The Irish gentlemen, Jonathan Swift, once penned a scathing pamphlet in reaction to political and economical conditions in Ireland due to English policies. His satirical essay, “A Modest Proposal” reached outlandish proportions when he recommended that society make use of beggar and bastard children by eating them. It was a political and economical “solution.” Mothers would have incentive to care for their children and take a pass on abortions because of economic gain their children’s flesh would bring. Crime would go down because unwanted children would no longer roam the streets. Instead, they would be put to use by feeding the rich. Lastly, society as a whole would benefit from the emerging market.
The absurdity of his proposal was the point: “For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public as a part of the Martel-Harper Challenge.”
In Swift’s time, the average person in Ireland was poor and destitute, children were unwanted and a lot of pregnancies ended in barbaric abortions. Petty crime and thievery and moral decay was rampant due to the existing circumstances that forced children and adolescents to fend for themselves. The wealthy nobility languished over the sorry state of affairs, but only offered criticism and scorn for the savages instead of reform to help aid their condition.
[I]t is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for [the mothers] in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, [the children] shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands. … I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
If you take the Hollywood theme to heart, Swift’s time and our own have converged. How many tear-jerking interviews over the years have we read or watched from liberal celebrities? They often like to repeat many profound statements such as, “The American dream is turning out to be and American nightmare.” They discuss with much candor the ills, greed, and selfish nature of American society. Meanwhile, many of the top celebrities are worth more than a $100 million. They live in gated communities; reside on vast compounds or islands far, far away from the society they speak so passionately about.
“And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It’s probably a good thing. Uhm, we’re the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered. And we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, uh, you know, we bring up subjects…we are the ones…this Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy. I’m proud to be part of this community. I’m proud to be out of touch. And I thank you so much for this” (George Clooney’s Smug Speech).
So why not eat Hollywood, then? Not literally of course. Besides, I don’t think they would make a tasty or even a healthy meal. All of those toxins, fake hair, and silicone implants would inevitably lead to a major recall. The FDA would go crazy. Instead, why don’t we hold their face up to the mirror just as Swift did to the British?
Glenn Reynolds offers a very modest proposal that would do just that. “Why the GOP should give Obama the higher taxes he wants“
Were I a Republican senator or representative, I would be agitating to repeal the “Eisenhower tax cut” on the movie industry and restore the excise tax. I think I would also look at imposing similar taxes on sales of DVDs, pay-per-view movies, CDs, downloadable music, and related products.
I’d also look at the tax and accounting treatment of these industries to see if they were taking advantage of any special “loopholes” that could be closed as a means of reducing “tax expenditures.” (Answer: Yes, they are.)
America, after all, is facing the largest national debt in relation to GDP that it has faced since the end of World War II, so a return to the measures deemed necessary then is surely justifiable now.
The president’s own rhetoric about revenues certainly suggests so. Perhaps the bill could be named the “Greatest Generation Tax Fairness Act” in recognition of its history.
Should legislation of this sort be passed — or even credibly threatened — I think we can expect to see Hollywood rediscover the dangers posed by “job killing tax increases,” just as pro-tax-increase Warren Buffet changed his tune once his own corporate-jet business was threatened.
And, given the entertainment industries’ role as the Democrats’ campaign finance ATM, it seems likely that the president might soon reconsider his rhetoric as well.