The “S” word is being tossed around of late, by the left, saying their legislative attempts aren’t socialist in intent and effect, and the right saying they most certainly are.
Now “let me be clear” on this, as our POTUS likes to say. You can quibble on phrasing, but socialism is widely agreed upon as follows:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
The President and Democrats will scream all day that Mr. Obama’s policies do not fit in with the above definitions and yes, Obama isn’t talking about effectively seizing more private companies. Yet. And private property freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights don’t seem in danger. Yet.
Obama's projected deficit for 2010.
Of the three ways to view socialism, I’m focused on number three, particularly on the phrase “transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done”. POTUS and friends talk a lot about our ongoing need for “fairness’” and “redistribution.”
Okay. If Person A makes $1 million and all told pays 60% of that income back to the United States, and Person B makes much less in wages but is the beneficiary of a multitude of Federal programs and refundable tax credits and actually receives a check each year from Uncle Sam, can there really be said to be unequal distribution? Seems to be evening out pretty well to me. Person B is not an isolated case either, as millions upon millions of Americans are, or are on the road to becoming, Person B.
Federal and state payrolls are swelling, entitlements are growing out of control. Taxes are rising. Make no mistake, Obama’s plan is to tax and spend us into socialism. Simply put, the more workers on the government payroll, the more power for Washington. The bigger the debt, the more taxes and regulation will grow on private wealth and property. Democrats are drunk on power.
Is it a grand conspiracy? No. The Obama administration happened into GM, Chrysler and AIG. They did what was necessary at the time, but on the other hand have no plans to send the companies back to the private sector any time soon, if at all. Health insurance companies and banks are next. Destroying both seem to be on the left’s dance card.
Unfortunately for all of us, Republicans didn’t do much better with budget balancing the last time around. The Democrats’ argument that the Republicans’ unfunded wars, tax cuts, and a prescription drug plan for seniors started the current deficit cycle is a powerful one.
Republicans will most likely get one more chance this November. No, America will not crumble if Obama’s brand of soft socialism wins the day, but we may well live in a country unrecognizable from the one we all grew up in. If you are a Leftist or Statist, that is a good thing. A change long overdue. As the mantra goes: why should anyone make more than anyone else? All work is equally valuable. Until you run out of high-earners to tax, of course. White collar workers? Who cares. At least the sports figures can rake it in, for the moment. The left wouldn’t dare go after sports and entertainment figures. Oddly they can earn with impunity as far as the left goes.
The rest of us who believe in freedom and liberty will have a problem on our hands. It’s fixable. . . with Republicans the majority in Congress, just as they were during Clinton’s year of frugality, 2000. You know, the year the Democrats like to crow about as a budget surplus year that happened under “their watch”.
Hopefully in November cooler heads will prevail at the ballot box and the nightmare of Obamanomics can be forestalled. Divided government works best. Americans will have a chance to balance Mr. Obama’s lurch leftward. Let’s hope we collectively use it.
Me hopes so.
Related posts:
John Romano is the publisher and editor of Yes, But However!, a musician, a former political correspondent for BBC Radio London, and a serial web entrepreneur. Follow him on twitter: twitter.com/yesbuthowever or John Romano on Google+John Romano article archive.
