Paul Krugman has a column today entitled “The Angry Rich” in which he derides America’s wealthy for having “a belligerent sense of entitlement.” He argues that the political rage that’s sweeping America is coming from the rich, not the poor who are the ones truly suffering:
These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.
Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.
My question is: Why shouldn’t these people be outraged? Why shouldn’t the feel entitled to keeping their own wealth?
Shouldn’t we be asking why redistributionists like Krugman feel entitled to use other people’s wealth to fund their altruism?
Krugman’s narrative, which is hardly original in that it’s the same narrative we hear every day from the left, has it that the greedy rich should be willing to give up more to help their fellow man. But is it really so unreasonable for those who are secure in their finances to expect their less-secure fellow citizens earn their own way to prosperity?
And keep in mind, it’s not like the financially secure in America aren’t already being taxed. They’re shouldering most of the tax burden already. Of course they’re going to object to being asked to shoulder more.
It’s an unreasonable request, especially when there’s so much spending in Washington DC that simply doesn’t need to happen.