I heard a description of President Barack Obama on National Public Radio the other day: the great wealth destroyer. I thought how appropriate and true it was, at least for individuals like me who have pumped money into mutual fund retirement instruments for years and now have no retirement. I also thought about all the people who are already retired on fixed incomes who put money away all their lives and thought they could retire but now are having to go back to work.
The huge drop in the Dow Jones can no longer be attributed to George W. Bush's administration or the Iraq War. This huge disappearance of wealth cannot be blamed only on the previous administration; it's not like a lingering muscle cramp after an overzealous workout. This is happening on Obama's watch. Each time he speaks, each time he unveils his plan for redistribution of wealth, each time he unveils his plans for spending our money to create more money, the stock market has dropped in concert.
When you think about the psychology of his outlook on life, it's necessary to reflect on Obama's experience: that of a junior senator and community organizer. There appears to be an underlying goal to destroy the accumulated wealth of others. For everyone, this outlook should be avoided. The unhealthy core concept to avoid is this: "My" or "our" lack of wealth, position, education, goods or health care is due to the fact that others have these things in abundance, and in order for "me" or "us" to obtain them, we must take them away from those that have them in abundance.
In the world of management, leadership and business (experience Obama does not have), we know of a comparable concept. It is contrary to the current presidential political path, which is an illogical approach to great leadership and even healthy human life in general. True leadership, self-empowerment and personal growth lies in the ability to create a situation where everyone benefits: a win-win scenario. The basic understanding is, "When everybody grows/wins, there isn't less of anyone or less gain for some than others. There's more of and more for everybody." For some, this is a hard concept because it is incredibly threatening to their ego and/or position in life.
Obama seems to be indirectly saying that there should be a moral basis for objecting to economic inequality, and in his policies and directives, he is asserting the condemnation of accumulated wealth. Because he's the president of the United States, he can back this up with liberal political action. Why is this? The obvious candidate is envy.
Notwithstanding his feelings and convictions, he is incorrect in his views, assumptions, strategies and beliefs in this area. Suppose I'm driving on the freeway, and someone passes me in a brand new Porche. Though I may wish I had one, it is quite clear that I do not lack one because the driver has one. If I believed this, I would be engaged in regressive thinking. After all, the richer man's income is not extracted from the poorer man. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Bill Gates' wealth does not diminish mine or anybody else's.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
In point-of-fact, a present day example of Obama's political action to deprive or prevent executives of their salaries or bonuses has a converse effect than the one he intends because of its adverse effects on incentives. It will have just the opposite of the desired result: It will make the rest of us poorer.
The liberal mind is a curious thing. Perhaps it could be explained by those who haven't accumulated great wealth seem to find their calling in government positions and feel it necessary to reshuffle the deck in their favor. It would appear that our current president rationalizes higher taxes on those with higher incomes because "they are not paying their fair share." He does not, and cannot, specify how much reduction or inequality or redistribution of wealth is necessary, because there is no objective criterion to determine a stopping place between complete equality and the current situation.
Everybody has earning power - theoretically. But some earn less, and some earn more. Some choose to earn less, and some earn less because they don't know how to earn more. Some never think of themselves as big-wage earners, and any welfare program certainly adds many to this list. Some want to be big-wage earners but get frustrated when they don't achieve their goals and quit trying. Everybody in the U.S. wants to earn enough money to at least live comfortably; it's the American way.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to earn lots of money, but the attempt to reduce the wealth of some in order to bolster the wealth of others is an invitation to everyone to be mediocre. When the government sews the seeds of mediocrity, it also produces dependence on the government, creating a vicious, endless cycle America needs to see through and put an end to now.
Dixon Duval has a master's degree in public administration and a master's degree in counseling. He is a UNM alumnus.
