Socialism discourages charity

Michael Medved just wrote an article that was e-mailed by Beyond the News. I am quoting his article from the mail below. His article speaks directly to one of my beliefs about taxation, charity, and the left. I have long held that socialism, and government programs for the poor actually depresses charity. Why give to anyone if the government is going to tax you heavily and redistribute your wealth to all the individuals and causes the governmnet sees fit? I posit that if we are allowed to keep our own earnings, we will end up giving more in charity than the government currently takes from us.

Medved's article:

A Massachusetts group called The Catalogue for Philanthropy just released its 2005 "Generosity Index"--comparing each state's ability to give (in terms of average adjusted gross income) with the percentage of taxpayers who actually report charitable donations. The results reveal a stunning political pattern: all 25 of the most generous states are red states that gave their electoral support to President Bush.But of the bottom 12--the stingiest states of them all in terms of charity--11 of 12 are blue states that backed John Kerry--with Massachusetts itself second to the bottom.The reason GOP states are so much more generous is both obvious and profound: conservatives view compassion as a personal responsibility, but liberals tend to see it as the government's job. One approach leads to individual commitment, while the other encourages the belief you can best help others by leaving it up to tax collectors and bureaucrats.



Medved's citation of the report is very telling. I'd wager that those red/Republican states have lower tax rates and less regulation, thereby giving the citizens more money to spend. I'd also wager that those State governments have fewer social programs and less wealth redistribution. If this is the case, I'd argue that the lack of forced State charity returns incentives to the default: a greater outpouring of the heart. One can then argue that government regulation and taxation hardens citizens' hearts, makes them more cynical.

Once again, the report Medved cites shows the government creates a floor for human behavior rather than encouraging man to reach his potential.

So, leftists, put your money where you mouth is. If you desire the greatest wealth redistribution, the strongest safety-net for the poor, LOWER taxation, END regulation, and END social programs. At least TRY this approach for a little while and see if your goals are not met.

Kyl's immigration ideas not terrible

m2powered had a post criticizing Senator Jon Kyl's interview w/ the Arizona Daily Star.

My trouble with Kyl's immigration bill? This idea of circularity. I sincerely doubt that the majority of illegals want to go back home. I believe they come here to work.

I have no trouble with individuals migrating here and working. In fact, I LOVE the fact that they work under the table. I LOVE to see the minimum wage and labor laws ignored. In fact, I have no trouble with those workers having drivers' licenses or their children born on US soil being citizens.

What I DO have trouble with is not knowing WHO is coming into our country. I'd like to know if each individual is a security risk or they have a criminal background. The U.S. has an OBLIGATION to protect itself from security risks. Additionally, I DO have a problem with illegals using government services paid for by OUR tax dollars. In Arizona, thanks to lame federal MTALA laws, the costs illegals impose on our hospitals are shutting them down. We simply can't afford to keep them open.

The one thing that Kyl's bill seems to do that is an AWESOME thing is that the feds are FINALLY releasing plenary controll of immigration law. Kyl's bill will allow local law enforcement officers to DEPORT illegals. That's not Kyl making an ass of himself, it's showing wisdom. The feds have done an ATROCIOUS job at enforcement. Allowing locals to shoulder some of the burden is GOOD.

So, as long as we can force those coming to the U.S. to submit to background checks, and they are denied public services, I say allow them to flow into the country as they desire. If you read the Pew Hispanic Foundation's report on immigration, the flow of immigrants is directly tied to the strength of our economy. In good times, we'll have more immigrants. In bad times we'll have fewer. We shouldn't worry much about the flow of immigrats...the economy will take care of that. What we need to worry about is if they pose a security threat, and we need to eliminate their costs in terms of public services.

SImple economics & drug prices

There's a lot in the blogosphere that's got my blood running this morning. One was a report on Arizona Congress Watch. I was thinking that I post too often on everyone else's blog and not enough on my own...so, I'm going to start posting my replies here too. I posted the following in response to the ACW entry:

Jim Pedersen is the world’s fattest and ugliest raging idiot. He LIKES the fact that the State is suing over high drug prices? OK, let’s do a little simple economics for you socialists who have no clue. PROFIT is the incentive behind EVERYTHING. If you take the profit out of something, the incentive to do it goes away. So, if you want pills to cure your ills, you need to PAY for what you want so that others will have an INCENTIVE to provide for your needs. So, if you take the profit motive out of the creation of new drugs…you won’t have any. This lawsuit will do nothing but stagnate the pharmaceutical industry.

If you draw a simple supply and demand chart, if you artificially depress the price with litigation and the like, you’re going to depress the supply as well. Why? Because you’re trying to force companies to produce things for less than they’re willing to make things for. They simply don’t want to work for those wages. Sound familiar to you socialistic union types?

Look, profit and loss can only happen when the market is off equillibrium. At the mythical market equillibrium, producers break even. When a market is flooded, prices for goods are low and companies take a loss. Conversely, if there are not enough goods in a market, prices are going to be high because demand is high. THAT is where all the profit is made.

So, if the price of drugs is high, it’s because there are too few drugs on the market and there are not enough manufacturers in the market. If you want to encourage more drugs to be made, or if you want more manufacturers to make drugs, you HAVE to allow prices to be high.

If you do not understand this, you are hopeless, and you are doomed to think socialism and communism are great economic theories. Pedersen is one of the ones who have no clue.

Wanna know what else will help bring down the costs of drugs? Reducing regulation and halting litigation. Who do you think pays ALL a company’s expenses? The CONSUMERS. Regulation and litigation only drives up the cost of drugs to CONSUMERS. So, by suing the pharmaceutical companies at every time you get a hangnail, and by being blithely pro-government, you are increasing the price of drugs. Who do you hurt the most by regulating and litigating? The poor.

WAY TO GO, ROB HANEY!!

McCain has recently been censured thrice by Arizona political organizations for various reasons including his support of Democrat candidates, his opposition to the Protect Arizona Now ballot initiative, his McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, his McCain-Kennedy immigration legislation, and his abyssmal voting record in the US Senate. First, the conservative Arizona Republican Assembly censured McCain UNANIMOUSLY. Later, Arizona Legislative District 11 censured McCain. The censure movement in District 11 was lead by my good friend Rob Haney, the district's chairman. Rob then later took the fight to the Maricopa County Republican Party Executive Guidance Committee, and the EGC made a statement of dissatisfaction with McCain.

At this point, Congressman John Shadegg disappointed me by phoning Rob to express his displeasure with Rob's actions. So true to his nature, Rob Haney refused to be cowed! I LOVE this man! If every American had a fraction of Rob Haney's backbone, this country would never have to fear being defeated.

Apparently, Arizona Republican Party Chairman Matt Salmon then pressured the districts not to speak out against McCain. Once again, Rob Haney marched into the breach brandishing his firebrand, taking no prisoners. Rob Haney, in an open letter, exposed the flaws in Salmon's and Shadegg's arguments.

I'd like to say that those who have listed grievances with McCain have not been exhaustive in their listings. Have we not forgotten that McCain is anti-Second Amendment in his attempts to "close the gun show loophole" in background checks when buying firearms at gun shows. Let's not forget the reason WHY McCain is anti-First Amendment in his campaign finance reform agenda: HE GOT CAUGHT in the Keating 5 scandal!

Rob Haney is doing EXACTLY what EVERY political activist should do. He's confronting politicians who do not vote his way, and when they do not comply with his wishes, he's mobilizing people against them. Rob may lose, but he's FIGHTING. And if I know Rob at all, he'll continue to fight, year after year, until he wins. This is exactly how every political activist should operate: with the knowledge that you’re going to be hit hard, but that you’re going to try to hit harder; and if you lose today, you’ll be back to fight in the next contest.

Salmon has said that if the conservatives don't back down, McCain will support Janet Napolitano in her re-election bid, will fight against the Protect Marriage Arizona ballot initiative, and may harm Jon Kyl’s re-election bid. Rob Haney was EXACTLY RIGHT in telling Salmon that those actions would further cast McCain as the RINO they know McCain to be. In fact, if McCain DOES attempt to help Jim Pedersen’s bid to unseat one of the most conservative Senators, McCain will have exposed himself beyond redemption. The more McCain publicly sides against the base of his own party, the more he erodes his votes. Let McCain slit his own throat. The electorate should never be held hostage to anything but its own conscience. The mere fact that McCain is threatening to strike back shows the pressure is WORKING! If anything, the conservatives need to TIGHTEN the thumbscrews.

Rob Haney is an American political hero. America needs legions more of him. I hope that the rest of Arizona’s Republican Legislative District Committees vote not to support McCain for president as well. Perhaps, the conservatives can dash McCain’s hopes to become President again and possibly defeat McCain the next time around, even if we have four more years of Janet Napolitano, have no ban on those who are light-in-the-loafers from marrying. Just about the only consequence that I can see that will REALLY hurt is losing Jon Kyl in the Senate. But you know what, if Kyl loses, shame on us for not supporting him, and we’ll just find someone else conservative to beat the snot out of Pedersen. What will matter most is that either McCain is not President or McCain is no longer a senator.