| | Advanced Search


Gronkowski “Good to Go” Week 1—Rob Gronkowski told reporters at Gillette Stadium that…

Russell Moore: Experience Makes Caprio a No-Brainer for Treasurer—Let's face it: politics is strange business.

Smart Benefits: Two Regs Issued on Contraceptive Coverage—Two regulations on contraceptive coverage were recently issued…

Peace Flag Project to Host Rhode Island Month of Peace in September—The Peace Flag Project will host over 30…

Don’t Miss: Fall Newport Secret Garden Tours—The Benefactors of the Arts will present a…

Fall Activities for the Whole Family—Mark your calendars for the best activities of…

Skywatching: Seagrave Memorial Observatory Centennial (1914-2014)—Skyscrapers, Inc., the Amateur Astronomical Society of Rhode…

Friday Financial Five - August 29, 2014—The Tax Foundation has put together a helpful…

RI Resource Recovery Collected 6K Pounds of Clothes—RI Resource Recovery has received more than 6,000…

5 Live Music Musts - August 29, 2014—We’ve got Rhythm and Roots and a whole…


Travis Rowley: The Rich Must Get Richer

Saturday, July 28, 2012


“I happen to think that the best social program is a job.” – Ronald Reagan

A couple of weeks ago Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly reminded Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) during an interview that “the economy did revive” after Ronald Reagan drastically cut taxes for America’s highest income earners. Because this is similar to the plan being proposed by Mitt Romney and the Republicans, O’Reilly asked Kucinich, “Do you see that as a failure?”

“If it’s gonna accelerate wealth to the top in this country using a tax structure to do it,” Kucinich responded, “that’s wrong cuz it’s unfair. That’s not American.”

Progressives who respond to this by attempting to disprove the “Reagan Recovery” will be – as usual – missing the point, which is this: Kucinich didn’t deny that tax cuts would help to revive a sagging economy. He simply verified that he couldn’t care less; that he is willing to deny prosperity to average Americans if that prosperity means that wealthy people would benefit as well.

Barack Obama had a similar moment in 2008. Obama was informed during a Democratic presidential debate that “when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped [in the 1990s], revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.” The moderator went on to ask, “So why raise it at all?” Obama’s response was that he “would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

The Democrat-controlled Senate acted upon the Democratic attitude toward wealth this week, voting to raise taxes on Americans earning over $200,000 per year – many of whom are small business owners.

Democrats voted in favor of the tax hike in spite of the fact that President Obama had this to say in January 2010: “I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. And what they will say is that if you either increase taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile that that would have a destimulative effect. And potentially you’d see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off.”

Sure enough, Ernst and Young has produced a study that shows the tax hike potentially “kill[ing] more than 700,000 jobs.”

Creating Wealth

What the leftist outlook on income disparity ultimately translates to is Democrats actually being philosophically hostile to an economic rebound. After all, the primary reason that wealthy business owners hire people is because it will be of personal benefit to them.

This is sure to offend Democrats’ utopian sensibilities, but the fact remains that employing people is not an exercise in altruism. The purpose is to turn a profit. The purpose is to get richer.

And Democrats will be damned to support any policies that may “accelerate wealth to the top.” To them, the freedom to retain one’s own wealth is “not American.”

Yet, the fact remains that wealth is created for all parties involved when the voluntary activity of capitalism is allowed to be undertaken – in this case, the offering of a job, and then the willingness of someone to execute it.

“A rising tide lifts all boats” is how it was once famously explained by President Kennedy.

Today, Democrats argue that what is needed to turn things around is to put “demand” back into the economy; to make sure that the middle class has the “purchasing power” to buy stuff from well-to-do business owners.

But Democrats won’t have that “purchasing power” be the result of actual work, because employment causes the further enrichment of “the rich.” In addition to that economic reality, in order to create the incentive to hire more workers, Democrats would first have to undergo the agony of easing the tax burden that now sits upon corporations and the wealthy.

The wealthy – the very targets of Democratic scorn; the people who “didn’t build that;” the people who have yet to pay their “fair share;” the people who travel throughout the country in “private jets;” those “rich bastards who would happily slit your throat for just one more dollar,” as one left-wing blogger once put it so well.

Creating Purchasing Power

Democrats have proven themselves fully aware that job creation is spawned by throttling back the inordinate tax pressure placed on job creators – tax policy that has proven over and over again to provide “purchasing power” for the middle class.

Armed, however, with a political disposition to disparage “the rich,” Democrats have been left with a political proclivity to strip them of even more of their wealth, leaving themselves with only one option when it comes to setting economic policy: Artificially placing “demand” back into the economy by direct redistribution, all at once satisfying their sense of “fairness,” their disdain for the successful, and their need for a 2012 campaign slogan – “We struck a blow for the working man, by taxing the rich man.”

It is from this political disposition that Democrats find themselves concocting asinine economic theories that justify such collectivism – claiming that “for every dollar a person receives in food stamps…$1.79 is put back into the economy;” that unemployment payments and food stamps “are two things that are the most stimulative that you can do;” that they are “the biggest bang for the buck.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Steny Hoyer)

Absolutely. At this point, who could deny the awesome economic power wielded by socialist policies?

In reality, there’s nothing more powerful – nothing more “stimulative” – than capitalism; than work; than establishing the principle that people should be allowed to keep what they earn.

But, amazingly, to Democrats, “that’s not American.”

Filthy Rich

Jobs. That’s how you put wealth in the hands of the “working people.” By actually incentivizing them to, you know, work.

And leaving wealth in the hands of those who created it in the first place is the best way to expand economic opportunity for American workers.

Yes, it’s true: The price of this economic vitality is that some people will most certainly become filthy, filthy rich.

Oh, the horror.

If you’re wondering why the economy has yet to kick in, it’s because Democrats aren’t trying to revive it. They’re trying to heal the world, and “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” There’s a sick psychosis, a wicked agenda, and an evil ideology at play – all of which are more important to Democrats than the current well-being of America’s poor and middle class.

Travis Rowley (TravisRowley.com) is chairman of the RI Young Republicans and author of The RI Republican: An Indictment of the Rhode Island Left.


Related Articles


Enjoy this post? Share it with others.


To prove Mr. Rowley's point, just look how well we are doing here in Rhode Island, the Ukraine of leftist America.

Comment #1 by Michael Trenn on 2012 07 28

""Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically"
~Warren Buffett

Comment #2 by Sammy Arizona on 2012 07 30

Here's a good read on Reagan tax cuts http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm . Reagan did an end around on the tax cuts and in fact there was no real change at all.

I also get a real kick out of the headline for this story. The rich must get richer? That's been happening all along. What else do we think has caused the greatly expanding chasm between the rich and the rest of us? Gimme a break!

Comment #3 by Chris Caldwell on 2012 07 31

Caldwell, I don't think you understood the whole of the article. "The rich" here are business owners. That's who we're talking about. And Rowley demonstrated that they must profit if the poor are going to as well. That's simply the way it works. If Democrats want "jobs," then they're going to have to accept that.

Also, the "chasm between the rich and the rest of us" isn't caused by free-market capitalism. It's caused by socialism. Look at Providence. The East Side vs. Everyone Else...Look at places like Caribbean Islands. Very few people can afford to live in such places. You end up with the super-rich, and everyone else works as a bartender.

Your Democratic envy will get us nowhere.

Comment #4 by Chris O. on 2012 07 31

Write your comment...

You must be logged in to post comments.