I heard a man (didn’t catch his name) on television yesterday say that President-Elect Barack Obama is going to create thousands of jobs for people to “weatherize” houses. He didn’t say how Obama would perform the magic of creating demand for house weatherizing that apparently does not exist now. Private businesses would be providing those services if the demand existed.

A real job is an activity that adds to the national wealth. That is, it produces something of real value, something people want and are willing to pay for out of their own pockets. A job “created” by the government obviously does not add that kind of value; it is just another form of public welfare. Apparently, what Obama has in mind is hiring hordes of people to knock on our doors and tell us that they can weatherize our houses for some heavily subsidized price, or perhaps for free.

He apparently believes that the only reason people aren’t weatherizing their houses on their own is that they can’t afford it. This is not necessarily true. For the most part, weatherizing a house means sealing air leaks to make it less expensive to heat or cool. There is a downside to living in an airtight house; it can cause health problems and possibly suffocation. Why make your house airtight and then have to open a window to get fresh air to breathe?

Consider your car. It is designed to transport four or more people in a relatively confined space. It is relatively airtight for reasons other than heating and cooling. So you often have to slightly open a window or two to get needed fresh air, or you use the provided settings on your car’s HVAC system to allow fresh air to pass through your car.

Houses aren’t as confined as cars but you probably spend more time in your house than in your car. My house isn’t even close to being airtight — I can see light shining through the cracks around my doors — but it starts to feel stuffy after a few hours inside.

Guidelines for Obama and his minions: Breathing fresh air good; stuffy house bad. Free market good; central planning bad.

A couple of times now I’ve heard Obama say essentially this: “If McCain learns that I once shared my toys with a kindergarten friend he’ll probably try to use that to prove that I’m a socialist.” McCain should come back with this: “No Barack, socialism is more like when you force another kid to share his toys with your friend and you keep all your toys to yourself.”

The whole “Joe the Plumber” case epitomizes the looney left (which includes the Obama campaign). They attack any person or institution that sheds some much needed light on Obama’s real agenda. A plumber in Ohio, who said his name is Joe, asked Obama essentially this: If I become a small-businessman making over $250,000 a year, are you going to take more of my income and give it to other people? Part of Obama’s response was that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody. McCain, of course, jumped on Obama’s socialist comment big-time and it got a lot of play in the media.

The looney left’s response? Joe is not a plumber (because he doesn’t have a license). Joe only makes $40,000 per year so he would actually be helped by Obama (never mind all those who do make over $250,000). Joe is behind on paying his state taxes (he owes about $1200). Joe was a plant by the McCain campaign (not substantiated; if so, so what?). Joe is only his middle name (I’m not kidding; someone felt this needed to be pointed out).

They seem to be saying that Joe is unqualified to ask such a question so Obama’s unguarded response should not count. Apparently it’s okay for debate moderators to ask hypothetical questions, but not the average Joe.

Joe the Plumber is not running for president. Barack Obama is. So the spotlight should be on Obama, not on Joe the Plumber. In the context in which it was made Obama’s comment that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody clearly reveals his socialist bent. While spreading the wealth around is a desirable result of capitalism, it is not guaranteed on an individual basis; it is linked to the extent of an individual’s contribution. Capitalism provides equality of opportunity; socialism provides equality of outcome (everyone ends up poor).

Obama wants to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. If that sounds admirable to you, you’re a socialist.