by Larry Gamble
It’s too easy to start this essay out with a question. In fact, the fashionable thing to do right now is question why capitalism is good or why capitalism is oppressive. But that shallow approach to such a complex issue would not yield the true meaning of capitalism and the effect on society. That deeper level of thought is where I am going with this short writing. My question is simple; why would those who depend most on the fruits of capitalism be the ones who criticize it most vehemently and declare the free market system oppressive?
The American Free Market system is a direct outgrowth of the vision of the founding fathers. They wrote of unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit of happiness comes in many forms for us today; religious freedom, property ownership, live theater, fishing, hunting, snowboarding, racing, business ownership and craftsman hobbies just to name a few things where people are able to earn a living or build a business around something they enjoy. Do we all have this ability to pursue happiness?
In the early history of America, society was basically subsistence focused. What was grown or produced went to sustain the producers and very little remained for sale to others. As producers got more proficient through increasing skills, efficiency or capability; the amount of excess production increased. Yet, all through time, we see several groups in society. Not classes, but strata of people based on what they are willing or capable of doing. That natural stratification results in classification by those who deem everything must fit neatly into an easily defined compartment.
In Colonial and even post Revolutionary America, there were the trappers and miners risking their lives to fill the demand for precious materials in the cities. Animal pelts were vital for sturdy clothing and just as critical to the fashion industry for the nobility and elite. Because of this demand, the energetic entrepreneur could earn a small fortune. Looking at more modern history, few people touch so many as the contributions of Andrew Carnegie to society with his notable Carnegie Libraries that dotted America. Starting out as a messenger boy, Andrew Carnegie personified the American Dream of starting out with very little and through self determination and effort rising to the upper strata of personal achievement.
In every facet of society, there are folks in the business of production, in services and in entertainment. That is the beauty of America’s Free Market system. Anyone, no matter their position in life, with a bit of drive and determination can own a business in the field of their choosing. Colonel Harland Sanders did not start his Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchise concept until he was 65 years old. Dave Thomas who went on to found the Wendy’s burger chain and did not finish high school, got his big break in fast food with KFC. He rose from head cook to regional manager where he turned around slumping sales and cashed out his share of the company for $1.5 million which enabled Wendy’s start a year later. Other notable corporate over achievers include Steve Jobs of Apple Computer. Milwaukee’s own Joseph J. Zilber was born to Russian immigrants and went on to become one of the city’s largest philanthropists. Today’s mindset places higher value on talents, looks and creativity than entrepreneurial spirit and dogged determination to succeed. Our tabloid covers feature celebrities, movie stars, and music stars or sports figures. Sadly, some of the high profile people refuse to label their position as role models or accept the fact by default they are influencing people. When they shrug off the mantel of role model, they also abdicate giving back to the community which elevated them to celebrity status.
Despite the shining examples of hard-earned business success, Americans seem to have turned away from the dream of rugged individualism and entrepreneurship. Our 21st Century ideal is live fast, get rich quick and have more expensive toys or vacations than your neighbor. We are very accustomed to our jet setting, carefree lifestyle and that evokes a certain perception as the excessive American.
But, somehow in this race for success, the progressives and liberals advocate redistribution of wealth as if somehow personal self sufficiency and working to get ahead in life are a plague of sorts. Maybe part of the reason for the stigmatism is the bold antics of corporate raiders and the good old boys CEO club where golden parachutes and plundering a company’s good name for cash mean more than long term viability. I argue that there are more philanthropists in the strata of the American population than greedy CEO’s or corporate raiders.
Look what is happening in America. The multi hit rap artist Snoop Dogg beat the pitfalls of street life to become a multi-platinum artist and philanthropist. He uses his voice talents to help eleven separate charities. Jackie Chan is as lively with his on screen, action hero antics as he is with charitable giving with 16 separate groups benefiting from his generosity. Adam Sandler and George Clooney are also highly successful and very generous with the giving back to society. But, you ask about the donations of the common person.
One of the most common means for average citizens to make charitable gifts is through their local church. Americans are generous as demonstrated by giving over $100 billion to churches in 2007 and approximately 85% of that total supported local church missions and operations according to the web site Generous Giving. According to the Charity Navigator web site, over all charitable giving from individuals that year was $229 Billion dollars and over $307 Billion when adding in corporate giving.
This simple exercise shows most Americans are generous and there are plenty of generous corporations, too. But, somehow our political elite are trying to convince us that our giving is misguided and woefully inadequate which means the only answer is more government programs, increased government spending and increased taxation to pay for this correction. The current mantra of tax the rich can only go so far until the demand for tax revenue causes the definition of rich and its income threshold to start dropping.
We heard it during the campaigns of 2008 when candidate Obama said $250,000 was the threshold and no one earning less than that would see of penny of tax increases. Reality is proving that the threshold is much lower. Vice President Biden stated on Nov. 1, 2008 that the bulk of any tax breaks need to go to those earning less than $125,000. This sort of talk is coming from our President who reported income of $5.5 million in 2009.
As President Obama stated on April 28, 2010; “at some point you’ve made enough money.” Who is he to say that; especially after reporting a multi-million dollar income in 2009? Every American citizen should be free to earn the living that they prepare themselves to earn. Not everyone grows up to be a brain surgeon or a policeman; but that is the essence of the American dream. Each person is free to pursue their own career path. Their preparation for a career determines the ability to succeed and the rest of their success is predicated on self initiative and rugged individualism set to attain their life goals.
Our government needs to quit looking at taxpayers as dedicated revenue streams for pet programs. This also means our government must curtail spending. If it does not, then we will find the government takes away our ability to make charitable donations in order to sustain the tax revenue requirements.