The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Agenda of Destruction

March 13th, 2009 by Myrhaf · 14 Comments · Politics

An administration’s goals should be plain and clear for all to understand, but with a President as dishonest as Barack Obama, who will say whatever he thinks people want to hear at the moment, it takes some detective work. Daniel Henninger has found “the Rosetta Stone” to understanding Obama’s economic policy. If you read nothing else today, you will want to read his piece. (HT: TIA Daily)

As many of us have suspected, Obama’s purpose is not, as voters assumed, economic prosperity. The Obama administration is the first in history dedicated to economic egalitarianism. 1% of taxpayers make 22% of the national income. Leftists cannot tolerate this “unfairness.” Obama’s economic policies have been constructed with the goal of reducing the amount of money the richest take home in order to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor.

The disparity has increased since the Reagan Presidency, as shown by this chart:


Obama believes this has come about through foul play.

Turn to page five of Mr. Obama’s federal budget, and one may read these commentaries on the top 1% datum:

“While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not.”

“Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected.”

“There’s nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It’s a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.”

The government cannot close the gap by making poor people more prosperous; it can only destroy the wealth of the rich. This is the central purpose of Obamanomics. Egalitarianism is, to use Ayn Rand’s phrase, the hatred of the good for being good.

In reality, a growing disparity between the rich and the poor is a good thing. It means the rich are producing more wealth, which makes the entire economy more efficient and healthy. It means the rich have more capital to invest in the future, which means goods will be better and cheaper. Not only is the wealth of the rich not stolen from the poor, but it is used make the economy grow, which improves the standard of living of everyone. The poor should hope that the rich get richer, because it means their lives will improve as well.

Leftists sneer at all this as “trickle down economics.” I remember one far-left moron in Congress crying, “We’re tired of being trickled on!” Their notion of fairness is for the state to take the money the rich make and redistribute it to the poor. Whether they are intelligent enough to understand it or not, redistributing wealth hampers the economy and only increases state control over our lives. That increase in state control they certainly understand — and desire.

Now we know why Obama showed no concern over the massive destruction of wealth in the stock market. He is purposely causing that destruction. He is acting as his leftist ideology demands.

The Obama administration is unprecedented in American history. The little leftist in the Oval Office is the first President to pursue a plan of destruction. Say what you will about the Republicans, and I’ve said plenty, they have not yet come up with anything as depraved as an economic plan based on egalitarianism.

14 Comments so far ↓

  • Jim May

    Henninger writes:

    “The White House says its goal is simple “fairness.” That may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 makes it clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This presidency is going to be an act of retribution.”

    For Obama and his ilk, the only difference between “redistribution and “retribution” is the “dis”.

  • L-C

    This is interesting because I live in the Mecca of egalitarianism, Sweden. If you want to know the future of this ideology, it is already written in our past and present.

    I am familiar with this topic and could describe it at length and in detail. The is “knowing” it, and of it, and then there’s “having gazed into its abyss”.

  • Myrhaf

    L-C, if you would like to write a post on what we in America can look forward to based on your experience, please do. Email it to me ( or Bill Brown ( Should we publish your post, there is no pay involved. We’re all doing this for free like good egalitarians.

  • pa

    Another excellent post from Myrhaf — thank you! I sincerely hope that L-C will accept your invitation to contribute a post about Sweden’s “Mecca of egalitarianism.”

    In the meantime, PowerLine today reprinted a long extract from Swedish journalist Paula Neuding on events surrounding the riots that greeted Israel’s Davis Cup team in Malmo last week. Here are just two paragraphs that describe the welfare state in Sweden:

    “But RosengÃ¥rd lies in the world’s most generous welfare state. Those who cannot provide for themselves and their families have a right to social welfare, which according to Swedish law must cover the cost for food, clothes, shoes, leisure activities, health and hygiene, health care and medicines, a daily newspaper, a phone, living expenses, electricity, commuting to work, home insurance, membership in a workers’ union and unemployment insurance. The frustrated and angry youngsters in RosengÃ¥rd get health care at a minimal cost, free dental care, free school, and free college and university education, with the right to student benefits and loans. Social inequality is, therefore, a poor model for explaining not only a rise in crime the neighborhood has seen in the last few years, but also in political radicalization.

    “This way RosengÃ¥rd not only stands as a monument over the once so egalitarian ambitions of the Swedish Social Democracy. The neighborhood has also become a symbol for the fact that too many of the country’s Arab immigrants have brought anti-democratic values from their home countries; values that neither “dialogue police” nor the world’s most generous welfare system has been able cure. And it is also becoming a symbol of a Western country that is prepared to compromise with those values.”

    Please do read the whole PowerLine post (, and add a note here endorsing Myrhaf’s invitation to L-C.

  • Mike N

    Yes. I too would like L-C to write such an essay. I would be interested in seeing more concretizations of what’s coming our way under Obama.

  • Richard

    Paula Neuding could have been describing an Indian Reservation here in Ontario, Canada… ~two hundred (or so) years of welfare via our federal Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs.

  • Richard

    I guess I am becoming a bit of an old dog.

    Asking for more concretizations of welfare-statism via Swedish experience is, to me, like asking the dog next door what its like when he gets kicked in the ribs by his owner. My owner kicks me quite hard enough, thank you. I don’t need further details to grasp what rib-kicks are all about. And, they make it’s tough to dodge the kicks, because they string the wires of your cage very close together.

  • Myrhaf

    Knowledge is power, Richard. It never hurts to know the enemy.

  • pa

    Yes, you are right. Indian reservations here in America are no better, thanks to well-meaning and compassionate federal government management. Clayton Cramer discussed this subject at his blog this week (, prompted by a remark made to him at a Boise Tea Party:
    “…he explained that he was Navajo, and that if you want to know what the future for America is like, look no further than an Indian reservation, where the federal government has for many years exercised enormous paternalistic power–and it is reflected in alcoholism, short lifespans, high rates of diabetes, low home ownership, and utter misery.”

    You’ll need to scroll down past lots of Tea Party photos to get to Clayton’s remarks about American Indian reservations. His analysis goes beyond government policy to include a few points that would be interesting to discuss.

    Getting back to Myhaf’s invitation to L-C to write a post about Sweden’s welfare state…
    I have a question about the funding for their plan. I believe that the Swedish government has a sizable income from natural gas or oil, and that they wisely invested this income so that it provides much of the money needed to fund their social welfare programs. (I may be mistaken, and it might be some other Scandinavian country, but my point is the same even if it’s not specifically Sweden’s practice.) Thus, Sweden apparently handles its money much more responsibly than American politicians can claim. Furthermore, American politicians have and are doing everything possible to prevent us from accessing our own oil supplies, so we not only can’t satisfy a bigger percentage of our own energy needs and benefit from sales to other countries and good-paying jobs for Americans, our government also doesn’t receive substantial amounts of money in taxes and fees that they could be using to pay for stuff on their wish list. I hope that L-C will include some information about how Sweden funds their generous welfare benefits. Readers of this site all agree that welfare programs are detrimental to people, individually and collectively, but is Sweden also bankrupting the country to pay for it?

    As interesting as the discussion might be, though, I am compelled to add that I do not believe our government should be using income from oil or any other source to fund a welfare state, and it certainly shouldn’t be looting the American public for generations into the future to do so. Sweden should stand as a warning for avoiding a welfare state, not as a role model for how to do it with somewhat better fiscal responsibility. But then, I am one of those hard-core limited government types.

  • Madmax

    From what I understand about Sweden’s corporate tax policy is that it offers certain incentives that the end result is that corporate tax rate is 25% which makes it one of the lowest such rates in the industrial world. That seems to be how they are paying for their welfare state; by creating a more business friendly tax structure. The American corporate tax rate, I believe, will shoot up to 39% under Obama. So one could argue that, at least as regards tax policy, Sweden is less socialist than America.

    This American Thinker article, which I have linked to before, has some interesting data regarding Sweden:

  • L-C

    I’ll be thinking about how to structure such a post during the coming week.

    As for the gasoline, well, my math could possibly be off but my calculations show an equivalent domestic gas price of about $4.82 / gallon. Obviously a lot of that is the gas tax.

    As for taxes in general? Income about 40-45% on average. Sales tax is 25% VAT. Employer’s fee ~30%. Those are the major ones.

    It’s a long since established fact what this does to private saving, investment and growth.

  • Moataz

    speaking of sweden and on a more general level here are the economic index rankings:

  • Bill Brown

    Here’s a good piece of source material to incorporate: Don’t Fear the Swedish Model (it’s not dating advice, by the way).

  • Town Hall Putsch — The New Clarion

    […] should not be news to readers of this blog. His stimulus plan and upcoming budget have demonstrated an egalitarian streak that rivals anything from the European socialists. The demagoguery is nothing new in American […]