Obama’s Greenness Connotes Envy, not Environmentalism

Now we know that Mitt Romney earns more than $20 million per year, out of which he “contributes” roughly equal amounts to Uncle Sam and to charity. Different folks react to that news in different ways, but I believe it is accurate to say that the percentage of the population that wouldn‘t trade their AGI for Mitt’s is mighty small.

Of course, it doesn’t go unnoticed that the word “earns” in the opening sentence is misleading. Mitt doesn’t have a job. He no longer runs a company or a State as he once did and as he is so fond of reminding us. He gets no paycheck for any services or labor rendered. No, virtually all of his income derives from capital gains – that is, from selling stocks that he acquired at an original cost that was a tiny fraction of their current worth. He acquired those equities early in his career as a private equity manager, or said otherwise, a “venture capitalist” according to his admirers, or a “vulture capitalist” according to his detractors. Either way, no one is asserting that he did anything illegal. But what our dear President does assert is that it is not “fair.”

Of course “fair” is never defined. It cannot be defined in an objective fashion. What is fair to me might not be to you, and vice versa. But that gives no pause to our leftist-minded President. In his patented arrogant style, even though he never articulates a precise concept of fairness – because it is impossible to do so, he, like Justice Stewart understands pornography, knows it when he sees it. In his mind, it does not matter that Romney amassed his fortune by playing within the legal boundaries of American free enterprise. It does not matter that the Koch brothers or the Waltons or the Mars family did likewise – the fact that they have so much money and that the average bloke in America has only a mere pittance by comparison is manifestly, blatantly, irrefutably UNFAIR. In fact, Obama is a total hypocrite as he is not bothered by the great wealth of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, George Soros or Jeffrey Immelt – because they have the right attitude about what to do with their fortunes.

Obama believes it is the duty of the government to confiscate what he sees as excess wealth accumulated by those who have been successful – and then to deliver it to those less fortunate, but supposedly just as deserving. He is jealous and disparaging of those who succeed, especially as entrepreneurs. It offends his sense of fairness that some succeed, some fail, and too often spectacularly so. The green goo that courses through his veins has far less to do with his pathetically perverse devotion to environmentally-favored industries than it does to the envy and fury he feels toward those who succeed in our capitalistic system.

Our Founders set up a system that was designed to protect individual liberty by establishing a transparent rule of law, which gave everyone the equal opportunity to succeed and prosper. Their intention was that the government would establish and enforce the rules that allowed all to compete legally, equally and in a predictable environment. They understood that some would do better than others. But it was clear to them, if not to Obama, that the resulting inequitable outcomes were a small price to pay for ensuring that all enjoy the freedom to pursue their own destiny.

Obama and his leftist minions absolutely disagree. He sees unequal outcomes as “unfair,” and he is determined to revise the system so that government will have the power to equalize inequities. He is not the first world leader to feel this way. An entire nation, called the Soviet Union, was devoted to the concept for 70 years. We all know the outcome of that experiment. Obama has not learned the proper lesson. We are all suffering because he is such a poor student of history.
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at: