MORAL BUSYBODIES WANT TO TAX OTHERS.

Byline: JON COUPAL

THE world's second-richest man, Warren Buffett, is in the news again. This time it's for donating a huge chunk of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, whose founders are the only people who, until the creation of their foundation, outranked Buffett in wealth.

Investors follow every move by Buffett, called ``The Oracle of Omaha'' for his stock-picking sagacity. But the last time he made news this big, it was for suggesting that California taxpayers should donate more to government.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was campaigning to recall and replace Gray Davis in 2003, he appointed Buffett as one of his advisers. Buffett promptly repaid this vote of confidence by shooting Schwarzenegger in the foot. Californians were paying too little in property taxes because of Proposition 13, Buffett declared.

While the state's tax-and-spend lobby was buoyed by the remark, most Californians were appalled -- none more so than Schwarzenegger, for whom ``no new taxes'' was a major plank in his platform. Responding, he sentenced Buffett to 500 push-ups and reiterated his support for Proposition 13. Nary a peep was heard from Buffett during the balance of the campaign.

However, Buffett illustrates the hypocritical attitude of some wealthy and powerful people. While they propose that the great masses of citizens pay more to government to fund what they consider to be worthy causes, when it comes to dispersing their own charitable donations, they prefer that the money go to private institutions.

Buffett knows a good investment when he sees one, so he can also spot a bad investment. When asked if he had considered leaving his money to the U.S. government instead of the Gates foundation, Buffett responded that he thought private charity has demonstrated superior ability to maximize per-dollar benefits, more so ``than if your dropped it into the federal treasury.''

Nor did Buffett offer to give his billions to California public education in kindergarten through 12th grade or, for that matter, to other public programs. Apparently he believes these ``investments'' are not good enough for the rich to voluntarily contribute their own funds, but it is OK for the rest of the taxpayers to be compelled to ``invest'' in such causes through higher taxes.

Echoing this thinking are two wealthy Silicon Valley executives who are behind a new ballot initiative, Proposition 88, that would impose a new state tax on all property. Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, and venture capitalist John Doerr have contributed $7 million to advance their effort to raise taxes for selected school programs. While they want to increase the tax burden on average Californians to support public education, they have chosen to ``invest'' in private schooling for their own children.

When the wealthy try to inflict their vision of society on the rest of us for our ``own good,'' the consequences can be worse than living under an openly hostile regime.

C.S. Lewis summed up this ``Buffett problem'' for the majority of citizens when he wrote, ``Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the `good' of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep; his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our `own good' will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.''