DDENNIS CLAYSON | Posted: Sunday, October 19, 2008 12:00 am
The idea that justifies the government bailing out Wall Street and the banks is exactly the same idea that allows candidates and liberals to state that the rich do not pay their "fair share."
Many on the left think that these two events are independent because they believe what they have been told. Some of the brighter people in the progressive movement know there is one unifying concept, but like to pretend otherwise.
You will notice that when the chips came down, those pushing for both "big business" bailouts and railing against the rich were the same folks.
Some, like Barack Obama and John Edwards, know that their talk of "two Americas" and class warfare are bogus, but they also know that such language will put them into position to ask the majority of Americans to elect them president.
The unifying, but false, idea is simply this: society equals government.
When the rich are asked to pay their "fair share," who are they required to pay this share to? Are they asked by progressives to hire more people? Are they asked to donate more to local charities and churches?
No. They are asked to pay more taxes to the federal government.
When the rich are asked to share with the society some of what they have gained by being a member of society, to whom do progressives want the shares to go? Again, the answer is the same, back to government, and hopefully the largest government that can be found with the force necessary to extract that "share."
But society is not government. Government is but a small part of society, and even then, local governments are much more likely to be part of our society than a far away, increasingly bureaucratic, inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt federal government, which tramples on its own founding document (the Constitution) like toilet paper dropped on the restroom floor.
To a conservative, society is (in declining order) the family, the church, the community, local organizations and local governments.
I have an old friend. We grew up in the same environment and went to the same schools. He spent 20 years struggling with his business interests, sometimes wondering whether he could keep his house.
He is now richer than a skunk.
According to much progressive rhetoric, he is now the enemy. According to Obama's tax plans, he should be forced to pay more to the federal government. If he resists being called "an enemy of the people" or if he does not want to be taxed more, he is labeled as ethically challenged (i.e., selfish and mean spirited).
His company hires over 500 people. Should he instead send that money to the Feds, who will use 40 percent of it on bureaucracy, 20 percent for graft and inefficiency and give back the remaining to 200 people paid to produce nothing?
He takes care of his own family and much of his extended family. Should he instead send that money to the government so that his extended family can go down to the welfare office and beg for handouts from federal workers sick of dealing with people they really don't like much?
He gives a large percent of his income to his church, which efficiently feeds hungry people and sends relief to victims of natural disasters all over the planet. Is he selfish because he doesn't want to send that money to a government that is, at times, hostile to his own religious beliefs and which will inefficiently attempt to use a small portion of that money for the same purposes?
He participates in his local community affairs. Does it make him selfish because he doesn't want to send those resources to a far away government which doesn't understand the issues of his local area as well as he does, and which will use much of his donation to buy votes for local politicians and pay off political supporters rather than address real problems?
No. I'll argue just the opposite. If my rich friend is a moral and ethical person, he will send the least amount possible to the federal government. Further, an ethical politician will tell Americans that class warfare is divisive and destructive and will remind us that society is not equal to government and ask that our contribution to that government be as small as possible.