This blog entry centers around a post by “Simon Black of Sovereign Man,” a guest on the ZeroHedge blog. “ZeroHedge” discusses economics—but not the same way that The Wall Street Journal does. Think of Tyler Durden, Brad Pitt’s character in Fight Club explaining world markets to you over a beer in a honkytonk. That’s “ZeroHedge.”

Today, “Simon Black of Sovereign Man” comments on plans by Democratic Senators to punish an entrepreneur. (A super-super wealthy, and apparently ungrateful, entrepreneur, to be sure.) Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, plans to renounce his US citizenship, apparently in order to save on taxes. In response, Senators Chuck Schumer and Robert Casey Jr. propose a law punishing people who renounce their American citizenship to avoid taxes.

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves: Why do job creators (like Saverin) feel the need to renounce US citizenship?

Take it away, “Simon Black.”

I’ve been in the US for a little more than 24-hours. And having flipped through the TV channels trying to figure out what useless drivel big media is passing off as ‘news’, I realized that I’m going to vomit if I hear the word “fair” one more time.

This concept of ‘fair’ seems to be dominating discussion of the US government’s dismal fiscal condition. The talking heads say that it’s ‘fair’ for wealthy Americans to pay higher taxes and bail the country out… or that everyone needs to pay his/her ‘fair’ share.

The whole logic is absurd: you do not ‘fix’ the country’s fiscal imbalances by giving the idiots in charge even more resources to squander… it’s like dumping gasoline on a forest fire. Somehow the debate seems to have missed this point.

This ‘fair’ nonsense is also very dangerous. Just ask any three-year old– ‘fair’ is completely arbitrary. It’s like a Wiki version morality… if enough people agree on it, it’s fair.

In this case, ‘fair’ is defined in the sole discretion of those who are the direct beneficiaries of confiscating other people’s money. But let’s look at the numbers:

According to the IRS statistical database, the top 1% of income earners in the United States pays roughly 40% of all US individual income tax. They also get audited at least 5-times more than anyone else. Fair?

The other major complaint seems to be that the wealthy are ‘abusing’ capital gains rules in order to pay a 15% rate instead of a 35% rate. Duh. That’s why they’re wealthy, and stay wealthy… they don’t WORK for a living, they OWN assets which are subject to capital gains.

It seems so bizarre that a country once regarded as the freest, most economically enviable in the world would treat its productive citizens with such hostility.

I’ll readily concede—in many ways, Eduardo Saverin isn’t the most sympathetic figure. Apparently his family moved here years ago because they felt threatened in their home country (Brazil). So, yes, that does make Saverin an ingrate. As Senator Schumer said when he announced his proposed bill (which I’m calling the “Eduardo Law”): “Saverin has turned his back from the country that welcomed him, kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire.”

That’s true. It’s also beside the point.

America needs to attract entrepreneurs, not repel them. Many entrepreneurs may be greedy, but they also create jobs and spur economic growth. Growing economies do a much better job of paying out benefits. More specifically—they do a better job of generating economic growth that results in larger tax revenues that pay for a dizzying array of government benefits.

You can print all the government checks you want, but if the government doesn’t have enough money…

The world economy is changing at a dizzying rate. The businesses that will be driving successful economies and generating wealth ten years from now may not have been invented yet. Bright, creative and driven people like Eduardo Saverin will create those businesses.

Do we want them to create those businesses here, or in some other country?

Does it feel good to stick it to the super-rich? Sure it does. I’ll readily concede that some of the super-rich spend so lavishly and ostentatiously that it’s hard to resist that inner pull to seek schadenfreude. Especially when economic times are as tough as they are.

Having acknowledged that, ask yourself: How much tougher will economic times be in the future if the next generation’s Eduardo Saverins or Mark Zuckerbergs choose to set up shop in some other country?

Remember this, from 2008?

SNL Skit from 2008 – CNN Obama debates Hillary Clinton:

Moderator: “Senator Obama, are you comfortable? Can I get you a pillow?”

Obama: “No thanks, I’m fine.”

Today we’ll have the first of JUST TWO debates Tucsonans will see before the June 17th CD8 special election. Tucson media (KUAT, the Arizona Daily Fitz..excuse me, Star) will run both.

We Republicans won’t mind…well, we won’t be too surprised…if the moderators pull their punches when they question Ron Barber. Perhaps they will remember all the other Tucson media who’ve found paying gigs in Democrat Congressional offices (Mark Kimble, CJ Karamargin); that might make the moderators hesitant to bite the hand that might eventually feed them.

We just hope the debate moderators won’t insist that Jesse Kelly issue any “Barberpologies.”

(Not quite sure who “Barbergirl” will turn out to be. Maybe the Weekly will send someone).

That lesson being: If the cook fears the heat, he’s wise to avoid the kitchen.

Voters in southern Arizona may get to see only one debate in the special election to fill former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ seat in Congress, and Republicans blame Ron Barber for that.

UPDATE—see below

KUAT-TV, Channel 6, will broadcast a debate between Democrat Barber (top), Republican Jesse Kelly (bottom) and Green Party candidate Charlie Manolakis from 6-7 p.m. May 16.

But a second debate, planned for May 14 by Tucson high school students, was canceled last week after the Barber campaign backed out, said Arlo Ogden, Vail Academy and High School government teacher. The Barber campaign counters that it is attending lots of events in the district that will reach “as many people as possible.”

There are people in Vail, lots of them. Constituents, too. And their kids.

Ogden said his students in far east Tucson began organizing congressional debates two years ago, drawing several hundred attendees and online viewers to each of two Republican primary debates in 2010 and in April, for the primary in the special election.

“several hundred attendees.” See—I TOLD you there were lots of people in Vail!

During the first event, conservative radio host John Justice moderated; during the second, a senior in the class did so.

For the debate this month, Ogden said, Kelly and Manolakis agreed to participate, but the Barber campaign asked for “trusted, independent” moderators to be secured before making a commitment.

“I was not real enthused about the verbage. … Those are my students they’re talking about, and they’re questioning their integrity,” Ogden said, adding he would not have used a moderator with a political bent, like Justice, for a general-election debate.

Ogden said he found two local news reporters to field questions, in addition to lining up security, media coverage and a sign-language interpreter.

“two local news reporters?” Gosh, I hope they’re weren’t from the Weekly. Jesse Kelly stands as much chance of getting fair treatment from the Weekly as a celluloid dog does of chasing an asbestos cat through Hell. As far as many local Republicans are concerned, the Star isn’t much better. (See below—I hope we’re wrong about the Star. I guess we’ll find out next Wednesday).

Tucson media seem to have very chummy ties with Democrats (cough cough Mark Kimble CJ Karamargin cough). So, as an Old Pueblo Republican, when I see the phrase “two local news reporters,” I get a bit nervous.

“We got everything, I thought, hammered out,” Ogden said. But he soon received a call from the Barber campaign declining the invitation.

These kids were going to do this the Monday night before their finals,” he said. “My students have never received anything less than superior reviews (of the debates). When we got that phone call, it was kind of disappointing.”

To be fair, the Barber campaign says “the campaign did not ‘promise to do something and then back out.’” And, again to be fair, Ron Barber IS willingly going into a kitchen, of sorts:

Campaign manager Jennifer Cox told the Republic that Barber is “looking forward to a robust debate” with Kelly.

She added that Barber “has the utmost respect for the students at Vail Academy” and that he is looking forward to visiting the government class later in the week to talk about his campaign.

(Emphasis added).

Good for Barber. Let’s see how convincing his explanation is, for why he chose not to participate in the Vail debate—a decision that apparently caused the debate to be canceled.

Visiting a high school government class isn’t the same thing as debating in public, for ALL your constituents to see. It’s a lot harder for the cook to control the heat in a public debate to his liking. Or his party’s.

UPDATE. There will be, after all, a debate that the public can attend.

There will be two debates in District 8, the Barber campaign announced late Monday.

The event moderated by the Arizona Daily Star will take place May 23 at the Tucson Jewish Community Center, 3800 E. River Road.

So, there will be one debate that the public can attend. Unfortunately…just one. (The KUAT debate on May 16th is not open to the public). And, there will only be two debates for this entire general campaign.

That appears to suit the Democrats just fine.