table…  when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ran for president in 2008, there was much about him and his charisma that excited me.  He was/is no doubt brilliant and incredibly gifted. Privately, I admiringly called him “Barackstar.”  But the chief concern I expressed when he initially ran for office was his lack of economic experience.

 

In all honesty, I care less about the party a person hails from than their background and experience.  The fact that then Sen. Obama had little economic experience concerned me greatly.  I desire a president who is first and foremost ethically above question — and then has proven experience working with diverse people groups and running a multi-million/billion dollar state/operation.  The U.S. economy is a 16 plus trillion dollar operation; it’s important to me that our leader has some experience with such.  Pres. Obama, oratorically attractive as he was, did not have such experience.

 

Economists can gather and respectfully debate how such has affected his policy advocacy thus far.  That is not the point of today’s blog.  The point is that in 2 days, on Tuesday, Pres. Obama is going to stress “income equality.”  In his annual State of the Union address, he is going to make the point for all the world to see (or at least for the United States) that wealth among American households is unequally distributed — and that the federal government has the responsibility to redistribute that wealth, in a way for all intents and purposes, that’s arguably fairer to all.

 

Great.  That makes many of us feel good.  Here’s my question:  feel good or not, does it make economic sense?

 

Please hear me on this.  Feeling good about a specific policy means less than whether or not the policy makes sense.  Say what you want.  Say what you want to energize the people.  But if the policy does not make sense, it matters not how we feel.  If the policy is not economically logical, then the policy should not be advocated for — and cannot be economically sustained.

 

This is not a criticism of Pres. Obama.  He is a fantastic politician who is oratorically gifted, but again, he has little economic experience.  Liking the President, wanting to support him and his policy initiatives, speaks nothing to the credence of whether or not his initiatives are economically sustainable, good, and true.

 

Hence, it doesn’t matter how we feel.  Economically, we cannot extract wealth from the wealthy, redistribute to the un-wealthy, and then make the un-wealthy somehow prosperous.  It does not make economic sense.

 

Such then prompts me to investigate the President’s motives.  I do not know what his motives are.  I will say that again:  I don’t know — we don’t know — none of us truly know — what the President’s motives are.  But I do know that with Obamacare escalating in unpopularity, there is motive to remove the national focus off of that subject.  Let’s get the focus onto something more popular… something the people can support… income equality… yes… it’s unfair!  Let’s distribute wealth more fairly!

 

Great emotional argument, my friends.  The wiser challenge is whether it makes sense.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

equality

images

So perhaps my cranky self continues somewhat…  I will attempt to reflect more — rant less.  It’s just my opinion — semi-humble at that — but my sense is that while rants prompt more affirmation and amens, honest reflection spurs on dialogue and thus solution.  I’m afraid such may be why our elect often choose the ranting, as they are not always interested in dialogue; they too frequently seem only desiring to drive home the opinion they have privately and partisanly determined to be true.  The Intramuralist doesn’t have a lot of respect for that approach.

 

One area where this (yes, semi-humble) observer sees a ratcheting up in the rants is the issue of equality.  Follow me here.  We discussed this briefly in December, but with a need to divert the focus off of the current contempt for Obamacare, there is intent to find an issue that more soundly resonates with a plurality of voters.  There is need for the affirmation and amens.

 

And so we come to the word “equality.”  Great word!  As shared here previously, in recent decades, we’ve been attracted to ERA, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act.  The latest push (and the push which the Intramuralist believes to be ranted about even more in the months to come) is “income equality”… a fantastic idea!  Income equality is the proposed more even distribution of wealth among households in our economy.  Currently, the distribution is significantly uneven.  Some people have far more or less than others.  Isn’t it right for things to be equal?  Isn’t it fair?

 

Or wait… it’s not that all things have to be exactly equal, but certainly it should be closer.   Surely the gap between the rich and the poor is too much, and the rich among us could give away a little more.  It’s an easy argument.  Hence, it’s a fantastic idea.  Really.  But casting all emotion aside, we must recognize that it’s also a political ploy.  Bear with me, friends, for it’s a rant.

 

All men/women were created equal.  Truth.  We were each divinely endowed with certain unalienable rights.  Also true.  But let’s additionally acknowledge what is not true.  It’s not true that all men/women are as hard-working.  It’s not true that all men/women are as ambitious or entrepreneurial or are blessed with the same talents and gifts.  Don’t mistake me as being calloused.  I am not.  Without a doubt, many obtain their wealth via little effort of their own, as we are each born into certain circumstances.  Different circumstances come with different challenges.  And to those who have been given much, much is to be expected.  So again, in my only semi-humble opinion, a generous, philanthropic heart is at the top of the list of expectations for the wealthy.

 

So this fantastic idea… is it income equality?  Not from this perspective.  The fairness phrasing does not consider the entirety of the truths.  The fantastic idea here is to associate income with equality… to associate marriage with equality… to associate employment with equality.  You see my point.  Friends, I say such as one not suggesting that any of the above is unwise.  My point is simply that utilizing the words “fairness” and “equality” is an intentional tactic designed to persuade.  Who among us would not desire to be equal or fair?

 

“Equality” is a rhetorical term utilized to generate the affirmation and amens — not a word that prompts dialogue nor solution.  It’s actually a conversation killer, as there exists a strong inference within the word “equality” that those who do not support the issue do not believe all men/women were created equal… that our opponent somehow, actually, foolishly embraces discrimination.  Thus, audiences are emotionally moved, feeling now justified to join in the rant… as opposed to recognizing the inference is categorically unfounded.

 

A person can oppose an equality issue without being prejudiced or discriminatory.  On this supposed new push for “income equality,” for example, there are many economists who will openly opine that it’s impossible to “legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out.”

 

I’m done ranting, my friends.  The logical reflection will continue, no less… hopefully for us all.

 

Respectfully,

AR