The Fear of Failure Guides Them

In the interest of full disclosure, and so that there is no confusion about my point of view, I am what most would describe as a Libertarian with a life long (43 years in 2010) absence of any religious following. I believe the power of life, love and creativity lies in the individual and that those things are ground up and die in the gears of the collective. Having established that… If there is a god, please help us.  Now.  Please.


I just read this New York Times opinion piece off of a link at JammieWearingFool. The Times article is written by Gail Collins and can only be described as a newspaper sponsored public relations piece for current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In fact, she begins the article by suggesting that we “sing a song about the wonderfulness of Nancy Pelosi.” I realize that the Times is considered a Liberal media outlet but even I was surprised at how many commenters gushingly agreed with Collin’s assessment/ringing endorsement of Nancy.


My conclusion, which leads to a fundamental explanation of the Liberal mindset, is that there are a substantial number of people that are not willing to take a head on look at reality. There is no doubt that reality is sometimes a brutal, unkind, unfriendly and unpleasant thing to stare strait into. But avoiding it, putting it off, or worse, creating a faux alternative reality is ultimately self defeating. Reality and time are inextricably connected and they wait for no one.

For example. Are we engaged militarily in the middle East because of oil? Some would say no and claim that we are there to liberate the people of these subjugated countries from their oppressive leaders and governments. And, while this statement might not be completely false it also ignores the reality that our entire way of life has been fundamentally built on the petroleum that is supplied, in large part, by countries in the middle East. Which, in reality, is why we are trying to bring stability (militarily in this case) to the middle East. It may be easier to think that we are militarily engaged (bombing and killing) in the middle East for noble and humanitarian reasons. But, that is not reality and everyone knows it. The reality, as brutal it may be, is that we are militarily engaged in the middle East because we want to protect the market place that provides us with the oil that our entire way of life (whether you are a Liberal or a Conservative) is based on.

Does running huge deficits which lead to a staggering national debts hurt individual citizens of this country? Some would say that these deficits are healthy for a growing economy and that going into debt to invest is the right thing to do. The reality is that reasonable people know this is a losing strategy, particularly when politicians are the ones managing the money being borrowed. In 2010 the interest alone on our debt is approximately $230 billion. The harsh reality is that $230 billion goes to the countries that own our debt and won't pay to fill one pot hole, one teacher's salary, one hot meal for the homeless, one prescription for a senior. Nothing. We will pay $230 billion and get nothing in return for it. This is the reality of the situation.

Why do some do it? Why do they avoid reality? Indirectly it is because they are uncomfortable, and, in some cases, possibly even mentally unfit, for reality. Which, is why they invest unbelievable amounts of energy building an alternate reality where they feel comfy and warm.  You know.  Like the reality where Nancy Pelosi is “ethical”, “transparent” and “productive”.


So let's get back to Gail at The New York Times and the direct, root cause reason people like her avoid reality. People like Gail have to live in an alternate reality for one primary reason. They fear failure.  I'll give you an example of what I am talking about but I will need you to use your imagination for a minute.


Imagine being in the middle of a majestic, deep forest brimming with beauty and life. As with any system (eco or otherwise) in order for there to be success (beauty and life in this example) there also needs to be failure, erosion and death. In this forest the dense tree growth is only possible through the death of last cycle’s animals, leaves and trees that died, fell to the ground and decayed (many before their full potential) providing nutrients to other life in the forest including the beautiful trees that now thrive. There is no life without death, no success without failure. Newton said it best: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Liberals are fixated and fearful of this natural part of life. They try with all of their (and your) resources to compensate and hide the ugly side of life always selling themselves, and anyone else who will listen, on the idea that failure and death are an unfortunate consequence of a lack of government/system oversight.


The Liberal wants the comfort and convenience of automobile transportation but doesn’t want the pollution that is required for that convenience. Can the efficiency and method of propelling our automobiles be changed and improved? Of course it can. Everything can always be improved (within obvious natural/universal limits). But, it is hard not to get the sense that the Liberal is less interested in reducing the carbon foot print left by automobiles than they are interested in ensuring that everyone drives the same tiny little (equal) vehicles. If you’ve looked at most of the vehicles that Liberals would have everyone driving you would have to at least wonder.


The Liberal wants good health care, education, etc. for everyone and will sacrifice the quality of all of it to ensure that everyone has it. This is true even, in the end, if the quality of whatever program offered is so poor that it would be better not to have the service, whatever it might be, at all. To a Liberal, fairness, or even the appearance of fairness, is more important than success if that success would have to come at the expense of an equal amount of someone else’s success or failure.


What a synaptic melting conundrum sports must be for the Liberal. A number of years ago I was standing next to the very Liberal wife of a friend of mine at our kid’s soccer game. Our two kids played on the same team. She commented to me that she didn’t like sports and that she thought they were too competitive. What she really meant is that she wished her daughter, and everyone else on both teams, could always win.


She fears failure so intensely that she wishes it away forgetting that the only thing that makes winning glorious is opportunity for loss. How many tickets would any major league franchise sell if the outcome were a tie game every time? Zero.


This intense desire to cancel out (socially engineer around) failure is the dangerous alternate reality that I am talking about. When we ignore reality by replacing it with what we wish life to be we borrow only a temporary reprieve from the responsibility of our contribution for a truly good/real life. There has to be a loser for there to be a winner. Fighting this rule of nature (and probably the universe) is a futile waste of human energy but explains the plight of the Liberal and all those they seek to “fix”.


God, if you’re there and listening, it’s time to help Liberals. Help them to see and enjoy reality, the excitement of life's struggles, defeats and wins. I don’t think that anyone else is qualified or up to the task.

Why Hollywood Liberals Don't Care When Taxes Are Raised on the “Rich”?

Recently, while reading an article on some other subject, I was distracted by a teaser news add flashing in the right of the browser. The teaser, along with the actual article, was titled Hardcore Liberal Celebrities. I clicked over to what turned out to be a CBS News picture gallery of Liberal Hollywood celebrities. Each of the 61 pictures had a caption below describing the actor’s Liberal leanings and/or distain for George Bush and his administration. (http://cbs3.com/slideshows/liberal.celebrities.politics.20.968399.html)

It got me to wondering why these major celebrities don’t seem to care the same way that I do when taxes are raised on “the rich”?

I earn an average of $220,000 per year and am considered, based on the fact that I am in the second highest bracket just under these mega stars, a “rich” person. After doing some light research I’ve discovered the reason that mega rich Liberal Hollywood types don’t care about 3% to 5% tax increases on “the rich”. The answer is simply that they can afford tax increases with no problem while that same 3%to 5% tax increase dramatically affects my lifestyle and future.

Let’s do the math. In 2006 the 100^th highest paid celebrity was Ty Pennington. (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/53/J2KW.html) Ty pulled in a cool $6,000,000.00 that year while I earned $196,000.00. In 2006 Ty was in the maximum tax bracket of 35% (lowered from 39.1% in 2001 by George Bush) while my federal tax rate was 2% lower than Ty’s at 33%. (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)

So, here is how it breaks down for me with my 2006 income:

$196,000.00 x 33% federal tax rate = $64,680.00 going to Uncle Sam (Gulp! I sure hope he spends that efficiently.). That left me $131,320 left to pay for my state, local, sales, property, capital gains, car and sin taxes and my living expenses, savings, etc..

Let’s try with Ty’s income of $6,000,000.

$6,000,000 x 35% = $2,100,000 of Ty’s money going to Uncle Sam (It would take me 9 and a half years at my annual average income just to make enough money to pay Ty’s 2006 federal tax bill.) That left Ty with $3,900,000 to pay for his state, local, sales, property, capital gains, car and sin taxes and my living expenses and savings.

Huh. Interesting. I wonder if Ty feels my pain when they raise the federal tax rate 5%? Let’s see.

Using my 2006 income of $196,000 x (33% + a 5% federal tax increase for a total of 38%) = $74,480 in federal tax that I would have to pay leaving me with $121,520. That is a bottom line loss of $9,800 for me in this example. That reduction in income will affect things like the quality and quantity of foods we buy and at which store we buy them. It will affect things like if we can take a vacation, the type and amount of new clothes for ourselves and the kids, how much we eat out at local restaurants, how much we can save for retirement…I could go on.

With an increase of 5% Ty would be burdened with a 40% federal tax bill. Let’s see if you think his tax burden will affect his standard of living in any way.

$6,000,000.00 x 40% = $2,400,000 in federal taxes. In this example Ty sustains a bottom line loss of $300,000.00 over the 35% federal tax rate calculated above. That leaves poor Ty with a mere $3,600,000 to live on. I sure hope he was able to get by in 2006.

Incidentally, the number one paid star on the Forbes list in 2006 was Tom Cruise. This was a return to the number one slot which he held in 2001 as well. In 2006 his income was

$67,000,000. At a federal tax rate of 40% Tom and his family would need to figure out a way to get by on only $40,200,000.00. Think he and his family would have any lifestyle changes? I'm guessing...No!

These stars have multiple mega homes, sometimes in exotic parts of the world while I have one modest 4 bedroom home that looks like every other ticky tack home in my mid-Western neighborhood (which I love). They fly private jets to where they need to go while I cram myself into the first seat available on a Southwest flight (which beats the heck out of driving for 3 days). Eating healthy, organically grown, high end foods is their standard while I consider it a luxury (and we try to indulge as often as we can). I could go on but you get the point. Raising a mega celebrity's taxes 5 or even 10% is not going to change anything in their lifestyle. But raise this person’s (me) taxes 5% and it will have a measurable impact on me and my family's lifestyle.

I don’t want Ty’s taxes to go up. That is not the point. I actually want Ty’s and everyone else's taxes to go down. What I don’t want are Liberal Hollywood mega stars telling me that they think that “rich” people like me need to pay more in taxes. These limousine riding Liberals have no perspective on the impact it has on “real” people that don’t earn $20,000,000.00 for a movie Like Tom Cruise or who don’t earn $52,252,672,00 a year like Bruce Springsteen. (http://www.paywizard.org/main/VIPPaycheck/VIPPAYcheckmusicians/musicians-salaries/vip_details?id=bruce-springsteen)

When taxes are raised on “rich people” like me there are personal sacrifices that I have to make in my life. When taxes are raised on these mega stars there are no sacrifices for them. They live their lives unaffected by the increased tax burden. Perhaps what we should do is pass an 80% federal tax on all of the Forbes top 100 celebrities. Maybe then we will see a change in heart from the Hollywood Liberal elite on taxation. I’d be in support of finding out.

P.S. This is not a "woe is me" story. I am fortunate and I know it. I'm just not in the mood to be called "rich" by a mega Hollywood star that will never understand want or need regardless of how dramatically their taxes are increased.

Other links researched:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos093.htm#earnings