By Selwyn Duke

With the recent passage of the
“TARP bonus” bill, it’s obvious that our politicians are finally serious about
tackling the problem of greed.  It’s
about time, too.  We’ve long had “hate
crime” laws, so one had to wonder when the next deadly sin would make it on the
legislative agenda.

This bill targets people at
certain companies – most visibly the much-maligned AIG – taxing any bonus pay pushing
one’s income over the $250,000 threshold to the tune of 90 percent.  Yet the popular conception of the legislation
sells our enlightened overlords short, as their vision entails far more than
bringing a handful of rapacious Gordon Geckos to heel.  Henry Blodget explains
writing at Yahoo! Finance:

If the
“TARP bonus” bill the House passed yesterday becomes law, any of the
hundreds of thousands of people who work for Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG,
and nine other major US corporations will have to fork over 90 cents of every
bonus dollar that puts their household income over $250,000.

That’s household
income, not individual income.  If you’re married and filing singly,
you’ll have to surrender anything over $125,000.  Indefinitely. 

. . .
(If you’re a $40,000 a year telemarketer at a TARP company married to a
$210,000 lawyer, any bonus will be taxed).  So this tax will be felt by a
lot more than the handful of execs at AIG and Merrill who ran off with several
million dollars apiece.

Yet we must amass the lynch mob
and applaud Uncle Samantha for punishing the robber-baron villains in this story.  And I admire the government’s ability to
divine the eternal truth that $250,000 is the magic number.  That does seem to be the consensus; for
instance, that old closet Fabian Franklin Roosevelt once said that no one
should be allowed to earn more than
$25,000, which today is approximately $265,000 adjusted for inflation (FDR had
to settle for a 94 percent rate on all income over $200,000).  It’s also great how this uniform standard
ignores that $250,000 doesn’t go nearly as far in Manhattan, NY, as it does in,
let’s say, Bartow, WV.  Because we all
know how especially greedy people in high-cost-of-living areas are.

I know these anti-free-market
statements must surprise you left-wingers, since you believe people such as me
emerge from the womb incorporated.  So
you should know what I really think of big business.  I’m suspicious of “big.”  Big is powerful.  Big is threatening.  Big is scary. 
I learned that watching Godzilla movies in the seventies.  And I think millions of screaming Japanese
would agree with me.

In all half-seriousness, the
bigger an entity is, the more inefficient and corrupt it tends to be.  Why, even the armed forces, with their
vaunted military discipline, have paid $600 for a toilet seat (unless “Men in
Black” was right and that was just to cover funding for space-alien investigation).  Perhaps we should nationalize the armed
forces.  It’s also true that the more an
entity can do for you, the more it can do to
you.  This is one reason why people of
faith understand that fear of God is as valid as love of God.  Of course, some would say that our worldly
false idols and faux gods are much more to be feared, as they’re far from all
good, and absolute power really can corrupt them absolutely.  These people might be mystified that fear of
big is conspicuously absent when the matter is government.  These people might say that while Citigroup,
AIG and other corporations own big buildings, government is the Godzilla that
can send them crashing down on our heads. 
I’m sure these people are crazy.

I’m also sure that many – no,
strike that – all AIG employees are
greedy.  I mean, we certainly can read
their hearts and minds, and it’s especially damnable because it’s such an
unusual fault.  I mean, we’re never greedy – it’s always the
other guy.  Most of those who criticize
greed refuse money and benefits above and beyond what they deserve, and they
also possess inerrant judgment regarding what they actually do deserve. That’s
why I’m sure every reader of this piece will send me a $10 check, because I’m
plainly under-compensated (OK, say it, I know I left myself wide open on that
one).

And I can’t think of anyone
better to be the arbiters of greed than our benevolent overseers in
government.  We know that the Chris
Dodds, Barney Franks, Nancy Pelosis and Hillary Clintons of the world would
never accept salary, perquisites (or votes) they didn’t deserve.  They’ve only risen to the pinnacle of power
in the hallowed arena of politics by being the ungreediest of the ungreedy –
they’re just downright doubleplusgood.  Thus,
I suggest what should be obvious.

We need a Greed Czar.

After all, with the precedent
TARP sets, we now stand at the precipice of a new age of fairness.  We’ve long targeted certain groups with tax
policy, most notably those who earn more than the average burned-out,
ponytailed, jowl-breakdown, closet-socialist ex-hippie.  But now we’ve opened up a whole new world of
targeted taxation.  And given what people
complain about, I can envision what’s on the horizon.

We can have the Barry Bonds Bill,
to tax the earnings of athletes above that $250,000 threshold.  I mean, I always hear how sportsmen are
overpaid, and why should they earn more than a nurse or schoolteacher?  Bonds himself was making a cool $22 million
annually (plus endorsements) as of 2006, and that was partially the result of
using steroids to pump himself up bigger than a government bureau.  Skin ‘em to the bone, I say.

Then we can have the John
Edwards Act, to tax trial lawyers on all earnings above, you guessed it,
250G.  Think about it: Why should a man
get rich bankrupting hospitals?  Oh,
don’t misunderstand me.  Greedy doctors
and hospitals should be broken, but that can be left to Barack Obama and socialised
(British spelling.  Since we’re becoming
like Europeans governmentally, let’s really get into the spirit) medicine.  There’s no reason for greedy lawyers to get
rich performing that noble task.

Finally, I have a few more
suggestions: The Ludacris Act and the Russell Simmons Act, for rappers and rap
moguls.  The Madonna Act, The Cher Act, The
Dan Rather Act, and, before my act gets old, I’ll say that I’m not
intellectually capable of itemizing America’s millions of sin phenomena in need
of remedy.  Only the government can do
that.  But I can provide a basic outline.

We need to address all the Seven
Deadly Sins.  The climate is right for a
Greed Czar right now, but we also need a Wrath Czar (hate), a Sloth Czar, a
Gluttony Czar, an Envy Czar, a Lust Czar and a Pride Czar.  And, at risk of seeming presumptuous, I now
present my nominees for these posts.

Greed Czar: Rod Blagojevich or William
Jefferson.  No one understands a problem
like someone who has been there. 
Democrat Louisiana Congressman Jefferson has gotten his hands dirty,
down in the gutter, wallowing in gobs of money, as evidenced by the fact that
authorities found $90,000 worth of marked bills in his freezer.  He well understands the lure of cold cash.  As for Blagojevich . . . ‘nough said.  We’ll choose the one who manages to stay out
of prison.     

Lust Czar: This is a no-brainer
– Bill Clinton.  Barney Frank is a close
second for once having a call-boy operation run out of his home, though.

Hate Czar: Barack Obama’s
longtime friend and pastor Jeremiah Wright, and Reverend Joseph Lowery can be
his assistant.  Who better to make sure
that “white will embrace what is right”?

Envy Czar: Since Winston
Churchill said the “gospel of envy” is socialism, I’ll have to go with Vermont
Senator Bernie Sanders.  I respect the
fact that, unlike other Senate socialists, he’s honest enough to proclaim what
he is.

Gluttony Czar: There are many
worthy of mention in this category.  One
that comes to
mind is Democrat Gerald Nadler, a congressman from my state who was once
affectionately called “Congressman Waddler” by former Senator Alphonse D’Amato.  Yet the obvious choice is a relative unknown,
Republican member of the Mississippi house W.T. Mayhall, Jr.  Representative Mayhall made all the other
contenders look like poseurs in 2008 when he distinguished himself by proposing HB 282, a bill that
would have prohibited restaurants in his state from serving fat people.  It also would have had the positive
unintended consequence of addressing greed in restaurateurs, since fat people
constitute about 75 percent of the industry’s customers in Mississippi.

Pride Czar: This is easy – Al
Gore.  Who else but the man who invented
the Internet and knows he can save the planet from imminent ecological
disaster?

Sloth Czar: I’m the man.  If you understood my lifestyle, you’d know
why.  But I’m sure I’d be good at
enforcing industriousness on everyone else.

Moreover, we may be approaching
a fortuitous intersection of political will and scientific discovery.  It is being reported that scientists are developing the ability to read minds with brain scanning
equipment, which means we perhaps won’t have to long rely on merely
circumstantial indicators of sinful thoughts such as monetary compensation or
dalliances with interns.  I mean, just
because a medical assistant only makes $19 an hour doesn’t mean he isn’t
flushed with feelings of greed upon receiving his paycheck; just because a man
is never caught in adultery doesn’t mean lust is absent from his heart.  But such things won’t matter soon, as our
government will just be able to determine if a subj . . . er, citizen is manifesting
untoward thoughts.  So if little Johnny
exhibits brainwaves associated with greed upon collecting his 50 cents for a
glass of lemonade at the stand, Uncle Sam can tax a portion of it sufficient to
make his brainwaves, uh . . . as Barack Obama would say, change.

Of course, I don’t claim to be
a seer or even a futurist.  But I do know
about the power of precedents and can recognize another giant step toward a
perfection of the human spirit that only complete submission to the angels of
government can bring.  You may say that
I’m a dreamer, that it can’t be done.  I
say something else.

Yes, we can. 

                      © 2009 Selwyn Duke—All Rights Reserved