Rick Santorum, Albert Pujols and Income Inequality: Insanity in the Media and the Rest of the Left (Or Are Tehy really Communists, As We Suspect Them

Albert Pujols recently signed a ten year contract with the California Angels for a total compensation of somewhere around 254 MILLIOIN dollars. Pujols, of course, can earn almost as much additonal money as he wants from endorsements, advertisers and other incidental sources of income for a player of his stature.


The media/leftist ponit of view seems to be that this kind of income inequality is UNFAIR. Pujols obviusly needs to pay enough in taes so that he does not earn any more than the average person (See Any Rand, wo foresaw this attitude toward excellence some 60 years ago, in "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead"). Why should Albert Pujols earn so much more than even other baseball players. In fact, why should not baseball players all earn the SAME amount of mney? What about the FANS? Are they not PAYING for Alibert Pujols to get paid 254 million dollars--more than almost ALL of them will earn in an entire lifetime? You say that this is INSANE--that no one would say that an average baseball player should be paid the same as Albert Pujols. Most would say it would be ISANE for Albert ujols to be TAXED with the idea of making his "take-home" salary the same as the average American. However, something like that is EXACTLY what the media, and the rest of the left, seem to be arguing should be the "goal" of oour society: for there to be an approximate equlity of income ("from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need," is how Karl Marx put it).


Enter Rick Santorum, who supposedly said something "controversial" when he made the OBVIOUS point that it is UNDESIERABLE for Albert Pujols, with supernormal talent and achievement, get the SAME income as the rest of us. No, Rick Santorum did not use Albert Pujols as an example, but he could have (and maybe should) . What Santorum said was that income inequality is a DESIRABLE thing in this country, and that it would be BAD for everyone to be forcced to have the same income. In fact, Santorum said that, in effect, it is un-0American to even have the GOAL of income equlity.


Santorum told the truth. Yet, telling the truth is what orur present media, leftist Democrats, AND the GOP estalbishment cannot stand. They don't think YOU, the peole, CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH (channeling my inner Jack Nicholson again). They think you need to be LIED TO--to be told that income income EULIATY is what we sould be working toward in this country. YHou want a more charitable view (as to the media and leftist--not the GOP estabishment, as to whom there is no doubt that they think you need to be LIED to)? It is entirely possible that the media, and other leftists, really do have the INSANE, un-American goal that all people earn the same income. They may really consider this the "ideal" kind of society. It is not, and that is what Richk Santorum told you. This is not "controversial". If you really think that our GOAL is to pay Albert Pujols and WalMart cashiers the SAME, then you are INSANE, a liar or a COMMUNIST. The "communist" option is what may apply to the media and leftist Democrats like Obama. If your GOAL is to create a society with very little income inequlity, then you ARE a communist (virtually bae definition).


Again, the unfair and unbalanced network, in my two minutes of surfing today, seems to be adopting the mainstream media ASSERTION taht this is a "controversial" statement as something to be seriously addressed, instead of treated with RIDICULE (the only proper response). YOU defend that eveyone should be paid the SAME INCOME as Albert Pujols, in your idea of an ideal society. Then YOU explain why that does nto make you a communist. I could not do it, even if I wanted to, and I am SMARATER than any of these people trying to take this IMOSSIBLE position.


What is going on here? You know as wel as I do. The idea is that Santorum can be made to pay a POLITCIAL PRICE for stating an obvious truth. The idea is that peole don't like to be TOLD that income inequlity is a NECESSARY result of a FREE society--of a FREE economy. Now Rick Santorum and I would agree that the GOAL of our society should be to try to have a society where esentially EVERYOONE has a CHANCE to be Albert Pujols, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates. Rick Santorumand I would argue that ONLY a freee ecomy, and a free society, create enough real opportuity and WEALTH to allow the maximum number of peole to earn the maxium amount of money, even though this means that SOME people (like Babe Ruth, in the Great Depression) will earn a LOT more than other people. Yes, we are DELIBERATELY creating the situaiton where there WILL be income inequlity--even extreme income inequility--in the name of FREEDOM, and a better life for the maximum number of people over the longest period of time.


Rick Santorum and I would agree on something else, although it is NOT pat of this statement on income inequality. What HURTS the CNANCE of poor people to have OPPORTUNITY, probably more than anything else? The answer is obvius, and Rick Santorum tells it to you. The old 'middle class, family values"--"white" middle class family values, ifyou prefer, even though that is somewhat racist of you--are NECESSARY for poor people to really take advantage of opportunity (UNLESS one has the talent of Albert Pujols, and often even then). MARRY (a person of the opposite sex). Do NOT have promiscuous sex before marriage. Do NOT have children outside of marriage. These things are MORE IMPORTANT to "poor" people than to others. Don't do recreational drugs. Don't get drunk all of the time. Work hard. No it is NOT that "poor" people are necessariy worse at these things than others, although the LEFT certainly has done their best to make t;hat so with policies that encourage self-destructive behavior. But look at Paris Hilton. She is a SELF-DESTRUCTIVE individual. Look at Lindsay Lohan. Ditto. But these people, and even "middle class" people, can AFFORD to make these mistakes, and SOMETIMES survive. Poor peole cannot SURIVE thesese mistkes. That is why it is more importatn for poor peole to not have children out of wedlock, and not to be sexually promiscuous. No, this is NOT merely a matter of "birth control" It is a matter of living a life where you AIM FOR THE FUTRE, rather than present gratification. Paris Hilton can get away---sort of--with present gratification. The average poor person cannot. No, the government canot FORCE people to get married before having children, and to stay married. The government cannot FORCE peole not to treat sex as the ultimate good, even if it destorys their opportunity for a better life. But the government does nto have to PROMOTE policies that DESTROY peple's ECONMIC chances in a free society--and especailly the chances of their children. The left likes to cite statistics supposedly showing that there is LESS oppportunity for "class movement" (income movement), is the more accurate term in the U.S.) than there used to be. That may well be true, because the POOR used to pretty much abide by the same "middle class" values as the "middle class". Santorum and I would agree the poor NEED these values in order to have real opportunity in a free society. That is how both Santorum and I would CONNECT "family values" and economic oooprtunity.


But this is one of my digressions from the main pont. The main point is that it is ABSURD, unless ou are a communist, to say that our GOAL is to have everyone earn approximately the same income (including Albert Pujols and Alwx Rodrigu--or Tom Brady and Eli Manning). This is ABSURD 9the idea that there SHOULD be income equality, even as a GOAL). It is NOT Rick Santorum who looks BAD in this. It is the people who even QUESITN the truth of his statement, or who sugget there is something wrong with telling the truth. The media, and other leftist Democrats, WANT class envy and class warfare. That is why Rick Santroum has to be DESTROYED (along with anyone else who says this sort of thing). The medai, and other leftists, WANT people to believe that Albert ujols should not be able to earn so much more than they do, unless he is FORCED to gvie most of it to THEM.


Why did I again use Albert Pujols as my example? You know that, if you are a blog reader. I am a St. Louis Cardinal fan, dating from my days growing up in Mt. Ida, Arkansas liistening to Harry Carey describe stan Musial. It is a SORE point with me that Albert Pujols will no longer be a St. Louis Cardinal. Stil, Idon't ENVY Albert his money, or think the should GIVE a good part of it to me. Of course, if he WANTS to make me a gift for DEFENDING his "right" to make that kind of money, all he has to do is contact this blog and I will give him my personal inforamtion (where to send the money). Should Albert have shown more "loalty" to the fans of St. Louis? Ah, on that subject you probably need to read Ayn Rand. I don't think that is the right question. Albert Pujols does not OWE anyone for his talent. The question is whether he would be BETTER OFF if he preferred a love affair witht he fans to merely making a little more money. But that was ALBERT'S decison to make, and not mine (or any other fan's) to second guess. Maybe it was NOT all about money. Maybe Albert is ISANE, and WANTS to be in California. I, on the other hannd, have the "Get Smart" attitude toward California (even before Albert signed). That is the "get smart" episode (60s TV show) where a trrorist orgainization is going to BLOW UP California. Maxwell Smart to Chief: "Chief, are you sure we WANT to stop them from blowing up California?" Money is also a way of "keepng score"--maknig a statement about how much you are WORTH. Al of this is incompatible, of crouse, witht he idea that there SHOULD be a GOAL in this country of income "equality" (or "fariness"). Is it FAIR for Albert Pujols to earn so much, or ABANDON the fans to St. Louis? For anyne who actualy BELIEVES in a free society , this is a NONSENSE question. That it is not a nonsense question for so many in the media says a whole lot about THEM--not about Rick Santroum (who merely told an obvioius truth that Albert Pujols SHOULD get a WHOLE LOT more money than you or I).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). By the way, is "merit" more obvious in sports? Ye, it is, which is why it is useful to use sprots as an illustration of the PRINCIPLES involed here. However, is it not also true that SEVE JOBS did mroe for the average person, and even Bill Gates, than Albvert Pujols ever did, or coud do? I think so, desptie the pleasure Albert has given me. Now there IS a quesiton as to whether computers, including Apple, are RUINING the world. But most people probably do't agree with me on that one. And I AM typing this on a computer (which may go more toward proving MY point than any otehr argumetn I could make).