Bestselling horror novelist Stephen King recently helped out his fellow Mainers by holding a contest through his Bangor-based radio station: however much money listeners donated, King would match. The money would then be donated to lower-income Mainers to help pay for heat this winter.
King raised $242,370. Not too shabby. Clearly, this is a commendable and gracious effort on the part of King. It says a lot about his character. But when you bring it into context with past King quotes and his overall liberalism, it brings up an interesting hypocrisy in what famous liberals and 1 percent types do and say.
In the past, King has stated that he thinks people who make as much as he does should be taxed as much as 50 percent. Why? Has King fully thought about a world where 50 percent of his money is taken by Big Government and then they decide where it goes? Just because it goes to the government with the “best intentions” does not mean it will help heat fellow Mainers’ homes. Yet liberal entertainers like King continue to beg Obama to tax them more when they are fully capable as individuals who have found financial success to use their disposable income anyway they see fit, including helping those they see as needy.
How Stephen King has not connected his actions with his beliefs is really quite amazing.
Has he imagined a world where the government taxed him less
? Imagine how much more good he could do with that disposable income!? Or not. It’s really his choice. When giving becomes forced
giving, then the whole act has lost merit. Why is it liberals cannot imagine a world where people with money make the right decisions? Why is it they oppose choice so often, yet turn around and exemplify choice with their own income?
King not only raised almost a quarter of a million dollars in the name of charity, but he also owns
the very radio station through which the contest was held. Think about that. King, as a 1 percenter, is able to provide jobs not just through his writing but through his radio station. In the dystopian future where liberals want to take us, there is no such thing as men earning a living, becoming successful, starting businesses, providing jobs and giving back to those in need. In their world, there is a defined upper class that pays for the lower classes as they deem appropriate. The whole capitalist system becomes handicapped and people become trapped. King, himself a liberal, gives into this philosophy of taking in order to give when he is a perfect example, in some respects, of opposition to that liberal philosophy. He became successful at what he loves, then started a business that provides jobs and regularly gives back to those in need.
King is the most successful author in the world, and he shows no signs of slowing down. His new novel, “11/22/63,” has become a New York Times Bestseller, and he has a new miniseries, “Stephen King's Bag of Bones,” on A&E. But this article is not meant to criticize the man’s art. His art is almost beyond criticism because of its wild success and popularity. This article is simply meant to point out the common sense of situations that so many liberals seem to miss. They applaud men like King when they talk about needing to be taxed more and then they applaud him again when he creates jobs and helps others with his disposable income. Yet they cannot put together the obvious points.
Men like King exemplify the best of capitalism. He found what makes him happy and then became financially successful doing it. Would he be able to do such philanthropic things if he made half what he makes now? How much more could be do with all
the money he earns? With his money he provided a better life for himself, his family and others by creating jobs and donating. He did this all in a system of choice and American capitalism.
Why is this so hard for King and other liberals to see?