Spread the Wealth ~ Republicans Like It Too
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2008
by Mogama
http://www.mogama.info
All hell broke lose on the Republican side, as the campaign of Senator John McCain jumped all over three words used by Democrat Barack Obama in his answer to "Joe the Plumber". When Joe expressed his concern that he might be hit by Obama's taxation if he bought a plumbing business and started making $250K or more per year, Obama explained to Joe the need to "spread the wealth" from the bottom up. In response, Joe reportedly said Obama's reply "sounded like socialism to me."
With that, Joe the Plumber became the closest ally and ammunition in the hands and on the lips of Team McCain. In the short time since, Obama has been called a socialist perhaps more often than any other American presidential candidate in recent memory.
My only frustration is that the Obama campaign is denying that they want to spread the wealth around. Obama's veep, Joe Biden, said on an ABC affiliate, "Obama does not want to spread the wealth around."
Why back away from spreading the wealth? These Democrats should be saying what I'm writing here, instead: Defend the need to spread the wealth around, in a responsible way that benefits the country.
Unless McCain and the Republicans are betting on the total ignorance of the American public, they appear as desperate fools in their hunt for the White House to keep pretending that socialism is foreign to American democracy as we now have it, and have had it for decades.
For those just waking up, please accept the reality that informed Americans understand: The American government is currently committed to 'spreading the wealth'. Wealth redistribution, income redistribution, which moves money from one group of earners to others, is alive and well in America, to some extent. And most Americans are not complaining about it, except for campaign purposes.
Only ideologues on the extreme of the political right deny that America is already practicing some level of socialism, spreading the wealth, income redistribution. Again, to some extent. There is no shortage of examples of socialist ways by the American government, with the approval of most Americans, I might add, including me, if you care to know. It could be argued that a well-managed wealth redistribution system is one reason why America continues to have the world's largest middle class.
If you demand specifics, take a look at these examples that prove America likes to "spread the wealth", and is a better country for it.
1. Every time the government uses tax dollars to rescue any sector of the economy, that's wealth redistribution. Our government was spreading the wealth when it bailed out Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, et al. What do we think the infamous $700 billion bailout package was, if not wealth redistribution in reverse, from the top down? And if we use some of that $700 billion to help the homeowners out, as John McCain has proposed, that will be spreading the wealth too, from the bottom up, exactly the same thing Obama is saying.
2. We spread the wealth from America to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc, when we buy petroleum from oil-producing countries to make up for our shortage of oil. This wealth redistribution now costs America $700 billion every year. Don't tell me we're simply buying something with our money. You know that with OPEC in the mix, the price of oil has little to do with the free marketplace, and everything to do with siphoning trillions of dollars from American taxpayers.
3. America spreads its great wealth through foreign aid to other nations, with Israel and Egypt being two of the biggest recipients. Some of America's foreign aid takes the form of military assistance. Billions of dollars go toward American benevolence, generosity to relieve victims of disasters and diseases.
4. The nation building we are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's spreading the wealth with the Iraqis and Afghans. Are the Republicans saying it's perfectly alright to spread the wealth overseas, but they have a problem with spreading it among their own people here at home? Talk about twisted priorities! Whatever happened to "charity begins at home"?
5. Another huge vehicle for spreading the wealth is emergency relief from the federal government through FEMA to the 50 states and the US territories. When wildfires engulf California and storms devastate Florida, and the governors of those states declare emergency for disaster relief, whose money are they getting? Funds from other states. Wealth redistribution is sweet then. And we're glad to see Californians and Floridians use our money to recover their losses. I dare anyone to boo "spreading the wealth" at such times of human need.
6. You don't want to spread the wealth, if you're really serious, do this: Get rid of the IRS. Anything short of that, and we have a nice system in place to redistribute wealth. The tax code has a million ways to spread the wealth from group of Americans to another, and I like it for the most part. Taxation is designed to spread the wealth. Whether it is the progressive tax, graduated tax, flat tax, luxury tax, sales tax or sin tax, it's income redistribution. A tax credit or a targeted tax. Just another name for spreading the wealth. Americans who receive a tax refund every year are benefiting from the government's efforts at spreading the wealth. How many of those screaming McCainiacs will gladly return their tax refunds to the state and federal government so they won't be a part of the evil practice of spreading the wealth through the tax system?
Let's not forget the Earned Income Tax Credit. Spreading the wealth big time. And guess who signed that into law? None other than conservative Republican icon, the great Ronald Reagan! Seems like President Reagan supported some form of spreading the wealth. What are you conservatives gonna do 'bout that?
7. Government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, food stamps, name them. They are all ways to spread the wealth. How many lives are saved and helped by those programs? Does McCain want to strap those programs? You want to discontinue Social Security? Is Obama the only one who favors these "social" -- or is it "socialist" -- programs?
8. What happens when a patient with no health insurance shows up at the desk of an Emergency Room anywhere in the United States? Is that poor patient turned away, because s/he can't pay for treatment? No, s/he gets tested and treated, even if not with the same level of dignity or quality health care as those who present health insurance cards. Who pays for the treatment for that uninsured patient? Other Americans do. In effect, isn't somebody's income being redistributed to the uninsured? But do we want to stop that now, so that we don't become or remain "socialists"?Who wants to champion that cause? Do I see any hands?
9. If Obama is a socialist for wanting to spread the wealth, then the vast majority of lawmakers in Congress are socialists who not only believe in but actively practice wealth redistribution. What do we think earmarks are? Spreading the wealth? Pork barrel spending. It's spreading the wealth. How many members of Congress pride themselves in and run on their record of bringing home the bacon to fund bridges, roads, constructions, and other public projects in their states and districts? That famous 'bridge to nowhere' that almost got built in Alaska? That would have spread the wealth from other states to that state.
Here in Kentucky, the Minority Leader of the US Senate, Mitch McConnell has been pleading with residents of the Blue Grass State not to pick his opponent, Democrat Bruce Lunsford, but to give Republican McConnell his 25th year in Congress. Want to know what one of McConnell's main arguments has been? His earned seniority in Washington, and his clout to command millions of dollars in earmarks for Kentuckians. There's a Republican Senator bragging on his accolades of spreading the wealth. How can McConnell be calling Obama socialist for wanting to spread the wealth while McConnell is waving his medal for doing just that, spreading the wealth throughout Kentuckiana?
If the truth be told, Republicans and conservatives as well as Democrats and liberals have continued to feed off the same green pastures of the American wealth redistribution system known as the federal government. Supporters of all political affiliations have either received redistributed wealth themselves, or they have actively participated in spreading the wealth around. The reality is these United States believe and practice income redistribution in more ways than some care to admit. Some of us don't see how a society founded on Judeo-Christian values can do anything less than spread (share) the wealth to some extent as the majority of the citizens will allow.
Some great points, Mogama. Thanks for an interesting, well-written, article.God Bless.SandraThanks, Sandra, for your compliment. ~mogama~
Well thought out and thought provoking.Thanks, Mark, for your input. ~mogama~
Dear Mogama: Well done article. Unfortunately, I can't disagree with you. I believe in helping those who can't take care of themselves because of mental or physical disability. I am not so inclined to share my wealth with those who can but don't work. A certain sharing is good and the Christian thing to do. Well only need to be careful not to take so much from achievers that they their incentive it destroyed. It hasn't happened yet, but we are getting close. Bless you, Marty RicKardI don't see any reasons to disagree with your points, Marty. There is the danger of funding laziness if the government is not responsible in spreading the wealth. The system could kill the golden goose, and there would be no wealth being created, and therefore no wealth to spread. I think fiscal conservatives can provide the checks and balance to prevent the liberals from taking our mild socialism to the extreme. ~mogama~
Very well laid out. Lots to consider. Thanks for sharing this information in a neutral and powerful wayThanks for seeing the objectivity of the article. ~mogama~
Mogama, Well written and well thought out column. I agree that big government should be greatly trimmed if possible to shrink the size of government and reduce spending so that there's more money for the people and for social programs. Eliminate the bureaucracies and pork! That would save billions that could be better used for national job-building programs and improve the economy. With the economy in the toilet as it is now, I don't know how you can expect the top 1% of the population to be the only fiscal solution to this mess we're in. We must reduce spending by cutting the fat in government and do the same with the health care bureaucracy of HMOs.Completely agree, Charlotte. Without spending cuts, the system will bankrupt the coffers. Fiscal conservatives should remain vigilant to prevent fiscal liberals from overwhelming the system. But that's easier said than done, because we have millions of our people depending on social programs, and still asking for more, as we can see from additional promises by presidential candidates. That's my fear, though I am a compassionate conservative. ~mogama~
This is a well written and informative article. Good job. And thanks for the informationThanks, Ronyae, for your comment. By the way, your name is special; I've never seen that name before. Well, you could probably say the same of my name too! ~mogama~
Interesting take on it. Informed but I have to say I think it is not a valid comparisonIf spreading the wealth through taxation is described as socialism, then we already have it going on in America. How is that not a valid comparison? Thanks, Victor, for your comment. ~mogama~
