Income redistribution (redistribution of wealth) is a political policy promoted by liberals as part of their ideology, and understandably it is opposed by conservatives. The basic premise of the belief system underlying liberalism is that money (wealth) should be more equally distributed so that accumulated wealth benefits all members of society, regardless of who earned it, and that the rich should be obliged (forced) to assist the poor on the pretense that the income shifting mechanism benefits the whole of society.

Thus, earned money should be redistributed from the earner to those who have not earned it, creating a more financially egalitarian society. Politicians expect - no, demand public funds, your tax money to subsidize those who they have arbitrarily classified as somehow disadvantaged (in return for votes). The entitlement culture (egalitarianism) is saying you owe it to them.

Egalitarianism is a liberal moral doctrine imposed by force. It is an ideology that equality ought to prevail throughout society even if it is at the detrimental expense of many members of society, typically those in the top 50% of American wage earners (those with a joint income over $31,000 per year). The most common form of egalitarianism today espoused by liberals, of whom both political parties are rife, centers on the belief that government should engage in an unnatural communal approach to individual income.

"Who is supposed to be equal?"
"In what respect are they supposed to be equal?"
“At whose expense are they supposed to be equal?”

Apparently it isn’t enough that equality already exists in all endeavors of the American mind, hands and heart, only that those Americans who compete poorly believe they are wrongfully and/or “unfairly” materially disadvantaged and therefore should be subsidized by others in society.

• According to legal egalitarianism, everyone ought to be considered equal under the law.
• According to education egalitarianism, everyone ought to be provided an education.
• According to moral egalitarianism, each person is of equal moral worth.
• According to democratic egalitarianism, everyone ought to have an equal voice in public affairs.
• According to political egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal in political power.
• According to opportunity egalitarianism everyone ought to be equal in economic opportunity.
• According to material egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions.

With the exception of the last liberal epistle, American society is egalitarian. Few would dispute this as a fact except to be argumentative. The final premise regarding material and financial wealth is understandably the greatest source of consternation and debate. Those receiving have come to expect it. Those giving have come to resent it. The undeniable correlation is an inverse relationship between material egalitarianism and the American Economy, the latter peaking over 30 years ago. Material egalitarianism (redistribution) continues to grow unchecked, arguably beyond reason, and seemingly without limits.

Our founding documents provided all egalitarian equalities, short of income and education redistribution, which only began after income taxes became a national reality and Congress attempted to engineer social mores with the revenues. Until then education was viewed as the reward for seizing opportunity, regardless of an individual's material circumstances. All that need be provided was opportunity.

Often, liberal proponents of redistribution argue that the rich are somehow exploiting the poor, first by the rich educating themselves, then working, achieving and enriching themselves, and somehow gaining “unfair” benefits as if by deceit and avarice. Socialists, a synonym for liberals, contend redistributive practices are necessary in order to redress the imbalance. Today, even when opportunity is spurned by the recipients, as in education for example, all other forms of wealth are never-the-less liberally redistributed with life-time tenure.

If in fact all men were created equal, why are some still receiving welfare? Egalitarianism is nothing less than the liberal acknowledgment that nobody is created "equal," except arbuably in the eyes of the law in the United States of America. Egalitarianism is also a profound liberal acknowledgment that redistribution will be a wildly successful method in a representative society to obtain and hold on to power. Thoughtful reflection will convince anyone that redistribution benefits no one - except politicians. (See archived article: The End Times)

“Unfair” is the key word. Everything depends on the vantage point of the person using the word. In typical fashion, the person using the “unfair” word has either: (1) never had to compete for anything in their life and seeks equitable distribution of national assets without competition, or (2) is so poorly prepared to compete, often by presonal choice, that productive citizenship is not reasonably possible. Congress has seen fit to reward the latter’s stellar performance with lifetime tax-free annuities on behalf of the rest of us, members of what should be Team America.

From each according to his ability (education and work ethic and a host of other attributes), to each according to his need (lack of education, lack of work ethic, etc.). It is often lost on ideologues that education and work ethic are somewhat redundant and typically the result of personal choice.

You may not believe it today, but redistribution has only just begun. If the current Administration has not made you a believer, it is hard to imagine what could. Barack Obama maybe.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Her father responded by asking how she was doing in school. She was taken aback by the question. Her father already knew the answer. She responded rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA. She went on to stress the obvious, that a 4.0 GPA was tough to maintain. She informed her father that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying. Her studies left her no time to go out and party like the other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, she complained, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened patiently and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”

His daughter replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. She takes all the easy classes. She never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. But she is so popular on campus. College for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's Office at the end of this semester and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend Audrey who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, resentfully fired back, “That wouldn't be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time and a lot of hard work! Audrey’s done next to nothing. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, and said gently, “Welcome to conservatism. Your friend Audrey is really no different than many others. It has nothing to do with race, gender, religion or economic circumstances. Your liberal friends in academia, plus many Republicans and most Democrats, will soon be demanding that you relinquish a portion of your GPA. They, knowing better than you, will redistribute your hard work to one of your classmates, or maybe give it to the child of an illegal alien migrant who is heavily taxpayer subsidized. If you should object, you will likely be denounced as a selfish right-wing racist and treated with contempt.”

“Yes, you should understand that if nothing changes in America very soon, you will be expected to subsidize the good times of many others, most of whom are unwilling, either through conscious choice or because of flawed decision making, to provide for themselves beyond a meager subsistence. They will expect this of you throughout the rest of your life.”

The daughter, angry and shocked at the thought, countered emotionally. “But that’s like slavery, like me being a slave to them.”

“Yes dear, that’s right.” her father lamented. “For all practical purposes, it is slavery for those who work hard at everything they do, from the beginning of their education through the rest of their working life. However, your social status of serfdom is necessary for others to achieve their egalitarian idealism. It is important to many people that you not have more than them. It is even more important to those who seek to rule that your situation is so desperate that you will vote for them and their promises. They’ll keep you and me, and the rest of the country, in desperate straits to insure their continued dominion at the ballot box.”

“Then, we have to consider those people who have exchanged their votes, traded them, in order to be arbitrarily classified as somehow disadvantaged. From their point of view, what you have and they do not have is neither fair nor is it their fault. They expect the government will force you and me to support them. They want their circumstances and consummate personal neglect to be your responsibility. They want you and everyone else to believe the fantasy that the victims of income confiscation (the taxpayers) are somehow evil, and the thieves (the recipients of income redistribution) miraculously have an entitlement to that which for them is unearned.”

“Politicians have come to think that people like you and me, and millions of other hard-working citizens, literally belong to the government. That’s the way of Socialism. They assume they can arbitrarily take from us as much as they want, even what we think of as our private property, even our children.”

Her father continued in a sad voice, “An incredible number of people, across this nation and around the world, live very well with the money taken from our family’s income. It all comes down to who works and who enjoys the fruits of the labor. If the government, any government, forces you to work to support other citizens, illegal aliens, and foreign nations, i.e., people other than your own family, it’s hard to think of it any other way than a form of slavery.”

“It should not make any United States citizen proud --- to ask their own family to sacrifice in order to serve a master class of indolent Americans and non-citizens in a land of ethical and moral anarchy.”

The daughter, disillusioned and with tears in her eyes said, “Like, that’s really wrong. I don’t want to be a slave.”

Lifting his book to continue reading, her father said, “Slavery has not been abolished as long as one man is involuntarily forced to serve another.”

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

One of those commonalities that bind us together and drive us crazy and are the foundation of folklore.

While I stood there with my miser lunch, the leather-coated, jewelry-wearing, designer-beverage drinking, foo-foo salad eating healthy young woman opened her money-stuffed purse - and paid with food stamps.

Years ago, it would have made me angry. Now I take it in stride, as just another testament of a curse upon our society.

And welfare is exactly that, a curse which steals money from taxpayers and initiative from recipients. A scourge which damages and divides by promoting resentment and debasing responsibility.

Welfare, in its various forms, is a social cancer quickly metastasizing across our land. Its consequences, now spread over a third and fourth generation, include a savaging of the family unit, a dissolution of social connection, permanent poverty and a culture of criminality. And tragically, it is so broadly and automatically accepted as to be above criticism or reproach.

Welfare is seen as a right. Its recipients are seen as fully functional.

And that must end.

For the benefit of society, for the salvation of recipients, for the preservation of the republic.

The first step is to return to welfare the stigma it once held. The sense of embarrassment and shame. Not for the truly deserving - the handicapped, elderly or infirm - but for all others. For all who have a mind and a body capable of gainful employment.

Being on welfare should be something which tugs at the pride of recipients, which doesn't sit right, which prompts them to do what is necessary to provide for themselves.

That sounds harsh, but it is best. And it is right. Because the fundamental responsibility of life is to provide for yourself and for your family.

When that fact is overlooked - when it is actively attacked by government - the damage is far larger than financial. Granted, tax slaves fret at the burden of entitlements, grand schemes to take money from those who produce and give it to those who do not.

But that effect is temporary.

A wage earner can typically make more money, and even the most heavily taxed worker can usually eke out a pleasant and worthwhile life. The people who pay for welfare are robbed, buy they can replace that which was taken from them.

The people who receive, welfare, however, cannot. Because taken from them and their children is their initiative, their self-respect, their sense of responsibility and commitment. Their chance for ever earning a life which takes them above the lowest economic rungs of this society.

See, when you give someone a welfare check, you usually guarantee that person will always be poor. You steal from them economic mobility - the American Dream.

Welfare is a sin of government. And its great irony is that it fosters resentment between its two groups of victims. Class division, which is not part of the American character, is flamed by a government program which cuts the belly out of both sides.

And it most particularly attacks families.

Among those who pay the taxes which support welfare, the burden of taxation requires two incomes to satisfy - pushing mothers wholesale into the workplace since the dawn of the Great Society.

Among those who receive welfare, there is no need for the wage-earning male - radically cutting marriage rates and raising illegitimacy rates during the same period of time.

On one end, families lose mothers. On the other end, they lose fathers. And all together are held down economically. It is a servitude and bondage which affects both groups profoundly.

Welfare reform has begun.

But welfare doesn't need reformation, it needs extermination.

The push to reduce benefits and rolls must continue. Not as an act of selfishness or stinginess, but as a conscious choice of a better way. The truly needy should never be abandoned, but the reality of what constitutes true need should be acknowledged.

The fall of America, like the fall of Rome, will not be driven by attack from without, but by decay from within.

And welfare is the seed of a fair portion of America's moral decay.

by Bob Lonsberry
http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Later on Wednesday, a prominent and very successful businessman came in for a haircut. When he attempted to pay, the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The businessman was pleased and left the shop. On Thursday morning when the barber opened, there was a thank you card and four new books with titles such as, "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."

Late in the morning on Thursday, a well-known Democratic Party politician came in for a haircut. When he tried to pay his bill the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I can’t accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat smiled, shook his hand, asked the barber for his support in the upcoming election, and left the shop.

On Friday morning when the barber opened up, there was nothing waiting at the door except six more Democrats, two liberal Republicans, and nine illegal aliens – all lined up for a free haircut - which illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right, liberal and conservative, illegal alien migrant and citizen.

A conservative always pays his own way, never asking for something unearned.

The moral of this story: If you do something for just one liberal out of kindness or charity, the rest will invariably want something (everything) for nothing. How many people in American society, citizens and illegal aliens, are looking for (expecting) a free haircut every day of their life (on your dime)? Do they expect the free ride to continue? Democrats have offered them a free ride forever in return for their votes. What was known as "black box socialism" has been expanded to embrace "brown box socialism." (Search the archives for an explanation.)

Do you remember the Kevin Costner movie, "Field of Dreams" in which the central premise was, "Build it and they will come." Congress and state legislatures have successfully built the illegal alien "Field of Dreams," a system of unearned social benefits for illegal aliens that is so incredible illegal aliens are willing to endure remarkable hardship and even risk death to obtain it.

Is there any doubt why we have the numbers of illegal aliens we have today, with millions more on the way? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that illegal aliens are coming here for the free haircuts. If you want the illegal alien migration to stop, the free haircuts have to stop.

Red State Patriot

« Close It