When Paul Robs Peter.
"When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains."
I’m not sure where I first heard this, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately. Some folks like to say that society is divided between the haves and the have-nots, but I think the division lies between Peter and Paul. Michigan has a lot of Pauls these days. The problem is that Peters are getting few and far between.
Nothing Wrong With Paul...
I understand that Paul often does great work. I also understand that all the payment for Paul isn’t necessarily “robbed” from Peter—at least in the sense that lawbreaking is involved. Often Peter is divested of wealth in perfectly legal means…say, taxation. However, it’s undeniable that Pete is poorer and Paul gets paid.
Everyone worries about Paul. Whether Paul is the hungry mouth, or feeding other hungry mouths, everybody’s on Paul’s side. Nobody ever applauds Peter, unless he’s writing a big check for Paul at a fancy fundraising party. Sometimes Peter gets an award for paying Paul, more often Paul gets the award for spending Peter’s money.
But without Peter, There's Nothing to Rob.
Peter’s the guy who labors to create the wealth. Peter works hard, year in and year out. If he needs help, he hires people and thus creates “jobs.” Those jobs are how other people sometimes become Peters themselves. Sometimes the hired helpers gang up and vote for Pete to pay them more…then they become Pauls.
But without Peter, there’s no payment for Paul. The government, which lives off the wealth taken from Peter, runs out of money to pay all the Pauls. The Pauls’ jobs dry up, even for the places where the Pauls have ganged up. Without Peter, nobody gets paid and everyone goes hungry. There are always more lots more Pauls than Petes. You’d think we’d pay more attention to Peter.
Most Folks Have a Little of Both.
Now I understand that most folks have a little of Peter AND Paul in them. There are organizations like schools, that are both Peter and Paul. Even the U.S. military, who are Peters protecting us, need some other Peter to pay for the ammo. Everyone in society has a bit of Paul in them, so it makes sense for Peter to pay Paul something.
But the trick is to have a balance. Most folks believe we have an obligation to try and help Paul. But if a society, a nation, or a city, becomes a place run by, of, and for Paul, that won’t work either. It’s called “socialism,” and it only works until the government runs out of Peter’s money and Peter decides to quit working at a sucker game. Funny; we all know Paul never complains about being paid, but does anyone ever ask what happens if Peter gets sick and tired of doing the paying.
What If Peter Goes On Strike?
What happens? Mainly two things. One is that Peter goes away. If Paul demands too much in—say—Michigan, Peter will just quietly move to Indiana. The second thing is that Peter won’t play. He quits creating wealth. If he has money, he pulls it out and puts it where Paul can’t get at it. That’s what’s going on today in the markets, as Petes worldwide are trying to get away from the Paul-centric Obama Administration.
The best thing is to have a balance between Peter and Paul. If your society makes it easy to be Peter, and for Peter to keep what he works to create, Peter is generally happy to be generous to Paul. But the balance isn’t that easy, because there are always more Pauls than Peters. The Pauls are always loud and organized, the Peters not so much. But even though it seems like Paul is more powerful, Peter always gets the last word. If you rob Pete too much, all you’ll have is hungry Pauls.
So What You Got To Ask Yourself Is...
So when you read higher spending, tax and fee increases, clever revenue expansions and regulations that force Peter to indirectly pay Paul’s agenda, it all comes down to a simple question: are you Peter or are you Paul?
And if you’re Paul, what would you do without Pete?
.
