First, the $2 million dollars you want to expropriate from the wealthy haven&#039;t been earned by you (or the government) and therefore your basic right to it is questionable.

Second, doesn&#039;t it seem a little unfair that 99% of the population decides over the fate of 1%? Where is the protection of minorities? Keep in mind at one time or another we all were or are members of a minority. And who pays not enough or has too much money is all in the eye of the beholder, usually it is the guy who just has more than you do.

Third, &quot;Until we stop scrabbling for the paltry leavings of the wealthy, and demand a government that provides the services that it ought to, we deserve what we get&quot;. What services is the government supposed to provide, who deserves them and who has to pay for them? Considering that the middle class and wealthy carry most of the tax burden in this country calling their &quot;leavings&quot; &quot;paltry&quot; is rather insulting. You want to rob Paul to pay Peter! Just because Paul has more than Peter.
This rhetoric reminds me of &quot;Atlas shrugged&quot;.

Fourth, what has that to do with teacher accountability and the outdated model how public unions operate? If you listen to the rhetoric at the moment it sounds, that if unionized public workers do not have collective bargaining powers their life will end. Makes you wonder how all the millions of workers who are not unionized make it work. The problem with unions is that they excellence can not be rewarded, they protect the incompetent and lazy ones, and fiscally necessary restructuring can not be done with any efficiency. Which often leaves a company or country insolvent. 
Remember GM, California and Greece.