Dig in Deep

Yesterday, Obama spoke plainly about his agenda – “spread the wealth around.” Watch it here.

Even just a few years ago, this kind of talk would have been front page news. And it would have been a major turn-off for the majority of voters. Today, though, our public is ready to accept socialism, even if they don’t want to call it such.

Last night my dad sent out an e-mail titled “Wealth Redistribution is Neither Neighborly Nor Christian.” It was a very simple and straightforward comparison of private charity to government redistribution. I’ll let his e-mail speak for itself as a response to Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth around.”

It’s time the prevarication of referring to a progressive tax structure (or other wealth redistribution scheme) as “neighborly” or “Christian” is addressed with some clarity and truth.

Let us assume two families, the Smith family and the Jones family, live in adjacent houses in Anywhere, USA, and are thus literally neighbors. Further, they are on good terms and have a long-standing friendly relationship. Their children play together, they get each other’s mail during vacations, and they exhibit many other typical American neighborly behaviors. We would say, without question, these two families are neighbors.

Now, let’s suppose that the Smith family falls on hard times. Mrs. Smith loses her job due to circumstances beyond her control, and Mr. Smith alone cannot support the family on his elementary school teacher’s salary. Her car has mechanical problems, and they don’t have the money to have it repaired. Fortuitously, the Jones family next door has a third (spare) vehicle.

Of their own free choice, Mr. and Mrs. Jones offer to loan (or give) their extra vehicle to their neighbors, so that Mrs. Smith can seek employment or “whatever you need,” until “things get better.” Note the government isn’t involved in any way. This is an example of true neighborly acts (or acts of Christian kindness), initiated in the hearts of the givers, and which happen all over this nation on a daily basis.

In contrast, suppose the Jones family owns a small business that has proven very successful due to their hard work and endless hours. The government decides to further increase their income taxes “to help the less fortunate,” in keeping with principles of “fairness,” etc. The neighboring Smith family (or others in similar circumstances) may receive some of the money the government takes from the Jones family, by force of law (coercion). There is less money available to help the Smith family and others, after handling costs and paying salaries and expenses of the beaurocrats collecting and managing the money. And the government decides how to spend the money.

In this latter case, it’s unavoidably true that the Jones family has less money available to help others or give to the charities of their choice. Maybe they even have to sell one of their vehicles to pay the extra taxes, so it’s not available to help the Smith family. Secondly, there is no decision in the heart of the Jones family to help others – more likely they resent the government taking even more of their hard-earned income. Third, they may rationalize, “There’s no need for us to help others out; let the government do it.” Finally, there is no human connection between the actual neighbors or others who may benefit from the subsequent government spending. But the central actor is the nameless, faceless “government,” except of course for the politicians who endlessly take credit for proposing the program, or supporting, co-sponsoring, or voting for it (often even when they didn’t). An added benefit to them is that they get to buy votes with someone else’s money (ours).

Who makes the decision makes all the difference. Only individuals can make neighborly or Christian decisions. There is nothing whatsoever that is neighborly or Christian about the government taking from some by force and giving to others. Make no mistake about it, and don’t be misled. The only honest and objective term to describe this behavior by government is socialism.

Moreover, the politicians know it. But they will never say it. So one part of the big lie is that they have to find something else to call it. They also know that neighborly or even Christian principles are core values for most Americans. So another part of the big lie is to mask a heavy graduated income tax, not coincidentally one of the major planks of the Communist Manifesto, in neighborly or Christian terms. Perhaps you can recognize real “lipstick on a pig” when you see it.

The only thing I would add is the difference these two scenarios have in the Smith family.

As recipients of their neighbors’ kindness, they are motivated to improve their situation, because they do not want to be a long-term burden on their friends. They are also touched by the kindness they have received, and are much more likely to help someone else in the future when they see someone else in need.

Compare that to receiving your rightful statutory assistance from the government. They would not feel as if they are imposing on anyone, because after all they are getting what is “rightfully” theirs, by law – they would even be able to sue the government for it if they did not receive it. Because they had never been truly touched by the kindness and generosity of others, they are that much less likely to respond with kindness and generosity in the future when they see someone in need – an extension of the “let the government do it” argument (which is exactly why liberals like Barack Obama and Joe Biden give very, very little to charity).

Socialist wealth redistribution may indeed, temporarily, assist someone economically. But it also results in a moral cancer, increasing our isolation from each other, bitterness, selfishness, and envy of others’ success and accomplishments.

Remember Matthew 6. Those who blow trumpets to call attention to their righteous acts receive all the reward they will ever get here on earth. This would include those who favor socialist acts of wealth redistribution.