But there is some weird kind of leftist alignment all of a sudden, with the freaky radicals whining about how horrible the income gap has become recently.
See, for example:
* Huffington Post, "Income Gap Between Rich and Poor Is Highest in Decades, Data Show."And just in, at Crooks and Liars, "The Rich Got Rich And The Poor Got Poorer. But Ain't We Got Fun?" (At Memeorandum.)
* Robert Reich, "We're in a Recession Because the Rich Are Raking in an Absurd Portion of Wealth."
And I'll be honest here: I've always been a bit bothered by extremes in incomes and wealth, especially since I have spent a great deal of time around the very poor. But those concerns simply do not translate into the economic "solutions" that radical leftists propose, which is always wealth transfers from rich to poor by way of "tax fairness" and the expansion of social welfare entitlements as far as the eye can see. (And this more than anything is strangling our economy.)
A couple of days ago Darleen Click had an essay entitled, "The road to hell is cheerily paved ... by people like Matt Yglesias." Darleen points readers to an essay by Yglesias at The Nation, "A Great Time to Be Alive?" And rather than quote it, just be sure to read the whole thing (a classic statement of the collectivist/redistributionist policies of today's Democratic-Socialist establishment in the Age of Aquarius/Obama.) Darleen certainly picks up on the Aquarian vibes:
I hesitate to label Yglesias as evil, but he is much too intelligent to ignore the long history of failure of the anti-liberty, collectivist systems he is advocating. As with many Leftists, he is stuck in a kind of utopian loop believing that just once more, this time for sure! he and his like-minded brethren can drag humanity into an era of harmony where people will remain happily productive even as they give up any moral claim to their own labor and talents.It's a classic, and I can't resist including this line:
Civilization begins with the realization that if an individual is sovereign, the basic commandments against murder and theft must also be accompanied by the commandment against coveting.I'm also less hesitant to describe such collectivism --- by Yglesias or any of the others --- as evil. We know where collectivization leads, and we know that evil resides in the hearts of those who are ingracious and covetous, so I guess readers can make the implications as to where I'm headed ...
In any case, two more things: One is Doug Ross's awesome entry, "The Towering Financial Acumen of the Left -- Spittled-laced Balloon Juice insists Rich Must Get Poorer to Make Things Gooder."
And I'll close with something from the Daily Kos Kommissars that ties it all together. See, "WaPo: Don't Tax the Rich!":
Here is the supposed "liberal" Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus in today's edition:
I'm all for a more progressive tax code. But consider: The Tax Policy Center examined what it would take to avoid raising taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year while reducing the deficit to 3 percent of the economy by decade's end. The top two rates would have to rise to 72.4 and 76.8 percent, more than double the current level. You don't have to be anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist to think this would be insane.
Why is this insane? In the 1950's, a time of prosperity, the top rate was 90%. Were Eisenhower and Nixon insane? No Ms. Marcus, you do have to be a Grover Norquist to find 70+ rates insane. There is nothing insane about it at all. The government needs money. Rich people have plenty of it. Why rob banks? Because that's where the money is. This isn't insanity. In fact, it's sanity.
Not only does the government need the money, the collectivists will rob you to get it!
They need the money!