Economic Winners Serve to be Respected; M. Perry

As Executive Director Sue Rusche put it: "Hardly anybody understands what pre vention is, and certainly that has to apply to the United States Congress." In fact, two years ago CSAP (then the Officefor Substance Abuse Prevention) was reprimanded by the General Accounting Office for illicit political activities. Were it concerned about the law, the agency should have been exercising greater caution in its own activities and tighter oversight of its grantees' projects. Instead, the Center seems intent on operating as close to the line of illegal lobbying as possible. The case for cutting the federal budget is clear enough. The case for eliminating grant money for political activists is even clearer. As Thomas Jefferson put it: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." It is time that taxpayers, rather than legislators, decided which groups they want to support. Democracy means very little if influential interests are able to regularly raid taxpayers' wallets to underwrite their political campaigns and lobbying activities. D EconomicWinners Deserveto Be Respected,Not Vilified by Mark J. Perry M any people deplore the fact that the top 20 percent of U.S. households account for 55 percent of the nation's after tax income, and the top one percent own nearly 40 percent of the country's wealth.

Such inequality seems to offend some sense of justice and fairness and this prompts policies to tax the rich and redistribute income to people on the bottom. The very Dr. Perry is Assistant Professor ofEconomics at Jacksonville University and Director of the Cen ter for World Capitalism of the James Madison Institute. nature of the U.S. progressive income tax is intended to tax the rich at increasingly higher rates to achieve a more "equitable" distribution of income. In discussions on equality, we often do not define our terms well. Most of us would agree that equality of opportunity is desir able. But, equality of opportunity in no way guarantees that outcomes will be equal. In fact, inequality of outcomes is the natural and expected result of any fair, competitive process, whether the competition is for Olym pic medals, Nobel Prizes, grades, or dollars.

ECONOMIC WINNERS DESERVE TO BE RESPECTED, NOT VILIFIED 655 For example, in the 1992 summer Olym pic games, almost 100countries competed in over 230 individual and team events in 26 different sports. In all, 815 gold, silver, and bronze medals were awarded. The countries that received the most medals represented only ten percent of the total number of countries that competed. Yet that top ten percent won more than 65 percent of the total medals awarded. The top 20 percent of the countries won more than 85 percent of the total medals awarded. An analysis of Nobel Prizes awarded in the four science categories-physics, chem istry, medicine, and economic science also shows a dramatic inequality of out come. Since 1901 there have been 447Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals from over 30 countries. Three countries (United States, Great Britain, and Germany) earned almost 300 Nobel awards. In other words, the top 10 percent of the countries receiving awards got 67 percent of the total Nobel Prizes. The top 20 percent (United States, England, Germany, Prance, Sweden, and Switzer land) earned over 80 percent of the total prizes granted.

As long as everyone is free to compete in a fair contest with well-defined rules, no one is offended by the inequality of outcomes at the Olympics or in Nobel Prize competition. No one ever seriously suggests that Olympic medals or Nobel Prizes (with the possible exception of the prize for literature and peace) be redistributed to achieve" equality of outcome. " Why then do people object to an unequal distribution of income or wealth? The re sults of income distribution conform very closely to the inequalities outlined above in the Olympics and for Nobel Prizes. An unequal distribution of income is a natural and expected outcome-just like the un equal distribution of Olympic medals or Nobel Prizes. The economy is a competitive marketplace and there will always be people who excel in business, science, or the arts. Through some combination of skill, persever ance, hard work, and luck, successful people like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey,·and Michael Jordan make more in a year than most of us make in a lifetime. But then the United States usually wins more Nobel Prizes in a year than Japan has won all century.

Taxing the most successful people in our society and redistributing income to the most unproductive members of society is not a solution to the so-called evils of income inequality. Redistribution through a punitive, progressive tax system harms everyone-it makes the richest, most suc cessful people less productive and the least productive people even less productive. In the same way that redistributing Olympic medals would weaken and undermine ath letic competition, income redistribution weakens our economic system. The medal winners of the Olympics and the Nobel Prize winners are honored, re spected, and admired. We should pay the same respect to the winners and true heroes of the free enterprise system-the success ful business people at the top of the eco nomic ladder. D THEFREEMAN IDEASON LIBERTY Why They're Mad by Sarah J. McCarthy T he most incredible question to arise from the horror in Oklahoma City is not that a lunatic or two could engage in an atrocity, but why 1,000 people in February 1995 felt the need to attend a meeting with speakers from the Michigan Militia in the sleepy Norman Rockwell town of Mead ville, Pennsylvania.