Dear Ruler’s chief economist is promoting redistribution of the wealth guised as sound economic policy.  Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger says that increasing taxes on the wealthy would stimulate the economy and that wealth inequality is a “threat” to our economy.  Krueger says that “...a more fair distribution of income would hasten economic growth.”  He wants to redistribute the income by making the tax code even more progressive!  Lord help us … another liberal idiot who thinks that wealth is distributed by government, not earned. 

First I would like to point out that our tax system is more progressive than ever.  Here are some facts from the Heritage Foundation:

Anti-poverty spending is at record levels. The rich are shouldering more of the tax burden than ever. The federal budget is more redistributive than ever.

In 1980, the richest 20 percent financed 55 percent of all federal revenue. Today, they finance a record 69 percent. In that time, the portion of all taxes paid by the top 1 percent has doubled. The portion paid by the bottom 40 percent has dropped nearly in half.

At a time when the Obama administration is clearly desperate for jobs to be created, it is puzzling why his chief economist would suggest raising taxes on the very people who would create those jobs.  Krueger says the Bush tax cuts should expire for the wealthy in order to shift income from the top 1% to the bottom 99%. 

So here we have Obama’s chief economist advocating for redistribution of the wealth through the tax code.  Is it any wonder why politicians want to keep the tax code in place?  It is a means of economic legislation.  It is a way for them to achieve so-called “fairness.” 

The Wall Street Journal addressed this idea of progressive outcomes in an article I talked about yesterday on the program: A Step Backward for Economic Freedom in 2012.

When you actually look at the performance data, it turns out that the "progressive" outcomes so highly touted by those favoring big government programs to address every societal ill are actually achieved more efficiently and dependably by the marketplace and the invisible hand of free economies.

The free market can do a better job than the government of addressing societal ills?  Blasphemy!  What do we need?  More government.  Bigger government.  More spending.  More redistribution.  This will surely encourage economic growth because we know better what the people need.  Right?  Wrong.  From the Wall Street Journal …

"Rapid expansion of government, more than any market factor, appears to be responsible for flagging economic dynamism. Government spending has not only failed to arrest the economic crisis, but also—in many countries—seems to be prolonging it. The big-government approach has led to bloated public debt, turning an economic slowdown into a fiscal crisis with economic stagnation fueling long-term unemployment."

This is why the United States has now slipped, yet again under the Obama administration, on the Index of Economic Freedom; The less economic freedom, the less economic growth.  And yet Barack Obama and his chief economist are proposing more government and higher taxes – less economic freedom.  Does that even make sense?