Barack Obama's ideology of “redistribution of the wealth” can be called socialism, Marxism, fascism or welfare-state liberalism. But whatever label you give it, add the words irrational and sinful.
Mr. Obama describes himself as a Christian, but what he advocates violates at least two of the Bible’s 10 Commandments — the ones covering stealing, and coveting anything belonging to your neighbor.
Barack Obama says he wants to “spread the wealth around,” a noble idea for a multimillionaire like Obama, so long as the wealth he voluntarily spreads is his own.
Trouble is, he is proposing to redistribute politically and without their consent what other people have earned.
This can only be done by first expropriating, i.e., stealing, what others have earned; in effect, stealing a large part of their life, energy, and talent and robbing opportunities from their children.
Liberals often say of the religious right that they “don’t want those people imposing their morality on me.”
But when Barack Obama takes one person’s earnings in order to give them to another, he is imposing his morality on the rest of us at gunpoint.
Obama's morality is collectivist and judgmental, and assumes that government owns what you have earned and has the right to decide which others are more deserving of the fruits of your labor than you are.
In such political transfers of money, government always rakes off for itself a huge shipping and handling fee — 81 cents of every tax dollar in the case of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s "war on poverty," which let only pennies of each taxed dollar trickle down to those whose poverty continues to justify the government’s theft.
Under President John F. Kennedy, 52 cents of every tax dollar went for national defense. Today, more than half of every tax dollar goes for “transfer payments,” taking money out of your pocket to put it into somebody else's.
JFK's national defense provided defense for the “general welfare” of everybody. Today's transfer payments, like today's use of eminent domain, is usually just the expropriation of one person's property so it can be given for the “individual welfare” of somebody else more favored by politicians.
This is unconstitutional. As legal scholar Richard Epstein argued in his classic book "Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain," today's transfer payments violate your Fifth Amendment right to receive just compensation when the government confiscates your property.
Mr. Obama’s divide-and-conquer political tactics of race and class warfare are based on envy and covetousness, and on voters who can be bamboozled into thinking they will share in the loot his government pirates from the most productive citizens.
This is deeply unethical, anti-Christian politics that turns those who selfishly vote for such piracy into a politician’s morally debased accomplices in theft.
As socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw observed, "Whoever promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s support."
But even in godless Darwinian terms, any society that confiscates the resources of the productive to buy the votes of the unproductive is committing slow suicide. It shifts resources from society's best people to its worst.
Equality is the socialist's rationalization to justify wealth redistribution, but this too is immoral and irrational. Capitalism, as an engine of productivity, creates wealth that all share in varying degrees, which is why America's poor are materially richer than average European's or the upper class in Third World socialist nations.
And like the physics behind how an engine works, social progress is driven by difference, not equality. If all were given or allowed to keep only the same amount of money, why would some work harder to invent or produce things for others?
Such “equality” is typical of primitive societies — and why they remain primitive. By punishing the productive, these societies end up sharing poverty, not wealth.
If Mr. Obama truly wants to redistribute wealth and privilege, then let him have a lottery each year to redistribute the choicest social positions — movie star, NFL quarterback, rock star, or even president of the United States.
You might have the bourgeois capitalist notion that such prestigious jobs should be earned by talent, but why? The same logic that says capital need not be left in the hands of the capitalists who achieved the most with it can also be used to justify redistributing movie star roles or classroom “A” grades equally among the citizenry.
Think this is crazy? Think you have no wish to watch the average person next door play James Bond in the movies, or quarterback the New York Giants, or be named by lottery instead of audience votes as the next "American Idol" winner?
Yes, the quality of performances in these fields would turn to junk if we stopped selecting our stars by merit, but this is precisely what Barack Obama proposes to do with business and industry when he redistributes to non-capitalists the capital that fuels capitalism.
Lenin, the Marxist founder of the late Soviet Union, wanted a utopian society in which “the cook will run the state.” What the U.S.S.R. produced was a society of slaves ruled and exploited by a privileged aristocratic elite of the sort that now rules China and Cuba.
Instead of next Tuesday's silly election, egalitarian Barack Obama should call for a computer lottery to select one citizen at random to become our next President.
We have already greatly weakened our society by the degree of “progressive” taxation (oddly named because it thwarts progress) we already pay. The top 10 percent of earners now pay 70 percent of all individual income taxes. But Barack Obama brays that the rich are not paying “their fair share” of taxes?
The bottom 50 percent pay only 2.9 percent of the total and see government merely as a big machine to dispense them goodies, e.g., Obama plans to give $2,000 welfare payments as “tax cuts” each year to those who now pay no income tax. Why? To buy their votes for the Democratic Party.
Truth be told, nothing violates the ideal of equality before the law more than our progressive income tax system.
When Mr. Obama discriminates against productive citizens by making their tax burden heavier than what others pay, how can this be justified in the name of equality — especially when the result is a redistributive society that turns some citizens into accomplices to theft, and others into resentful victims of this theft?
Mr. Obama, of course, claims that he will tax only the wealthy and leave those earning less than $250,000 a year, or $200,000, or $150,000 — his slippery promises keep shifting — with no tax increase.
This same kind of rhetoric was used to impose the income tax, that supposedly would hit only the wealthy and never go above 3 percent of income, but today robs more than half of us.
The Alternative Minimum Tax was originally imposed to catch only 13 ultra-wealthy families that paid no tax; but this year the AMT could squeeze thousands of dollars from each of 40 million American families whose otherwise-legitimate tax exemptions it disallows.
In 1992, Bill Clinton promised, like Obama, a middle class tax cut, but only weeks after taking office he launched instead the biggest tax increase in American history.
Mr. Obama has vowed not to renew President George W. Bush's tax cuts set to expire in 2010. This would impose a $2 trillion tax increase that will batter American families earning as little as $42,000 per year.
But truth be told, all Americans will suffer a gigantic tax increase if Obama is elected. The businesspeople and companies on whom he dumps crushing new taxes will merely pass them along to you and your family in higher prices.
This Obama tax increase will be invisible. He will doubtless use the higher prices his taxes cause to decry “greedy capitalists” and demand that they pay even heavier taxes.
Do not be fooled by the sinful divide-and-conquer class hatred and envy Obama is using to gain power for himself.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.