Rolling in the D’OH!

Although billionaire Howard Schultz is capturing a lot of headlines these days, there’s another billionaire who is upset at it. I’m referring to one of the “good” billionaires, Tom Steyer, the guy funding “Impeach Trump” commercials that haven’t moved the needle, but has Leftists creaming themselves. Anyway, Steyer recently tweeted the following:

@HowardSchultz isn’t ready for prime time. His knee-jerk rejection of a wealth tax shows why. We can’t end inequality until people like Howard & me are required to invest our fair share into our country. It’s not “punitive”—it’s patriotic.

Steyer’s tweet is full of the typical Leftist squawking points, but one part of it caught my eye: “required to invest in our country.” It’s not enough Schultz created a business that employs millions, supports Leftist causes, and elevates people and industries worldwide. Apparently, he needs to do more by force of government (because, let’s face it, that’s what Leftists want). And Schultz’s refusal to submit to force means he’s not a serious Presidential candidate?

There’s a lot to unpack here, so I’ll give you a moment to get a sammich and a cold drink. Ready? Here we go.

The First Amendment outlines a right to peaceably assemble, which means Congress can’t tell us who we can hang out with as long as it’s done without causing harm to others. At first blush, this seems to underscore Steyer’s point, but not when Leftist ideology used in another part of the First Amendment is brought into play. Leftists have maintained the freedom of religion also applies to the freedom from religion, meaning people should be free not to feel obligated to be part of a religion. So, in order for the Left’s argument regarding religion to be logical, they would have to reject Steyer’s idea that billionaires should be forced to contribute.

Judging from the responses to his tweet, that ain’t happening.

Plus, there’s the whole idea of being forced to do something for the common good. These days, the only things people can agree upon are hating the New England Patriots and Michael Bay movies. Beyond that, there is no common approach to the common good. It’s all about perspective.

Say for example you think it would be in the common good to bulldoze a crack house and erect a park. Many people might agree with your idea and support it, but others, like the International Brotherhood of Crack Dealers Local 305, would disagree with it. In their eyes, a crack house is a source of income and putting up a park would affect it. Which common good should prevail? Are both ideas valid? Could there be a compromise, like turning it into a Crack Fun House?

Whenever you invoke the common good, you have to deal with the possibility of pushback, and Steyer hasn’t considered that yet. Even though I’m not a billionaire (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), I would be one of the first to object to his plan to force people like him to give more to the government because a) the government can’t spend the money it already gets effectively, and b) using force to make a desired societal change opens the door to swing the other way once people of a different ideological persuasion get into power. And it will, sooner or later. Don’t damage yourself down the road for a little instant gratification.

However, I do have an idea for Mr. Steyer if he thinks he should pay more in taxes. The IRS takes gifts, and it’s not hard to find out where to send it. If he’s serious about Schultz’s lack of contribution, he should lead the way and voluntarily give up more of his income.

But notice his tweet doesn’t mention that. He’s waiting for government to tell him to do it, meaning…he’s not willing to do it himself. And he’s telling us Howard Schultz isn’t ready to be a leader?

Let that sink in, folks. Then, promptly tell Tom Steyer to shove his idea where the sun don’t shine. That’s right, I’m referring to his brain.

Which, appropriately enough, is shoved up his ass.