So, why the name? As I was contemplating politics with both the Democratic Convention and the Republican Conventions having taken place in the last week or so, I was trying to establish my thoughts on the candidates and the issues. I will have more to say about my views, but here it is in a nutshell.

Strong economy through reduced spending, lower individual taxes, and lower corporate taxes. Strong defense. Small government with less spending, responsible and limited welfare, and strong emphasis on education programs. Socially conservative. Leans Republican, but not strict to the Party line.

You get the point. I am leaning towards McCain/Palin only because I agree with more of their policies than Obama/Biden's policies, especially on economics, taxes, and spending.

The name "The Robin Hood Dilemma" came to me as I was contemplating Obama's tax strategy, and his 'community organizer' background. To me welfare is a broken system. It has created a goup of lazy people who expect the government to take care of them, without any personal responsibility. They want everything for free just because they are poor. But, they are not 'poor.' They are lazy. There are plenty of real poor people. I have met a number of them through my Church service and Community service. There are people who struggle every day to support themselves and their families. There are millions of them all across this great nation. They do not look for a hand out or a free meal. They work for what they eat. They work hard, harder than many CEOs or Celebrities. They make minimum wage but work harder than anyone for it. They work hard while there are millions of others just as capable, who sit on their butts watching free cable, eating free food, and living in a free house. There is something wrong with this. Yes, this is slightly oversimplified, but the point is nevertheless valid. Why does the welfare system not fight for those who work hard yet find they have barely enough to survive on, let alone save for retirement or a child's college education. Welfare should be there for them, not for those who refuse to work. Obama is a welfare supporter, and I cannot support him in that. I cannot support a government focused on handing out freebies to lazy bums. Welfare must change. Obama wants to continue this welfare culture so prevalent in our inner-cities by taking from the rich through increased taxes and giving to the poor. It is essentially a redistribution of wealth. A 'rob from the rich, give to the poor' mentality. Here in lies the dilemma.
We all know the story of Robin Hood. The heroic Prince of Thieves takes from the rich and evil King and gives back to the poor, all the while winning the heart of the Maiden Miriam. It is a timeless story that makes for an entertaining Disney or Kevin Costner movie, but what if we look at it from an economic view. Maybe we should not let our children watch such a movie. The movie is more relevant in this political environment than we might have expected.
From a political/economical view, this feel good story masks the true morale of the story. To me, if the King of England were not so evil in this story it would be a horrible story. This so-called Prince would be nothing more than a common thief.
So, where is the dilemma? Maybe it is just in my mind, but as a Christian there is a motivation to do as Jesus did and have charity for the poor. There is a part of me that is giving, wanting to give of my time and resources to help those less fortunate. Shouldn't we all have that desire? For the most part I think we as Americans are a generous and giving people, as is evident with huge amounts of charitable contributions in this country for every telethon, every fundraiser, and every disaster relief effort. We feel a need to help the poor and afflicted. The down trodden and suffering. It is human nature. It is American nature. This is where the Democrats, or at least many of them, come from. Their desire for a big government with big spending projects is generally to assist these people who feel they cannot help themselves. There is something sincere and charitable about this political view. The Democrats may be considered more charitable than the Republicans, at least politically speaking.
This political mentality, however, can be dangerous. As I have worked with inner-city families in Rochester, NY I learned quickly that our generous welfare system is broken, and needs serious fixing. Not only is there too much inefficiency in the bureaucracy but it has taught and bred generations of families who are not self-sufficient. We learned this through disasters like Katrina. If the government does not save them they cannot save themselves. Sure the government has certain responsibilities and sure the government dropped the ball and needed to do a better job, however, we as individuals have responsibilities of our own. The government was not created by our Founding Fathers to do everything for us. They did not envision 'Big Brother' taking control. Our welfare system has created millions of people who cannot save themselves. As compassionate as we are there is danger in being too compassionate that we do harm. As the old adage goes, "you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." We need this instilled in our welfare system.
Without changes to our welfare system, our education system, and large parts of our societal thinking we cannot truly change. If Obama wants change he's got to understand this. There is a dilemma of Robin Hood proportions. If we risk 'robbing' from the rich by taxing them more we will only go on strengthening the dependence people have on the government. The thinking that government will cover all your medical costs, your retirement costs, your education costs is just silly. If Obama wins and he gets his tax changes approved he will cause a huge redistribution of wealth, only to find out a few years later than it is still the case that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
Some of this thinking of mine has been influenced by Robert Kiyosaki, and his book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." It is a great book, and a must read for anyone. He argues that a redistribution of wealth does not work because the rich understand money while the poor do not. If you increase the taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy will find a legal way to not pay those taxes (or pay less of it). If you give the money back to the poor they will squander it as they continue the mentality of make more money, then spend more money. Mr. Obama, as good as your intentions may be there is a better way. We need to keep taxes low for everyone, and reign in spending. We need to reduce the welfare arm of the government and spend it on education reform. Pay teachers more to attract the best people to be our teachers. Give more money to the schools to create better learning environments. We need to strengthen families, and teach the ethic of hard work. We need to bring financial literacy to the forefront so people can learn how to better support themselves today and in the future.

I could go on, but you get the point. There is a dilemma facing us today. The name came to me as I thought of how the story of Robin Hood related to Obama's tax strategy. This, I think is a dilemma many face. We want to be giving and charitable, but to what extent? The democrats have a point in wanting to spend money to help the poor and middle class, but is there way the right way, the best way? What if our giving is doing harm? Is it right to take more from the rich and give it to the poor? Does the government do a better job in giving then the private sector or faith-based groups?

This blog is just for me to rant and rave about economics, finances, politics, and anything else that comes to mind. I just wanted to give a explanation for this catchy name.