EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA

Used to be that envy was considered one of the seven deadly sins.

Used to be that the difference between American and European sensibilities could be illustrated by the following anecdote: The American looks at a man (or woman) driving by in a luxury car and says, "Someday I'm going to own a car like that." The European observes the same thing and says, "Someday, we're going to take that car away from him."

Americans used to be proud of the difference.

Not any more. Now we aspire to be much more European. Now, envy is promoted as a cardinal virtue right from the top.

President Obama and his still-tingling followers have been preaching envy since before he took office, but he's ramping up the volume as he and members of Congress debate what to do about the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of the year.

The message, although it is never explicitly stated, is clear. Some people earn more money than you. They have more things than you. That's not fair. They don't deserve it. So, government should take it away from them, to assuage your justifiable envy.

The ironies about this are everywhere.

The most colossal, of course, is that Obama and his fellow Democrats attacked the Bush tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich" since they came into being in 2003.

If they really are, then what's to debate? Just let them expire and let the rich go back to paying their "fair share."

Ah, but now that Bush is gone and there are votes to be curried, it turns out that these were not tax cuts only for the rich. They also included everybody else who pays taxes. Now, Obama says he wants to keep those tax cuts in place for 97 percent of those receiving them. In other words, 97 percent of those getting tax cuts weren't "rich."

Also, the federal treasury would "lose" an estimated $650 billion to $700 billion if the rich continue to get the Bush tax cut, but would lose around $3 trillion if it is extended for everybody else. So the vast majority of the cut benefited those who aren't rich.

Who knew?

But, hoping nobody will notice that inconvenient truth, he invokes the now-sacred virtue of envy. How can Republicans support continuing tax cuts for fat cats, wonders the president. Some of them will pay $100,000 less in taxes if things continue as they are.

"We can't afford to give away $700 billion to folks who don't need it," Obama says. Obviously, he believes it's all the government's money in the first place.

Who does need it? Individuals making $200,000 or less, and families making $250,000 or less.

And who drew that line between the rich and non-rich? The president, of course.

This is more than strange. Who is he, even as the president, to decide who can afford to pay higher taxes and who can't? Why can't somebody making $199,000 afford to pay more? In my opinion, somebody making $100,000 can afford to pay more. In fact, I think anybody making more than I do can afford to pay more.

I'll also lay you pretty good odds that somebody making less than I do thinks I can afford to pay more.

And that is the problem with setting artificial dividing lines along the income spectrum and then encouraging those who have less to envy those who have more.

It is also corrosive to "community" — supposedly one of the things liberals love so much. There is a good reason why envy has been called a deadly sin. A secularist like Bertrand Russell called it one of the most potent causes of unhappiness. "... not only is the envious person rendered unhappy by his envy, but (he) also wishes to inflict misfortune on others."

Envy oozes out in all kinds of unseemly ways — just this past week a Boston metro columnist scolded New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for driving a luxury Audi that had been donated to the Best Buddies charity, which he supports.

How immoral, the columnist huffed. That money should have been donated to charity.

Sure, it could have. First Lady Michelle Obama could have donated the $350,000 or so she spent on her Paris vacation to charity, too. I took a brief vacation this summer. I could have donated what it cost to a charity.

That is the poison of envy: Anybody who has a car, takes a vacation, buys clothes or lives in a house that I can't afford ought to donate it to charity.

It has been said before, but it bears repeating: You cannot lift up the poor by tearing down the rich.

And that is the final irony. One of the best ways to lift up the poor is by not tearing down the rich. Yes, this is derided as "trickle-down" economics. But forget about the elites' talking points for a moment, and think of your own situation.

How many good jobs have you gotten from somebody on welfare, or even in middle class?

My answer is, zero. I've only gotten jobs from people, or organizations, with lots more money than I have. Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world. But he earned those riches developing a product that has made life better for millions and provided jobs and investment returns for thousands.

Is vilifying him, or gutting his finances going to make life better for the rest of us?

Our leaders should exhort us to aspire to do better, not attack those who succeed.

Obama promised he would bring us together. But with his relentless promotion of envy, he is tearing us apart.

• • •

Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune. He may be reached at 978-946-2213 or at tarmerding@eagletribune.com. Read him daily at The Soapbox, the Eagle-Tribune blog at blogs.eagletribune.com/soapbox