Friday, June 17, 2011
One of the repeated themes from the progressive left is to label any and all tax reductions as “socialism for the rich”. Of course, not a single member of the main stream media has ever bothered to deconstruct that phrase because the result of doing so would should just how inane, and, to be frank, revealing such an exercise would be.
What is socialism? As defined by the dictionary:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Now, if you happen to be a person who feels more comfortable with making your own decisions, socialism is something you need to run from, but for the purpose of this column is granting a tax reduction to someone who produces wealth a form of socialism? The dictionary definition doesn’t really tell us, so let’s take a look at the words of America’s first socialist President, Barrack Obama to Joe the Plumber, “If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." link
For some reason the Obama mindset is that if a business is making gross revenues of $250,000 or more it is making too much money and needs to be trimmed back to a level more comfortable to the liberal ideology. Of course, many of those advocating that the Joe the Plumbers of this world need to be kept in their economic place have no problem at all with their own wealth ballooning, link, as Nancy Pelosi did when her own portfolio increased by 62%. It makes one wonder what their reaction would be if the Obama redistribution scheme was applied to them? Nearly every tax the rich plan brought forth by the Democrats has been manipulated in such a way that members of congress with considerable wealth came through unscathed. Not so the Joe the Plumber demographic.
So, using the words of Barrack Obama, socialism involves taking wealth from the ones who have earned it and redistributing it to those who have not. This cannot be an accurate definition of the “socialism for the rich” talking point. If the government chooses to not take something from a person or a business, it is not giving them anything. It is the same Democrat doublespeak where reducing the size of a tax hike is called a tax cut. If a person is allowed to keep more of what they earned it cannot be socialism because the money in their account was earned, not taken by the government from someone else. The word stolen could easily apply here.
Many in the socialist rank and file seem to consider the Obama’s in our government as a sort of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Again, the comparison does not stand up to deconstruction. If the Robin Hood legend has any basis in historical reality, the monies stolen had actually originated in the form of taxes taken from the working poor and were eventually destined to fill the government coffers; seems to me that Robin Hood more closely fit the Tea Party ideal than the Democrat.
The form of socialism we have in America is really nothing more than a tile in the chain of dominos lined up by those who would desire this country’s dissolution. There was a time when the poor had a way to better their lives even when they had no truly marketable skills, the program, championed by President Nixon in the 1960’s was called Workfare, link. Many in liberal circles complained bitterly about the program claiming it was a violation of the recipients’ civil rights, however the US Constitution has no enumerated right to laziness. It does reiterate the Declaration of Independence’s clarion call to pursue happiness, but again, the lazy pursue nothing.
Workfare allowed the indigent to build a resume of accomplishment. Using this form of welfare, a number of things happen. The recipient has to show initiative in order to be paid. Through that initiative they begin to learn the systems and value of work/rewards. And, they begin to build marketable skills beyond that of clicking the button on a remote. The problem the socialists have with this is that such people no longer require government assistance. They will eventually, through experience, graduate from the big government mindset and learn that industry has its own rewards and that those rewards far outstrip the Obama/Pelosi meager handouts.