In the Name of Fairness

Charles Krauthammer has some great insight in his weekend column on President Obama's soak the rich arguments, which once again reared their ugly head again in his SOTU.  Here is Charles:

There isn’t even a pretense that the Buffett Rule will do anything for economic growth or job creation (other than provide lucrative work for the sharp tax lawyers who will be gaming the new system for the very same rich). Which should not surprise. Back in 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support raising the capital-gains-tax rate (the intended effect of the Buffett Rule) if this would decrease government revenues.

Obama said yes. In the name of fairness.

This is redistribution for its own sake — the cost be damned.

He is exactly right.  Even if taxes were raised on the richest one percent of all earners to 100%, that would only cover one-third of the debt for this past year.  This is really about enacting the high principle of fairness at the expense of equality as understood by the Founders.  Contrary to devoting ourselves to fairness, we should devote ourselves to the proposition that all men are created equal; flowing from that is the principle of equal opportunity, that all should have the opportunity for success.

Here is Matthew Spaulding from the Heritage Foundation on equality rightly understood:

Americans believe in equality as a principle – as in we are all created equal and are all equal before the law.  They support equal opportunity for everyone-a deeply American concept that makes no appearance in Obama’s speech.  That’s because equal opportunity for all also leads to vast differences, great diversity and much inequality in many things-which is the natural outgrowth of liberty and human flourishing.  What Americans oppose is a vast government trying to make all outcomes equal-regardless of individual effort.