Liberals are suddenly defending federal subsidies to the ultra-lucrative NFL, even though player average income of $1.9 million has them squarely in the wealthiest ten percent of one-percenters.
For all the liberal hand-wringing about conservative economics providing tax breaks for the job creators of the country, now that Breitbart reported on a conservative who suggested removing subsidies for the NFL, the left has taken to defending those tax breaks. It’s unclear whether they’re ignorant of, or deliberately ignoring the fact that players are not job creators, and also are literally in the highest echelon of the one-percenters who were the greatest enemy of progress not so long ago. The NFL was operated as a non-profit for over 70 years, so virtually all of the league’s subsidies filtered down to teams and players.
Conservative Rep. Mo Brooks’ recommendation is a response to the ongoing NFL debacle. It seems the player protest has hit a tipping point among fans and lawmakers alike, particularly since it’s been established that anybody who dares defy the liberal mob is villainized, to the point a former Army Ranger has been forced to publicly apologize for observing the national anthem. The team’s goal was to not make a statement, but this sort of public and media response to a U.S. soldier standing for the anthem, in a venue called “Soldier Field” of all things, is a very clear statement; disagreement for any reason will not be tolerated.
This is a clear indicator of the modus operandi of the political left, which is to simply oppose anything someone on the right supports. Here, liberals are opposing an end to tax breaks for some of the most obscenely wealthy people in the country, since it was suggested by a republican. When a conservative advocates for free speech, violent leftists wage a campaign of violence to silence them, with virtually no ramifications until recently, when the violent factions began to lose some public support.
Rather than complaining about the reason for the proposal, perhaps liberals should be wondering why the government was subsidizing the income of the richest of the rich individuals to begin with. The left has historically opposed subsidies for companies, which actually employ people. It does make you wonder, though. If President Trump presented a viable plan to achieve world peace, feed all the hungry, and elevate the standard of living for the world’s poor, what pretense would the left use to try to shut that down?
Feature Image via Washington Examiner