Why not Obama
Barack Obama, I'm pretty-well convinced, has already won the election. I frankly can understand why the average American would be inclined to vote for him; George Bush has been a spectacularly miserable president. I know he truly believes he's doing what's best for America, but he's simply so stupid that I don't think he can comprehend just how much damage he's done. The average American is smart enough to see that, and this explains the support for Obama.
Here's my problem with Obama: I don't think the rich should have to pay more taxes to support the poor. And before you blow that off, consider why I might think that way. It's not as greedy as you might think.
I understand that most people think of the rich as undeserving jerks, CEOs on wallstreet with golden parachutes being paid hundreds of millions for running their companies into the ground, oil company executives, software tycoons. They're not the kind of people it's popular to protect; it seems much better to protect those with less, to take the ill-gotten gains and redistribute them to people who deserve it more.
But here's the thing. I'm the son of a multi-millionaire who was born to a lower-middle class family in the fifties. Since before I was born, he's worked literally seven days a week as a physician, starting work--and I am NOT exaggerating--at 4:30 AM and often not getting home until 6:00 or 7:00 PM on weekdays, and taking most of the daylight hours in an average weekend to dictate charts and call patients with followup information. He only recently cut back his hours, and that's only because he's over 50 years old now--now he only works 15-hour-days four days out of the week.
He never earns a cent for work he doesn't do. He is no Fortune 500 CEO. He has worked, and still works, incredibly hard for what he has. He is among the "working wealthy," and I bristle at the suggestion that he doesn't deserve what he's earned.
Now I'm going to med school. I've worked hard all my life for this, and I'm not going to stop once I've got the letters "M.D." after my name. I will work much harder than it takes just to be successful. Barack Obama wants to take more of what I intend to make by working hard so that he can give it to people who don't work as hard in as demanding field as I do. I'm not going to get any trust fund from my parents--I'm expected to work to make my fortune, and I will. I intend to work hard, and I intend to be rewarded in proportion to my efforts. So why should I be rewarded less so someone else can be rewarded more?
It's fundamentally wrong. I compromise endlessly on the need for public programs--of course we need taxes for roads and libraries and schools, and of course it's tremendously complicated and some public programs do indeed need more funding. Yes, taxes have their merits. But I am insulted when Barack Obama proposes that Joe the Plumber, a man who has spent his entire life devoted to his craft and now wants only to be rewarded for getting more involved in it still, should be forced to pay more so the government can, and I quote Barack Obama, "spread the wealth around."
And to quote the same Joe the Plumber from Wednesday night's debate, "redistributing the wealth, as far as my hard work, that upsets me. That's not fair, that's not American."
I am just as insulted when Barack Obama tells me that when I'm making more for a demanding job where every day, if I screw up, I stand to kill people, I should be forced to give up more money simply because I'm doing a good job. Yes, many of the working wealthy could live reasonably comfortably if they were forced to pay a bit more--ignoring the implications for small company growth and capital development. But to punish someone for being good at what they do is simply wrong.
I'm already good at what I do, and I intend to get much, much better. All I'm asking is that once I'm working hard in a demanding line of work that not many people can do, I be able to keep most of what I earn and not have more taken from me because I work more. I don't deserve to be punished for that. Do I?
Here's my problem with Obama: I don't think the rich should have to pay more taxes to support the poor. And before you blow that off, consider why I might think that way. It's not as greedy as you might think.
I understand that most people think of the rich as undeserving jerks, CEOs on wallstreet with golden parachutes being paid hundreds of millions for running their companies into the ground, oil company executives, software tycoons. They're not the kind of people it's popular to protect; it seems much better to protect those with less, to take the ill-gotten gains and redistribute them to people who deserve it more.
But here's the thing. I'm the son of a multi-millionaire who was born to a lower-middle class family in the fifties. Since before I was born, he's worked literally seven days a week as a physician, starting work--and I am NOT exaggerating--at 4:30 AM and often not getting home until 6:00 or 7:00 PM on weekdays, and taking most of the daylight hours in an average weekend to dictate charts and call patients with followup information. He only recently cut back his hours, and that's only because he's over 50 years old now--now he only works 15-hour-days four days out of the week.
He never earns a cent for work he doesn't do. He is no Fortune 500 CEO. He has worked, and still works, incredibly hard for what he has. He is among the "working wealthy," and I bristle at the suggestion that he doesn't deserve what he's earned.
Now I'm going to med school. I've worked hard all my life for this, and I'm not going to stop once I've got the letters "M.D." after my name. I will work much harder than it takes just to be successful. Barack Obama wants to take more of what I intend to make by working hard so that he can give it to people who don't work as hard in as demanding field as I do. I'm not going to get any trust fund from my parents--I'm expected to work to make my fortune, and I will. I intend to work hard, and I intend to be rewarded in proportion to my efforts. So why should I be rewarded less so someone else can be rewarded more?
It's fundamentally wrong. I compromise endlessly on the need for public programs--of course we need taxes for roads and libraries and schools, and of course it's tremendously complicated and some public programs do indeed need more funding. Yes, taxes have their merits. But I am insulted when Barack Obama proposes that Joe the Plumber, a man who has spent his entire life devoted to his craft and now wants only to be rewarded for getting more involved in it still, should be forced to pay more so the government can, and I quote Barack Obama, "spread the wealth around."
And to quote the same Joe the Plumber from Wednesday night's debate, "redistributing the wealth, as far as my hard work, that upsets me. That's not fair, that's not American."
I am just as insulted when Barack Obama tells me that when I'm making more for a demanding job where every day, if I screw up, I stand to kill people, I should be forced to give up more money simply because I'm doing a good job. Yes, many of the working wealthy could live reasonably comfortably if they were forced to pay a bit more--ignoring the implications for small company growth and capital development. But to punish someone for being good at what they do is simply wrong.
I'm already good at what I do, and I intend to get much, much better. All I'm asking is that once I'm working hard in a demanding line of work that not many people can do, I be able to keep most of what I earn and not have more taken from me because I work more. I don't deserve to be punished for that. Do I?