Mountain Views News          Saturday, October 9, 2010

11

LEFT/RIGHT

Mountain Views News Saturday, October 9, 2010

Is Wealth Acquired Or Created?

GREG Welborn

HOWARD Hays 

As I See It


Congress has adjourned in order to campaign for their 
jobs without addressing what has come to be known as 
the economic “doomsday clock”. This surprised many 
observers who were overwhelmingly convinced that 
politicians wouldn’t dare leave D.C. without at least 
postponing the great tax increase (the doomsday) that 
awaits all of us on January 1st, 2011 when the current 
tax rates will escalate to levels not seen since the early 
1990s. Everyone of us will see our taxes rise if this 
doomsday plays out. What at first seemed inexplicable 
has recently been made clear by no less a liberal-great 
than Paul Krugman who told us all why liberals were 
willing to gamble with the country’s economic future.

Interestingly, most liberals do not see this as an 
economic issue. They see this as a philosophical issue, 
and they simply can’t believe that how they see the 
world is in any way different than how the world really 
works. First of all, Paul Krugman is not an uneducated 
man or a simpleton by any stretch of the imagination. 
In fact, he’s very smart and very well educated, but he is 
also blinded by an ideology – a leftist mindset that sees 
the world in only a certain cosmic structure, dismissing 
any alternative view as apostasy. 

Krugman tipped his hand – and thus all of liberaldom 
– when he participated in a town hall type of forum and 
answered a question from the floor. A member of the 
audience asked him if the “rich” agreed to give away a 
substantial portion of their wealth above a certain level, 
was their in his opinion a top level, a limit, an amount, 
at which no more would be required of them?

Since Krugman is a trained economist, his first 
unscripted reaction was at least an acknowledgement 
that conservative economists have it right when they 
say that a 100% tax creates some pretty perverse 
incentives, but then he quickly returned to the mantra 
and took us all back to the glory days of Eisenhower 
when the top income tax rate was 91%. That, he said, 
was the preferred level, but not because it was somehow 
better for economic growth, but because it was just 
better socially.

He argued that for people who are tempted to try to 
“acquire that much wealth” perhaps a higher tax would 
convince them to not spend so much of their waking 
lives trying to acquire. After all, he said, it’s not as if the 
wealthy do that much good for society. What’s so sad is 
that this prominent and almost universal liberal belief 
demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of where 
wealth comes from and what the wealthy really do for 
this country. 

Anyone who believes that wealth is “acquired” must 
necessarily believe that it just exists somewhere, and 
all that remains is to see who gets what portion of it. 
With such a belief, it really isn’t that much of a logical 
stretch to argue that the government – or some other 
body of decent citizens – should decide what the fair 
distribution of that wealth should look like. How much 
of the country’s wealth should the top 1% of American 
families own? Is it 90%, 75%, 50%, or should it just be 
proportional for everyone? If there are 300 million 
people in this country, then maybe each person should 
have just 1/300 millionth of the wealth.

The problem here is that no consideration whatsoever 
is being given to who creates the wealth. Let me throw 
out a wild idea. Perhaps wealth doesn’t just exist; 
perhaps it has to be created. If true (and it is true) 
then we should be very concerned with how our laws, 
regulations and taxes motivate people to create wealth. 
If no wealth is created, then there will be no wealth for 
any of us to enjoy.

As an example, let’s look at something as simple as the 
automobile. We all take it for granted today. But back 
at the time of its invention, it was a strange anomaly 
reserved for the super rich or tinkerer. Then along 
came Henry Ford. He discovered a way to produce 
automobiles cheaper than anyone else and make it 
affordable for the average American family at the time. 
Almost over night, because of his 
foresight and willingness to risk 
a lot of his money, Americans’ 
lives were made much easier. Our 
wealth increased because we were 
now able to move around faster 
and farther than before. You see, 
wealth is simply the goods and 
services that meet our needs. If I 
have to walk everywhere, and you 
give me a horse to use, you have 
increased my wealth. If you give 
me a car, I am even wealthier because I can now travel 
further and more easily.

Look at all the neat things we live with today: from 
the simple (the toaster-oven) to the more complex (the 
laptop). Each of these, and everything in between, 
comprise our wealth. Each one was invented, created, 
manufactured, distributed and sold by someone. They 
didn’t just exist somewhere waiting to be found in a cave 
by some intrepid explorer. It is this simple fact which 
explains why some countries (in Africa for example) 
with massive amounts of natural resources are dirt 
poor while others (Japan for example) with almost no 
natural resources are rich. Wealth must be created, and 
as a nation we had better be willing to motivate people 
to take the risk necessary to create it. If we don’t, then 
wealth creation will stop, and we will all be poorer.

While there are obviously people in our society 
who are enjoying wealth created by their parents or 
grandparents, the overwhelming majority of the rich 
are creators of wealth. They are the Henry Fords, Steve 
Jobs, Sam Waltons, and neighborhood tire distributors 
of our country. In short, they are typically people who 
saw a problem they could solve. They usually bucked 
the system and took on the entrenched economic 
powers of the day in order to make our lives better. 
They did this because they saw that if they were 
successful, they would be able to create an awful lot of 
wealth for themselves. Make no mistake, though, they 
had to create lots of wealth for the rest of us before they 
could get rich.

The wealthy must satisfy consumer needs or they don’t 
get rich. Whether the “consumer” is someone buying 
a vegetable at the supermarket or a company buying a 
widget, the wealthy have to have satisfied an unmet or 
under-served need. They must provide value in order 
to get value. But becoming wealthy is their motivating 
factor. Very few, if any, of us will risk the time, energy 
and capital necessary to do this if we don’t see how we 
make a profit doing it. This is the first way in which the 
wealthy have benefited our country. They make others 
wealthier first. 

The second way the wealthy benefit us is simply by 
trying to preserve or enjoy their wealth. If they throw 
lavish parties, please think about all the people – from 
caterers to musicians – who work and get paid to make 
that party a lavish, must-attend affair. On the other 
hand, even if the wealthy are penurious ogres who 
simply stick their money in a bank, the bank will in turn 
lend it out to some other up-and-coming entrepreneur 
who thinks he or she can solve some problem. Whether 
they spend or horde their money, the wealthy still make 
the rest of us better off.

So when someone like Paul Krugman, or Barney 
Frank, or even President Obama comes along with the 
belief that wealth is acquired, not created, and that the 
government needs to “spread it around” a little more, 
the only thing that you can know for sure is that there 
will be less wealth for all of us. Hence, our economy 
is in the tank. Hence, we have a doomsday clock 
counting down the days until January 1st, 2011, when 
the creative and productive among us will again be told 
that even more of what they create will be taken from 
them. Let’s not be surprised if they just stop creating 
wealth in the first place. 

 
It’s refreshing when a cliché 
is met with a simple, “Huh?” 
Long ago in the bygone days 
of Magic - and Worthy, and 
Rambis and Coop, Lakers coach 
Pat Riley was asked during a 
post-mortem interview after a 
truncated season if he felt his team had “peaked 
too soon”. Riley thought for a moment and 
responded, “What - you think we should have 
intentionally lost a few games earlier in the 
season?”

 

 I never much understood the concept of timed 
momentum in sports - other than if a marathon 
runner sprints at the beginning, he’ll have 
nothing left at the end. In politics, though, the 
timing of momentum can play a crucial role in 
the outcome.

 

 Over the Summer, pundits were wondering 
when we’d ever hear from Jerry Brown. Meg 
Whitman was then throwing everything she had 
at Steve Poizner. We’ve already heard whatever 
she has to say, while Brown emerges to (re)
introduce himself to voters. He comes off as 
the grown-up who knows what needs to be 
done and how to do it. In their second debate, 
referring to the scandal over Whitman’s fired 
housekeeper, Brown advised, “Don’t run for 
governor if you can’t stand up on your own two 
feet and say, ‘Hey, I made a mistake, I’m sorry, 
let’s go on from here’.” He pointed out that 
Whitman blamed the housekeeper, “blamed me, 
blamed the left, blamed the unions, but you don’t 
take accountability.” Jerry Brown is just getting 
started, with a lead likely to widen through 
election day.

 

 Voters are taking a closer look at the records 
of Senator Barbara Boxer, who’s spent a career 
promoting job growth in California and 
throughout the nation, and Carly Fiorina, who 
made a name for herself sending thousands of 
jobs overseas before being sacked by HP (with 
a $20 million golden parachute). Fiorina was 
a strong advocate for the H-1B visa program, 
where highly-skilled immigrants are brought in 
to take high-tech jobs at a fraction of the cost of 
American workers. She sees the “reality of the 
global economy” as American workers having to 
suck it up and compete for third-world wages. 
Voters are deciding, and it doesn’t look like 
momentum will shift in the next few weeks.

 

 Congressman David Dreier continues to obey 
his Republican party bosses, but it’s increasingly 
hard to defend such positions as refusing to 
protect the jobs of thousands of teachers, or 
provide help for ailing first-responders of 9/11, 
while insisting on awarding billions in tax breaks 
to multi-nationals for closing plants and moving 
jobs overseas. That’s why he doesn’t dare face 
Democratic opponent Russ Warner - let alone 
his own constituents. 

 

 As for the rest of the country, it appears 
infighting between Republicans and the Tea Party 
will help negate whatever momentum they hoped 
to carry down the home stretch. The “Republican 
Party has lost their standards, they’ve lost their 
principals”, according to Republican senate 
candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada as recorded 
during a meeting with Tea Party candidate Scott 
Ashjian. Angle tried to get Ashjian to withdraw 
from the race; “I’m not sure if I can win if you’re 
hurting my chance, and that’s the part that scares 
me.” Ashjian is staying in.

 

 There’s fighting in the Tea Party itself. After 
Alaska Tea Party senate candidate Joe Miller 
declined to directly answer a TV interviewer’s 
question as to whether he thought Sarah Palin 
was qualified to be president, husband Todd 
dashed off an e-mail to SarahPAC: “Sarah put 
her ass on the line for Joe and yet he can’t answer 
a simple question”. No more help for Joe.

 

 Momentum is shifting on accomplishments 
like health care reform, with polls showing more 
voters likely to back candidates who supported 
the Affordable Care Act than those who didn’t. 
There’s disconnect between tea-partiers and their 
corporate benefactors: The act bans kicking kids 
off rolls if they get sick and applying lifetime 
caps to benefits; in return, there are mandates 
for people to get coverage. Opponents want to 
protect kids and don’t like lifetime caps, but want 
to do away with coverage mandates. Industry 
lobbyists, however, think they should be able to 
dump sick kids and apply whatever lifetime caps 
they want, but keep the mandate that everyone 
buy coverage - and in fact make it stronger.

 

 Momentum is shifting as more attention is paid 
to the use of Tea Party followers as pawns funded 
through phantom organizations (“Americans 
for Prosperity”, “Americans for Job Security”) 
by billionaires who, thanks to Republican 
filibustering of the DISCLOSE act, can remain 
anonymous. Corporate interests aren’t even 
satisfied with the almost unlimited leeway to buy 
elections permitted under recent Supreme Court 
decisions; the Justice Department has been asked 
to investigate charges that part of the $75 million 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pouring into 
these midterms comes from foreign interests 
funneled through Chamber affiliates in European 
and Arab countries.

 

 Momentum is shifting as voters take a closer 
look at Republican goals. On a recent FACE 
THE NATION, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 
stated that Republicans “do not want America 
to succeed. They’re into politics.” Host Bob 
Scheiffer interrupted, “Is it really fair to say they 
don’t want America to succeed?” Sen. Sanders 
replied, “Gaining power is their major initiative.”

 

 Momentum is shifting as Americans 
contemplate a possible future symbolized by the 
firemen who stood by and watched a house burn 
to the ground last week in Tennessee, because the 
homeowner hadn’t paid his $75 “subscription” 
fee for fire protection. Republican county 
commissioners chose to treat fire protection 
like private insurance with a $75 premium, 
because the option of continuing to provide fire 
protection for everybody would entail raising 
everyone’s property taxes - by 13 cents.

 

 Americans might reflect on the question posed 
by filmmaker Michael Moore; whether we are a 
ultimately a “we” or a “me” society. They might 
also cut through the clichés and remember that 
community fire departments were a creation of 
Benjamin Franklin, not Karl Marx.

CALIFORNIA GENERAL ELECTION 2010 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Response to Editor’s Column of September 25

 I share the Editor’s disgust for corporations that jettison 
production overseas. Recently, I attempted to replace 
my ten year old circular saw and made a point to look 
for one that was American made. Home Depot, Lowes, 
Harbor Freight, Osh, and Sears could not field one. 
There were saws from China, Korea, and Japan - but not 
the US. Even the Craftsman and Milwaukee brands are 
no longer American made. Each of the customer desks 
of those stores received a complaint. 

 

However, unlike the Editor, I don’t assign the bulk of 
causation to the malice of corporate CEOs or boards 
of directors. Instead, I put it at the feet of an education 
system that avoids this country’s exceptional nature, and 
crafts a storyline that we are all citizens of the world. This 
drug of neutrality and ‘no country is better than another’ 
slowly converts Americans to pure consumers. We look 
for those pallets of foreign goods at the warehouse store, 
and read the price, but skip over where the item is made. 
If we are not looking at the labels this way, why should 
corporations?

 

There are other causes for this situation, as well. The 
Editor’s article came out in a week during which the 
Secretary of Defense warned against the same kids 
doing the same heavy lifting year after year. He flagged 
that the majority of them come from our smaller states 
and small towns, and in the same speech described how 
the military is routinely chased off campuses. In the 
words of the Sec Def, more and more of our countrymen 
believe that shouldering arms should be left to those 
‘other people.’ If our higher institutions of learning can’t 
muster respect for and celebrate the people who defend 
us, how can we expect corporations to muster the will to 
keep jobs at home?

 

At home, Hollywood puts out a domestic product that 
routinely demonstrates its ‘neutrality’ by propagating 
product that depicts our troops through the lens of the 
enemy, and crowds newspaper headlines with the empty 
lives of starlets in their latest train wreck. This exercise of 
freedom of speech even extends to When Google Earth 
which feels free to publish detailed satellite photos that 
clearly show troop barracks (complete with navigation 
references) in Iraq and Afghanistan. If corporations 
don’t put more value on the life of a kid humping 
an eighty pound ruck in the hills of Afghanistan (as 
compared to their profit), then why should they give a 
wit about his father, the lathe worker in South Dakota? 

 

The myopic vision that leads corporations to send jobs 
overseas is the result of dismissing this country as 
exceptional - a negative message incessantly fed by its 
so-called pillars of free speech and learning. I would 
respectfully suggest that fixing the causes, changes the 
results. 

 

Val Usle, Sierra Madre

A Word From The Editor: The Mountain Views News will continue in its tradition of providing readers with as much unbiased information as 
possible regarding the issues and candidates on the General Election Ballot in November. The series will run for the next seven weeks and will 
include coverage of all Propositions, The U. S. Senate Race, The California Governor’s Race, all other Statewide races, and the California Legislative 
Races. Please remember that the opinions of ALL columnists are not necessarily the position of the paper, but rather, those of the individual author. 
Those opinions will NOT be a part of our General Election Coverage. The official position of the Mountain Views and its’ Editorial Advisors will be 
clearly stated prior to the election. We do encourage readers, however, to submit their views as Letters To The Editor. The more we communicate 
with each other, the more informed our decisions will be. -Susan Henderson, Publisher/Editor Mountain Views News

Other Statewide Candidates

Proposition 19. Legalizes Marijuana Under California But Not Federal Law. Permits Local 
Governments to Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, and Sale of Marijuana 
-- State of California (Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required) 

Should California legalize the possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use of adults 
21 years and older, and allow state and local governments to regulate and tax related commercial 
activities? 

Proposition 20. Redistricting of Congressional Districts -- State of California (Initiative 
Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required) 

Should the state Constitution be amended to have the Citizens Redistricting Commission 
redistrict for the U.S. House of Representatives, to change existing redistricting criteria, and to 
reduce the redistricting timeline? 

Proposition 21. Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks 
and Wildlife Programs. Grants Surcharged Vehicles Free Admission to All State Parks -- State 
of California (Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required) 

Should the state levy an additional annual $18 vehicle license surcharge to provide funds to 
operate and maintain California's state parks and wildlife protection programs? 

Proposition 22. Prohibits the State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used for Transportation, 
Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects and Services -- State of California (Initiative 
Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required) 

Should the California Constitution be amended to prohibit the state, even during a severe 
fiscal hardship, from redirecting certain tax revenues dedicated to transportation or local 
governments? 

Proposition 23. Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and 
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops to 
5.5 Percent Or Less for Full Year -- State of California (Initiative Statute - Majority Approval 
Required) 

Should the AB 32 air pollution control law be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5 
percent or less for a full year? 

Proposition 24. Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Lower Their Tax 
Liability -- State of California (Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required) 

Should recent tax law changes that allow some businesses to pay lower state income tax be 
repealed? 

Proposition 25. Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related 
Legislation From Two-Thirds to A Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement 
for Taxes -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval 
Required) 

Should the state Constitution be amended to allow passage of budget bills by a simple majority 
in each house of the state Legislature and should legislators be required to forfeit their pay if a 
budget is not passed on time? 

Proposition 26. Requires That Certain State and Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds Vote. 
Fees Include Those That Address Adverse Impacts on Society Or the Environment Caused By 
the Fee-Payer's Business -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority 
Approval Required) 

Should the California Constitution be amended to require two-thirds vote approval for the 
imposition of certain state and local fees that now require majority vote approval? 

Proposition 27. Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for 
Redistricting With Elected Representatives -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional 
Amendment and Statute - Majority Approval Required) 

Should the state Constitution and state laws be amended to eliminate the Citizens Redistricting 
Commission established by the voters in 2008, return all redistricting to the state Legislature, 
and change the redistricting criteria?

PROPOSITIONS

Lieutenant Governor 

Abel Maldonado, Republican 

Pamela Brown, Libertarian 

James Castillo, Green 

Jim King, American Independent 

Gavin Newsom, Democratic 

C. T. Weber, Peace and Freedom 

Secretary of State 

Ann Menasche, Green 

Marylou Cabral, Peace and Freedom 

Damon Dunn, Republican 

Debra Bowen, Democratic 

Christina Tobin, Libertarian 

Merton Short, American Independent 

Controller 

Karen Martinez, Peace and Freedom 

Tony Strickland, Republican 

John Chiang, Democratic 

Lawrence Beliz, American Independent 

Ross Frankel, Green 

Andrew Favor, Libertarian 

Treasurer 

Charles Crittenden, Green 

Edward Teyssier, Libertarian 

Robert Lauten, American Independent 

Mimi Walters, Republican 

Debra Reiger, Peace and Freedom 

Bill Lockyer, Democratic 

Attorney General 

Diane Templin, American Independent 

Kamala Harris, Democratic 

Peter Allen, Green 

Robert Evans, Peace and Freedom 

Timothy Hannan, Libertarian 

Steve Cooley, Republican 

Insurance Commissioner 

Dave Jones, Democratic 

William Balderston, Green 

Richard Bronstein, Libertarian 

Clay Pedersen, American Independent 

Mike Villines, Republican 

Dina Padilla, Peace and Freedom 

State Superintendent of 

Public Instruction 

Tom Torlakson 

Larry Aceves 

Dates to Remember

October 18, 2010

Last day to register to vote

October 26, 2010

Last day to apply for a vote-by-mail 
ballot by mail

November 2, 2010

Election Day