Welfare Reform

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:

Socialism–noun

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.

Ayatollah Obama

The Ayatollahs of Iran consider any individual critical of the way they appointed “Adiminawhackjob” to a second term an enemy of the state. In Turkey, anyone critical of the ways things are done is jailed for offending “Turkishness”. Here in the US, we now have an administration that is acting more and more like its Middle Eastern friends than what our founding fathers envisioned.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has gone as far as comparing critics of the healthcare plan to Nazis. Other members of the Democrat leadership have called those who don’t trust the plan “shrill”, and “fringe group fanatics”.  News organizations, supposedly nonpartisan, have affixed the labels of “small mobs” and “rabid right-wingers” to those with the temerity to ask their representatives if they even bothered to read the bill. Even a GOP candidate for the 2012 campaign has put his own version of Obamacare into place, Mitt Romney.

Are these people merely members of shrill fringe groups and other bits of minority flotsam the administration should ignore for the good of the country? George Pucine of Las Vegas was able to get this bit of statistical evidence to the contrary past the usually left-leaning guardians at the Las Vegas Review Journal:

-- Quinnipiac poll: Three out of four Americans don't believe government-run health care will be deficit-neutral and 59 percent of Americans are against health care reform if the measure is supported by only the Democrats.

-- Gallup poll: Sixty-three percent say the president's plan will worsen their personal medical care.

-- National Public Radio poll: Forty-seven percent oppose Obama's plan and 42 percent support it.

-- New York Times/CBS poll: Seven-seven percent of Americans fear costs will increase under government-run health care.

-- Time poll: Fifty-six percent fear losing freedom to choose their own doctor/plan under government-run health care.

Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll: Forty-two percent say Barack Obama's plan is a "bad idea" vs. 36 percent saying it's a "good idea."

I don’t know about you, but the above numbers say majority, not minority. The problem is Pelosi and her Democrat fellows do not believe in representing the majority. They have an agenda and it is being followed to the letter and any who swerve from the orthodoxy will be punished. Remember Joe Lieberman and his one tiny slip? He had the temerity to disagree with the liberal orthodoxy on the Iraq war and was summarily kicked out of the party.

Can any one remember who was President before Jimmy Carter?  Not many do. Most think it was Nixon, but the answer is Gerald Ford, a man most remembered for being a bit clumsy. This is because Ford did almost nothing where the economy was concerned. It was ok, not good, just ok. The problem with that is that a mayonnaise economy allowed the election of a Jimmy Carter. You would think that the American people would learn from history. Unfortunately, we never do. Carter’s policies, eerily similar to Obama’s, produced the worst economy since the great depression. Taxes were raised to the point that an affordable mortgage was nearly impossible to obtain. Small businesses went out of business faster than they opened. Interest rates skyrocketed to over 20% and the price of gold hovered around $1000 per ounce. Sound familiar?

Brian Greenspun, the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun recently lamented in an editorial that it was terrible that Nevada did not adopt the tax policies of more
progressive” states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, California and others. Let’s see…checking on the economies of those “progressive” states, they appear to be progressing right into the toilet. California, our neighbor to the west has progressed into bankruptcy and a recent ad campaign luring small business from California to tax-backwards Nevada appears to be working better than anyone thought it would.  Texas, on the other hand, through the leadership of a “gasp” Republican Governor, Rick Perry, produced 38% of all the jobs in America while Obama was blaming Bush Jr. for the problem Obama’s policies caused.

Socialism never generates public wealth. It never has and it never will. After Jimmy Carter came a true conservative, not the lie that Democrats push, Ronald Regan. Reagan systematically dismantled Carter’s metastasized bureaucracy and began using policies that were time-tested. Ignoring the shrill screams from the left that he would be throwing the elderly and the sick onto the street, he cut taxes and encouraged business to expand. The elderly got a better deal and the sick got cheaper healthcare. Ignoring the rabid left-wingers, he went after the Soviet Union and won, despite the claims that such aggressiveness would trigger World War III. Reagan’s policies generated an economy that set a record that still holds. It was the most robust economy we have experienced in the last seven administrations. This is based on US statistical data, so why is the Obama Administration hell bent on duplicating Carter’s mistakes? The answer is not economics, it is power. Remember, Reagan had to deal with a Democrat-controlled Congress under the leadership of Tip O’Neil, a proven socialist. In spite of everything O’Neil and his socialist brethren tried to do to derail Reagan’s vision, the so-called actor won. That is why he is the most hated conservative leader in history…that is until Sarah Palin takes the reins.

Just as our major news outlets have risen to the defense of Obama’s policies and have attacked the concerns of the American people, so has the administration grown in its arrogance. Why would Obama feel so comfortable issuing the threat that his administration would “hit back twice as hard” at anyone broadcasting a criticism of his policies? Does he really believe that the news is his to control? Perhaps it is.

A little known story surfaced a while ago and was quickly pulled. ABC turned the control of its reporting of White House news over to the Obama Administration. The last time something like this happened it was in Iran. Remember, if you can control the news that is one domino tipped over, if you can control the peoples’ access to healthcare…that is another. Several states already consider the second amendment more of an inconvenience than a mandate.  The appointment of Sottomeyer to the Supreme Court adds another nail in that coffin. The last domino to fall will be the food supply, and based on several reports, Obama is already working on that one. Consider his wife’s healthy diets message, usually delivered after she’s downed a few platters of fried chicken and rib tips. The insistence from the Democrat legal wing that the Commerce Clause gives the administration to mandate what people will and will not buy is a very telling sign.

The US Constitution is very specific in what and what cannot be mandated by the government. There are only 18 enumerated powers given to the feds. Everything else is supposed to be left to the states. It seems only Ayatollah Obama and his ruling council of Democrat Imams are unable to grasp that.