Commentary - Aaron Keith Harris: ‘Looters’ on loose in Congress

No doubt many see such a sentiment as evidence that Buffett is the best kind of businessman, one with a conscience and concern for his fellow man.

Of course, Buffett is always free to cut a check to the Treasury Department, but thousands of other high-earners may soon have the compulsory opportunity to follow Buffett’s example.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has crafted a plan that includes a 4 percent surcharge for individuals with annual incomes of more than $150,000 and couples who make more than $200,000.

If Hillary Clinton or one of her fellow Democrats wins the White House and the Democrats pick up a few more seats in Congress, the Rangel plan will likely be passed before the next Republican sex scandal is revealed.

Such a plan is of course a bad idea if you want economic growth and increased revenue into the treasury. If you tax something — in this case the wealth of those who create jobs and capital — you get less of it. And the deep Reagan tax cuts helped double federal tax collections during the 1980s.

So why set a policy that’s not good for anyone’s bottom line? (Except for the lawyers, bureaucrats and accountants that run the confounded mess, of course.)

Because most Democrats and a lot of Republicans love to play the politics of envy. It’s easy to score points by claiming the rich will pay for the new programs you’re introducing. And no one would think of challenging the notion that successful people have the moral duty to “give back to the community.”

Ayn Rand took 1,069 pages — in my paperback edition — to demonstrate just how despicable that notion is in her novel “Atlas Shrugged,” which marked its 50th anniversary in print last month.

“Atlas” takes place in a fictional United States in the midst of a severe economic depression. Dagny Taggart is the head of the nation’s largest railroad company. She desperately tries to keep her business alive in spite of a government that keeps piling on the counterproductive regulations in every sector of the economy.

But Dagny also notices a more severe problem. Her most capable employees are quitting without giving a reason, then disappearing. So are her strongest competitors and other men and women of achievement from every field.

Dagny eventually meets John Galt, the man who started the movement to convince creators and producers to withdraw their consent and participation from a society that values “looters” and “moochers” instead.

The most common, and somewhat justified, complaint against “Atlas,” other than its length, is that Rand is a bad writer of fiction.

Most of the novel the voice of the omniscient narrator explains in detail what the characters believe and why they believe it. Also Rand’s villains are caricatures, her heroes are gods and the dialogue is terse.

But Rand’s precise intention was “a novel of ideas.” It’s not surprising that a book that celebrates the idea of man’s right and capability to pursue, achieve and enjoy happiness is still inspiring readers both new and old.

Contrast that attitude with the growing cult of environmentalism, which seems to be fueled by guilt over not only burning gasoline and chopping down trees, but mankind’s very existence.

It will be interesting to see if a planned movie version of “Atlas Shrugged,” which could star Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, will work without diluting the message too much. Until then, you can keep busy with those 1,069 pages.

Aaron Keith Harris writes about politics, the media, pop culture and music and is a regular contributor to National Review Online and Bluegrass Unlimited. He can be reached at aaronkeithharris@gmail.com.