The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Kill the Rich!

Posted on | November 14, 2010 | 17 Comments

Frank Rich, I mean. Three weeks ago, I spent an hour or so debunking his claim that Obama cut your taxes. Being quite proud of the result, I immediately e-mailed it to Instapundit and . . . no linky-love.

So after about four or five hours, I e-mailed him again: “I don’t get it. Here we have Frank Rich using his New York Times column to push a bogus Democratic Party talking-point a week before the election, and I’ve expended the time and effort to dismantle it, and no linky-love? What gives?”

The answer came in the subsequent link:

“PICKING ON FRANK RICH IS SO EASY IT’S HARDLY WORTH IT, but some people enjoy the practice.”

Well, the election is over and Americans evidently weren’t swayed by that idiotic Obama-cut-your-taxes propaganda, so I suppose Professor Reynolds is right: Frank Rich can be ignored as harmless.

It is nevertheless enjoyable practice to dismantle the endless idiocy of the Worst Columnist in America the World All Human History.

Today, for example, Rich denounces those “wealthy Americans . . . who take far more from America than they give back.”

Rich’s editors permit him to go on in this vein for 1,538 words in a column that involves no original reporting. He interviewed no one. He didn’t pick up the phone and call any sources, nor did this column require him to set foot outside his apartment. He watches “60 Minutes,” reads Think Progress and throws in some “empirical evidence” from a “deservedly lauded new book” by two political science professors.

What is the journalistic purpose of such an effort? Where is the value to the New York Times?

One possible answer: Rich articulates the inner rationale by which the newspaper’s liberal readership justify their political prejudices. He lends his Harvard-educated eloquence to these prejudices, providing his readers with reassurance that they’re absolutely right and that anyone who disagrees with them is hopelessly ignorant.

“Obviously, these Republican voters are so stupid they don’t even read the New York Times!”

To spare you the effort of actually reading Frank Rich’s column, permit me to extract the most important words in it:

“very wealthy Americans . . . rich people . . . The wealthy Americans . . . those individuals at the apex of the economic pyramid — the superrich . . . The top 1 percent of American earners . . . the very top earners . . . the wealthiest . . . the wealthiest Americans . . . plutocracy . . . the top 1 percent of Americans . . . the very rich . . . the superrich . . . the top earners . . . Those in the higher reaches . . . the wealthiest Americans . . . the superrich”

The liberals whose prejudices Frank Rich intends to flatter are evidently obsessed with “the wealthiest Americans” and fervently believe that the biggest problem facing the nation is that these “superrich” don’t pay enough taxes.

Also, blame Bush!

The entire point of Rich’s 1,538-word opus, you see, is that the “Bush tax cuts” should be allowed to expire, at least on some category of “the very top earners” who — as he says — “take more from America than they give back.”

Clever reader, did you spot the bait-and-switch there?

Leave aside the question of whether it is fair to say that “those individuals at the apex of the economic pyramid” are engaged in taking from America. To whom does Frank Rich propose that they “give back” this allegedly ill-gotten wealth?

To the U.S. government!

This is one of those Stupid Liberal Tricks that the rest of us aren’t supposed to be smart enough to notice. Liberals do this stuff all the time. They love to use terms like “society” or “the American people” when in fact they mean “the federal government,” and they evidently don’t understand why this verbal prestidigitation is misleading.

Saying that “society must take action” to solve some problem — homelessness, pollution, childhood obesity, etc. — is a very different thing than saying, “Hey, let’s pass a federal law empowering a bunch of bureaucrats to go poking their noses into your personal business at taxpayer expense.”

This is an argument about ends and means.

Take childhood obesity, for example. You probably agree that it’s a bad thing for kids to be fat and you may take alarm at studies showing that American kids are turning into Generation Blubberbutt.

The real argument over childhood obesity, however, is about what government policy (if any) should be employed to discourage it. Perhaps we could mandate that elementary schools adopt a mandatory anti-obesity curriculum that includes a new textbook: Hey, Lardass: Stop Sitting on the Sofa Playing Video Games and Eating Junk Food All Day (and Don’t Try to Tell Me It’s Hereditary, Unless You Want Me to Start Cracking Fat Jokes About Your Mama).

Ditto the problem of the “supperrich.”

It may well be, as Frank Rich says, that there is something harmful in the accumulation of multibillion-dollar fortunes by Warren Buffett or Bill Gates or whoever else he deems “the wealthiest Americans.” You may wholeheartedly share Rich’s apparent loathing of “plutocracy” and yet disagree with his assertion that the way to deal “the systemic damage being done by the ever-growing income inequality” is to increase marginal tax rates on greedy scoundrels.

Simple question: What is the purpose of taxation?

Simple answer: To provide revenue to the government.

Difficult question: How much more revenue would be provided to the federal government if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire for the “superrich”?

Difficult answer: We don’t know.

Economists might be able to estimate the additional revenue to be gained by some hypothetical change in the tax code, but they cannot predict those gains.

People may (and demonstrably do) change their economic behavior in reaction to changes in the tax code, and one of the most predictable behavioral changes is this: Rich people will get their accountants and tax lawyers to find some way to avoid paying extra taxes, no matter what policy you enact.

The tax-avoidance industry would therefore be the one guaranteed winner if Frank Rich’s argument prevails.

Do I hate accountants and lawyers? Is my support for extending the Bush tax cuts merely the product of a pervese desire to punish these people? Not at all.

Rather, it is my belief that the ”superrich” can spend or invest or give away their own money a lot more wisely and productively than can the federal government.

Of all the problems in the world that we should be worried about — including lardass kids and their fat mamas — the very last problem we should be worried about is whether the federal government is collecting enough tax revenue.

The federal government collects way too much money already, and anything that keeps another nickel out of the hands of those vultures at the IRS is fine with me. If Ted Turner cashed in his entire fortune, converted it all to Krugerrands and smuggled it to the hills of Cambodia where he would then live out his twilight years protected by a private army of hired goons, I’d applaud his act of criminal madness, insofar as it would deprive the federal government of revenue.

And it would sure as hell be better than Ted giving his money to the United Nations.

How the hell did I get off on that sidetrack? I started off arguing the simple premise that Frank Rich is an idiot and next thing I knew, I was envisioning Ted Turner hiding out in the Cambodian hills . . .

Well, it was enjoyable practice, anyway, and a helluva lot more fun than whatever else I might have done with that time.

Instapundit probably won’t link this, of course. But that’s not the point. And you’re probably saying to yourself, “The point? You mean there’s actually a point to this lunatic gibberish?”

Yes, there is. 

Hit the tip jar.

Otherwise, I’ll start cracking fat jokes about your mama, lardass.

Bookmark and Share
Category: Economics, New York Times, Taxes

Comments

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

    I don’t think Rich is harmless. Another forum I frequent, which isn’t related to anything you’ve ever written about, has an occasional eruption of political discussion, and Rich’s opinion emerges pretty frequently under the guise of fact.

  • http://24Ahead.com 24AheadDotCom

    Rather, it is my belief that the ”superrich” can spend or invest or give away their own money a lot more wisely and productively than can the federal government.

    And, in many cases, that consists of moving their money offshore. For instance, as I asked you on twitter and didn’t get a response, let’s say a billionaire can buy a $210 million U.S. yacht or an equivalent $200 million Somalian yacht. Which should he do? Which will he do? Which should be be shamed into doing?

  • Anonymous

    I asked you on twitter and didn’t get a response

    When did you ask that? My apologies for not responding. No offense intended. Sometimes I get into doing one thing or another and don’t notice things I probably should be paying attention to.

    The problem, I think, is that I’m easily distracted and would never get anything done at all if my brain didn’t automatically filter out a lot of stimuli. You can ask my wife about this. She’ll be talking to me and I’ll just zone out — drifting off to some thought that crosses my mind — so that I don’t even hear what she’s telling me.

    It’s weird, and I don’t know how to explain it. For example, if I’m trying to write something, I can tune out all kinds of noise, but just don’t ask me a question. Also if I’m writing, I cuss like hell every time the phone rings.

    So, anyway, that’s how I am when I’m trying to concentrate on something.

    As to your question: The billionaire should buy the $200 million Somali yacht and then hit my tip jar for $10 million. At which point, I’ll quit blogging and spend the rest of my life sitting on my sofa, playing video games and getting so fat your mama will be cracking jokes on me.

  • jefferson101

    Exit question:

    Does this mean that we (the Right-Wing) can confiscate all of George Soros’ money? and Teresa Kerry’s?

    How about the Tides Foundation? And so on and so on?

    If they want to start it, I’m perfectly willing to play the game with them for a while that way.

  • http://twitter.com/darleenclick darleenclick

    What? A death threat in your headline? Sir, be aware that certain Officers of Teh Court are monitoring you!!!!

    Ok, seriously now, let’s get back to this “get’s more than they give” crappola. Would someone duct-tape Rich to a wall until he explains himself? Unless, say, Bill Gates was running around with a gun and holding up banks, liquor stores, grandma leaving the Post Office with her Social Security Check, I’m not seeing how he has been “taking” more than giving. How many hundreds of thousands of jobs would be gone if some time machine went back and made sure Gates was never born?

    I keep hearing variations of Rich’s obtuse bigotry against success and talent all the time, I just want ONCE to be able to make these idiots stand up and defend their position.

  • JeffS

    When Frank Rich works for coffee, doughnuts, and the occasional teaser of the front page of the NYT, I’ll take his whinges about wealthy Americans who “take” more than they “give back”.

    And you’re spot on about taxes not being any sort of “give back”. If they were, I’d be expecting my annual check from Bill Gates — Zeus knows I’ve pumped a whole of cash into his back pocket.

  • Anonymous

    Why are the purchasing habits of your fellow Americans any damned business of yours?

    Mind your own!

  • http://24Ahead.com 24AheadDotCom

    The main reasons people believe in libertarianism are a) they’re paid off, and b) they just aren’t that smart. Randy_Rager has the last one covered.

    What very rich people do is of national concern, it affects all of us. Only if they renounce their U.S. citizenship, move to Somalia, and do nothing that has an impact on U.S. citizens would what they do cease to be a concern. When you understand that, get back in touch.

  • http://24Ahead.com 24AheadDotCom

    The main reasons people believe in libertarianism are a) they’re paid off, and b) they just aren’t that smart. Randy_Rager has the last one covered.

    What very rich people do is of national concern, it affects all of us. Only if they renounce their U.S. citizenship, move to Somalia, and do nothing that has an impact on U.S. citizens would what they do cease to be a concern. When you understand that, get back in touch.

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

    What in the hell is Frank Rich supposed to know about anything anyway. He doesn’t have to swim through reams and reams of regulations. He should stick to reviewing books or movies or plays or whatever, not that I would particularly care to follow his advice there either.

  • Pingback: Some of the headlines you may have missed… « Cubachi

  • Anonymous

    Bullshit.

    Until you’re ready to lead the way by allowing public scrutiny of your every economic transaction you’re nothing more than a garden variety hypocrite. Until that happens, kindly shut your fucking cumcatcher on the subject.

    And if you can’t tell the difference between a libertarian and an Independent even when the Independent has stated their Independence from all political movements multiple times as I have, then you’re not smart enough to be on my internet.

    Go home and cry, slow child!

  • Pingback: Soaking the Rich « Ric's Rulez

  • http://24Ahead.com 24AheadDotCom

    I’m not surprised that my comment was “flagged for review”; it’s below in case anyone wants to see the SHOCKING comment that those here don’t want you to see.

    And, it’s not surprising that Randy_Rager would spout libertarian talking points without knowing it.

    And, of course, it’s not surprising that Randy_Rager would respond in the vile teaparty way because that’s all they know how to do. Teapartiers not only aren’t capable of making an argument, they wouldn’t be willing to make an argument even if they were intellectually capable of it.

    Here’s the comment McCain’s visitors don’t want you to see:

    The main reasons people believe in libertarianism are a) they’re paid off, and b) they just aren’t that smart. Randy_Rager has the last one covered.

    What very rich people do is of national concern, it affects all of us. Only if they renounce their U.S. citizenship, move to Somalia, and do nothing that has an impact on U.S. citizens would what they do cease to be a concern. When you understand that, get back in touch.

  • Anonymous

    If you think that was vile you’re a bigger pussy than I thought.

    I didn’t even think that was possible.

    Crawl back in your cave, loser. You’re not hijacking the conservative movement or any other. You’re a fuckwit from the word go, the word is out and nobody wants you around. You’ve been kicked out of every reputable comment section on the Internet, and it’s only a matter of time before the commenters here flag you often enough to get your dumb ass banned.

  • http://24Ahead.com 24AheadDotCom

    Seriously, what mental anguish causes teapartiers to be so vile? Is it nature (those with a certain vile predisposition flock to the teaparties as an outlet for sociopathy) or nurture (have they been trained)?

    Regarding me being banned, it’s true: a lot of borderline fascists who have little or no ability to counter any of my arguments have deleted my comments or banned me. The problem isn’t with the comments, it’s with the bloggers: unlike me, they aren’t interested in open debate because they know they’d lose.

    You can find a list of those who’ve shown their lil fascist side here, with the comments in question:

    24ahead.com/s/deleted-comments

    For instance, way back in 2003, I got banned from Kos’ site when it was still a solo blog. The reason? Because I pointed out that he’d got the attribution of a photo wrong. Those who ban me or delete my comments are a mix of left and right, but they share one thing in common: they’re strict authoritarians who are incapable of making valid arguments.

  • Ellenfrenkel

    Mr.Rich,I do hope that enough people have read your Nov.21,10 column.I am a HOLOCOST SURVIVOR and I can see the PALINS falling into the same form as the foundation that made HITLER a leader He was just a painter and PALIN is just a fisherman.Mrs.E.A.Frenkel

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE