Green With Envy: Liberals' True Colors Shining Through

If someone offered you $10,000 in cash, with the only stipulation being that your neighbor would also be given $10,000, would you accept it?

Now suppose your neighbor would receive $100,000 but you would still only receive $10,000. It's either this or both of you getting nothing. Which would you choose now?

Now suppose your neighbor is already much wealthier than you. Again, you can choose between you getting $10,000 and your neighbor getting $100,000, or both of you getting nothing.

To me, this is a no-brainer. I'd gladly take the money, even if it meant someone else getting more. What's it to me if my rich neighbor benefits as well? If I was willing to sacrifice my own good just to stick it to someone else, what would that say about my priorities? Yes, I might be tempted to complain about the other guy getting more, but I wouldn't go so far as to let that prevent me from taking the money - that would be foolish.

Where am I going with this? Last week, the Democrats in congress were presented with this question. Not exactly, but the basic idea was the same. A bill was introduced to raise the minimum wage (by almost 50%!), but the compromise was that the estate tax would be cut. (The estate tax is largely seen as a tax on the rich, although in reality it can also hit family farms and small businesses since it is not just a tax on cash assets.)

The Democrats claim to be on the side of the poor. I'd like to see them explain this one to some impoverished family struggling to get by on minimum wage... "Yes, we could have give you a 50% raise, but then some millionaire you'll never know or have any contact with, and who has no impact on your life whatsoever, will benefit. And we can't have that. So keep making your $5.15 an hour and remember... vote Democrat! We feel your pain!"

We already knew the Democrats were against virtually every tax cut under the sun - especially those that tend to benefit the wealthy. After all, being envious of those who have more than you is one of the basic requirements of being a liberal. So opposing the estate tax cut was no surprise. And of course they also presented themselves as being the party of the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, etc... so the minimum wage increase should have been something that appealed to them. And in fact it was, and probably still will be, a central part of their campaigns in '06 and '08. But what happens when these objectives conflict? What if helping the working poor comes at the cost of cutting taxes for those unlikely to vote Democrat? Thanks to last week's vote we now know what happens... the poor lose out. Envy of the rich trumps compassion for the poor.

Keep this in mind when the Democrats try to use raising the minimum wage as a campaign platform in '06 and '08, as they surely will. They had their chance.