Posted by
David Smith on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:41:43 PM
OK, I might miss out on some of the finer points of law regarding Income Redistribution, but I think I've got some points that may be new to you. Pardon if Medved, Hewitt, & Co., or my fellow bloggers have covered this before--I haven't spent 4,000 page views searching other comments. But since I haven't heard anything intelligent out of our glorious media outlets, I'll dive in.
Income Redistribution is Communist, and it violates every principle held by our Constitution, plain and simple!
Think about it in its most basic terms: Who wrote the Constitution of the United States?
Madison, Hamilton, smack, smack. Yes, I know who was present. But who wrote the thing?
Answer: The States.
Article VII, second paragraph: "DONE in Cconvention by the Unanimous Consent of the States preesent..." etc, etc. "IN WITNESS whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."
The first sentence was an assent meant to take responsibility from the signers so that should any be in opposition to the Constitution, they could still argue such and such at the State Ratifying Conventions. The second sentence simply affirmed that those who signed were witnessing the event, not adopting the Constitution itself.
So the Constitution itself says, "WRITTEN BY THE STATES!" OK, semantics, I realize. But no one author existed, so I will surrender this point to the men present, that the States sent them, the States did not authorize their adopting anything, and the very language of the document itself acquiesces responsibility to the States for authorship.
We also know that the States adopted and ratified the Constitution, whereby the former Articles of Confederation were dismissed.
And we also know that the States have amended the Constitution 27 times since its ratification. So it is very easy to state that the States have the power to choose what shall govern them and only by their rightful nomination of powers to the Federal government does that entity take rightful responsibility for any particular responsibility, or power.
Now, take this into consideration while discussing specifically the topic of Income Redistribution.
The idea behind income redistribution is not to take wealth from the wealthy in any particular State and give it to that States' poor, needy, or "have-not's." That would be an area strictly, by Law, and logically, apart from Law, in the realm of any particular State.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-N.Y., seems to be the poster-boy for, and chief advocate of, Income Redistribution, having delved into the issue on his campaign first and most vociferously. I intend to show that Sen. Obama is not even taking full advantage of his Harvard Law education, and that he would be better pushing this issue in the Illinois State House, not the United States Congress.
The very principle of Income Redistribution wipes out State lines, a proposition that, through the eyes of the Constitution, is most heinous and, dare I say, unconstitutional. This is not just my observation, but having read the text of only about half of the diologue at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it runs directly counter to the ideals espoused by the Framers and the very States that sent them to Philadelphia.
After wiping out State lines, the idea of Income Redistribution next, and literally, robs those with wealth, and presents it to "those less fortunate."
Actually, calling it "Income" Redistribution is somewhat misleading. Do Democrats intend on lining up all of the attorneys, doctors, accountants, corporate executives, engineers, and, dare I say, bureacrats, on one side of a linee, and all non-degreed, low-wage earners on the other and simply say, "From now on, you will all earn the same wage!" No. This is ludicrous.
For one, the biggest supporters of the Democratic Party, outside of Hollywood, are trial attorneys, who would stand to lose quite a bit under this system.
Hard to see going to work 90+ hours per week if you're only going to get paid the equivalent of 15, now isn't it?
Attorneys make $100,000 sleeping in late. An insanely dedicated attorney can pull down twice that with just showing up to work on time and working 60 hours a week. It is not uncommon to hear of some making $300-400,000 getting Paris Hilton 23 days in jail instead of the one year you or I would serve under identical conditions.
Now, you do the math. $100,000 for 40 hours a week with 2 weeks' vacation equates to $50 / hour. Sound reasonable for all the attorneys out there? Except that they work more like twice that for twice that pay.
So let's say that we take all that money away and divvy it up betwixt and between all those nice folks you represent in court, leaving you with a maximum of, say, $40,000 a year.
How's that sound?
Problem with incentive is that, although you take $160,000 away from one guy, how many people out there earning $200,000 are there??
And how many people does that $160,000 get distributed to? Ten? Nice! $16,000 bonus each. There's no hourly worker in a Wal Mart that would spit at that!
Unfortunately, there are 200 people working minimum wage at every Wal Mart! That bonus just got whittled down to $800. Now all of you nice folks out there with 2 kids and one income tell me how far $800 goes, hmm???
See, the problem with the model is this. You take from the rich, and now they aren't earning that much more than those who you give to. Why work 80 hours a week for what you could earn, in the attorney's example at $50 / hour, in 20 hours a week?
Not me!
So basically, in this model, you have everybody's income shuffled around and it doesn't work so well. Nice try.
Oh, and then there's the sheer headache of determining, who's making how much, how much do we take from worker A, and how much from the pool of giver's do we give to each taker? Does worker X get $500 or $200?
Do you see how much of a pain this would be? We can't even distribute Social Security and Unemployment payments efficiently--how are we going to accomplish this? How much taxation will have to be taken on in order to pay for this system? Nobody has brought that up on the campaign trail, have they?
But this isn't really about Income Redistribution. That sounds nice, although practically impossible as I have pointed out.
This is actually about Wealth Redistribution. Allow me a moment to discuss the difference.
In simple accounting terminology, Revenenue less Expenses equals Profit. Now, this is assuming business operations rather than individual, but allow me the illustration because it is much easier than discussing all of the varied combinations of exceptions and deductions available to individual taxpayers.
When you have Profit, that can also be called Retained Earnings as far as our "individuals" are concerned. This can then be invested in stocks, real estate, gold, and other investments. Go start your own coffee shop!
Retained Earnings, at the end of one's life, are passed on to their survivors or heirs, placed in trust, donated to a foundation, etc. And in the United States of America, there is an enormous amount of this, what we call, "Old Money."
This is what Democrats are seeking to "Redistribute."
Here is the prepsoterous problem with this far-flung idea--it simply won't work either!
Yes, the numbers become greater, but the problem remains the same: Now you take $400 trillion and re-distribute it amongst 300 million (approximately) Americans. I am just grabbing a very, very large number in $400 trillion for this example, taking into account real estate investments, stock valuations of the many thousands of publicly-traded companies in the country, and other Assets (key word) that would be included in this "scheme."
$400 trillion divided by 300 million equals approximately $1.3 million per person. Now that sounds pretty damned good if you presently have student loan debt like me!
But this will most likely not involve any cash. Maybe a couple hundred bucks each, but remember, we're not talking about cash, which is what income is. We're talking about Assets now. Stocks, bonds, real estate holdings, etc.
Let me ask you this: How much do you think the average American knows about real estate? Let's keep it simple. Let's talk about homeowners-type stuff. What percentage of people own their own "place," be that house, condo, lodge, etc? I'm guessing if we're talking about the wildly-popular topic of Income Redistribution that the percentage is pretty low, because you have to have a large percentage of ignorant, dumb-asses to pass such crap off on as sounding pretty good for it to work!!
So most people don't own their residence. How many own a second residence, be that vacation home, rental property, ski lodge, etc?
Even fewer.
So now we are starting to get to the cruxt of the debate--the few versus the many. But I don't want to go there just yet. I'm not done with my previous thought.
If you give people a million dollars in assets, they will most likely wind up blowing that in a few short years if not sooner.
I can see the evening news now...
September 20th: "Income Redistribution goes into full effect! Millions gain millions!"
September 21st: "In the Lap of Luxury: Former Single Mother of Three on Welfare Moves in to Beverly Hills Mansion!"
September 22nd: "Man Gambles Away New-Found Wealth!" (probably Texas Hold 'Em)
September 23rd: "Man Signs Away New-Found Stock Wealth in Investment Scam!"
C'mon, you hear stranger things than this on the news already. People don't understand money, which is why we have so many "have-not's" in the first place! What we need is not Income Redistribution--what we need is Intelligence Introduction!
Now, as to the problem with this whole thing. Remember that Assets term a little while ago? Back to Political Philosophy 101.
The Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson, states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that mong these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
I should point out that the idea of "pursuit of Happiness" is actually a re-wording of the earlier phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is actually a re-wording of the phrase "life, liberty, and estate (or property)" penned by John Locke, a very influential source of many of the ideals adopted by our Founders.
Actually, it was Adam Smith, widely renowned "Father of Economics," and author of "The Wealth of Nations," who coined the phrase "the pursuit of property." Smith's great book was, ironically, written in the same year as the Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Jefferson's use of the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness" takes into account a much larger spectrum of inputs than Locke's and Smith's "property." However, it is easy to expect that property is easily understood to be one of these inputs, given the origination of the phrase and its intent.
It is also interesting to note the great debate entered into at the Constitutional Convention dealing with the matter of property, albeit specifically slave property. This issue was the single biggest to overcome between slave States and free States in Philadelphia, and one which only through diligence of several delegates and a failed Articles of Confederation, gave way to the spirit of compromise which resulted in the present Constitution.
Now, take all this into account when Sen. Obama chooses to speak of the topic of Income Redistribution. What he is actually calling for is a complete dissolution of the Constitution of the United States and for the nation to adopt Communism as our economic and political system. I need not discuss the ravaging that would result of both our economic prowess and our political freedoms that would result from this course of action.
Senator Barack Obama, it is time for a refresher course in Constitutional Law 101.