There's too much hype about the 'have-nots'

Why is it the Whitefish Pilot seems compelled to tout the "class envy card" every chance it gets?

It appears in the paper far too often for it to be a coincidence, so what might the motive be? I would submit that it's simply to sell more papers. While exploiting this emotionally charged issue of "the haves and the have-nots" they present only the perspective of the poor "have-nots," thus giving the impression that they're an advocate for the underprivileged and downtrodden. "Of the people, for the people." And while at first this may sound very noble and sincere, in reality it's disingenuous.

If the Pilot were indeed concerned about the well-being of those in the community who do not have the same economic advantages as say "the haves," they would be running articles that champion the effort and dedication of the entrepreneurs who have chosen to live here along with the individuals who have gone on to further their education in order to elevate their positions. This would be promoting a "hand up" instead of a "hand out."

Now in regards to the issue of affordable housing, where pray-tell is it written that I have the right to live in Vail, Aspen, Jackson Hole or even Whitefish. And what are we to make of all this talk about providing affordable housing. Who exactly is being called upon to be the provider?

I have been to more than one of these meetings on affordable housing and without exception the provision is always presented in the form of a subsidy. Either as a government subsidy or the ever-popular developer subsidy. And why is it more popular for the burden to be placed on the developer rather than the government? Because when it's in the form of a government subsidy it comes out of our pockets.

I came up with a third subsidy that I like to call the good neighbor subsidy. That's when you as a good neighbor who owns your own house places it for sale at 40 percent below market value. Not very appealing when the subsidy is being imposed on you, is it?

When developers are portrayed as wealthy out of state tycoons instead of local hardworking entrepreneurs who take all the financial risks yet rarely see the return on their investment within the first five years, it's easy to sway the masses against them.

And why stop with housing? How about affordable vehicles. I would love to own a Ford F-350 Power-Stroke Diesel, yet I can't possibly afford it. So shouldn't it be my right that it be made affordable through a subsidy that we impose upon DePratu Ford. After all, just look at all those vehicles they have in their lot. Surely they can afford to subsidize one for me, right?

All of these subsidies are just another name for socialism. And while capitalism does have problems associated with it (i.e. greed) it has proven to work and made the U.S. economy the envy of the world over, whereas socialism has proven time and time again to fail.

J. Bailey

Whitefish