|
The Democrats Are Privatizing Wealth Redistribution
Tom Mullen
Campaign
For Liberty
Monday, Nov 9th, 2009
George W. Bush redistributed more wealth during
his presidency than any president had since Lyndon Johnson.
Republicans really have never had any problem with redistributing
wealth as long as the proceeds go to the right people. Since
Medicare benefits senior citizens, a constituency that no election
can be won without in the baby boomer retirement era, Republicans
had no problem using the force of government to take money from
one individual and use it to buy "healthcare" for
another -- as they did with their Medicare prescription drug
benefit. Neither do they hesitate to redistribute to bankers,
under the cover of "saving the financial system."
God help us if there is ever a constituency of senior citizen
bankers.
In fact, if one looks at the federal budget as it existed before
the massive bailouts started -- pre-TARP -- at least 80% of
the almost $3 trillion budget amounted to wealth redistribution.
Always there was some rationalization for why this or that group
must receive federal funds "for the good of all."
The farmers must be subsidized because there is absolutely no
way to sustain farming in a market economy. If large farming
corporations weren't subsidized, we would all starve. Medical
research must be subsidized because we will eventually all die
of cancer, AIDS, and other horrific diseases if the government
doesn't subsidize medical research. Corporations in general
must be subsidized because if one were to go out of business,
everyone would be unemployed.
The Democrats typically attempt to characterize the Republicans
as racist or elitist because the Republicans have traditionally
resisted wealth redistribution for the poor or minorities. However,
the reality is that Republicans do this for the same reasons
that Democrats resist redistribution to bankers and corporations
(or at least they used to). The poor and minorities don't vote
Republican. That is the only reason that Republicans attempt
to leave them out.
No one in America seems to know any American history. Following
the American Civil War, when black voters universally supported
the Republicans due to their perception that the "party
of Lincoln" had set them free, it was the Republicans who
promised "40 acres and a mule" to blacks and the Democrats
who proclaimed themselves "the party of white men."
Enslaved by their former ruling class and now used as pawns
in a political power game by the new one, the freed black voters
of post-Civil War America serve as a perfect metaphor for the
supposed "beneficiaries" of all government redistribution
schemes. Whether it is elderly people trying to scrape by on
a Social Security Check, poor people trying not to starve on
public welfare, or Iraqi citizens enjoying their newly provided
"freedom," the so-called beneficiaries of government
wealth redistribution are never the winners. It takes an alarming
lack of skepticism not to ask who the real winners are.
As this new century has "progressed" (pun intended),
even the blurry lines separating the two parties have begun
to melt away. Remember that George Bush's redistribution schemes
also included stimulus "tax refunds" to everyone,
whether they actually paid taxes in the first place or not.
"Compassionate conservatism" was nothing more than
a euphemism for attempting to blend traditional Republican rhetoric
about "free markets" and "limited government"
with thinly-veiled redistribution schemes. By doing so, Bush's
Republicans hoped to hold onto their own base while chipping
away at the Democratic voting blocks by promising them other
people's money, just as the Democrats do.
Throughout the 20th century, the two parties employed this
strategy of "borrowing a page from the other's playbook"
over and over, always hoping to win voters away from the opposition
while retaining the loyalty of their own traditional supporters.
It was this that caused many liberals to criticize Bill Clinton
for being "too much like a Republican." Why George
Bush has managed to hold on to his image as an "extreme
conservative" defies explanation.
Until now, there has always been at least one thing to say
in favor of the Democrats. They have been honest about their
intentions. They have come right out and said that their intention
was to redistribute wealth in order to achieve "equality"
or "social justice" or some other utopian goal. Certainly,
no lucid American can deny that the Democratic platform has
been a socialist one for at least the last century. It has been
the Republicans who have deceived their followers to a much
greater extent by promising them liberty and property rights
and then redistributing almost as egregiously as the Democrats.
One hallmark redistribution strategy used by the Republicans
was "privatization." Somehow, they managed to successfully
characterize forcibly extracting money in taxes from their citizens
and redistributing it to private corporations as "free
enterprise," as if "private" and "free"
were synonymous. Alexander Hamilton must have smiled in his
grave.
However, the Democrats have truly broken new ground during
this presidential administration. Not only have they managed
to outspend the voracious Bush administration in just ten short
months, but they have taken a page from the Republican playbook
and actually privatized wealth redistribution. Formerly, however
transparent the scheme, the money at least made it into the
federal treasury for a moment before being paid out to the special
interest that had bought it with votes. However, H.R. 3962,
the so-called "Affordable Health Care for America Act,"
dispenses with this formality. Now, using the coercive power
of government, private citizens will be forced to pay their
money directly to government supported health insurers whether
they wish to or not. The veneer that this is "public money"
being spent for the "public good" has been completely
stripped away. There is now simply a government pointing a gun
at its citizens and forcing them to pay directly to the special
interest that has successfully lobbied for their money. Even
the King John of the Robin Hood tales did not extort for his
friends this overtly.
A more perverse merger of left and right political corruption
is unimaginable. Using the government's numbers, this will provided
coverage for 36 million uninsured Americans at a minimum of
$15,000 per covered life. Assuming these numbers to be at least
"in the ball park," President Obama and his so-called
liberals have just handed over a half a trillion dollars a year
to corporate America (the health insurance companies). What
true progressive could possibly support this?
The price of this corporate welfare, of course, is that any
remaining vestiges of voluntary contracts between insurer and
insured that health insurance still retained has been eliminated.
Insurers are no longer allowed to determine rates demographically
and based upon a real risk model. They are no longer allowed
to offer diverse coverage packages to compete with one another
for different customer groups. They now must offer low rates
and uniform benefits to everyone as entitlements. Like individual
welfare recipients, they have surrendered all of their liberty
and property rights in return for other people's money. They
are now just one more arm of the state bureaucracy.
The worst aspect of this great fraud is the implications it
has for the liberty of every American. The closest parallel
to this heretofore has been automobile insurance. Americans
have been forced to buy auto insurance directly from an auto
insurer in order to exercise the "privilege" of driving
on the government's roads. This was of course enacted for the
public good, to ensure that poor drivers could not bankrupt
the innocent by demolishing their cars or saddling them with
exorbitant hospital bills. However, as hostile to liberty as
these laws are, they still leave the driver a choice. He can
choose not to drive, however impractical or unrealistic that
choice might be.
However, with this new bill, even that smattering of liberty
is ripped away. Americans are now forced to purchase insurance
from a government-protected and subsidized health insurance
company merely because they are alive. Worse yet, they are not
merely forced to make a single payment of tribute to satisfy
their "individual responsibility." They must go on
paying, year in and year out, for as long as they live. They
cannot decline. They cannot conscientiously object. There is
no escape from this tyranny save one: death. For those individuals
that can demonstrate that they are completely incapable of paying,
someone else will be forced to pay for them. No matter what,
the government's corporation will be paid. Even life is no longer
a right, but a privilege that the government extends to its
subjects for a fee.
From 2001-2006, the Republicans controlled all branches of
government. It was an horrific period of utter destruction of
American liberty. The Democrats have now been given their chance
and in ten short months they have far outdone the Bush Republicans
for this dubious distinction. Make no mistake. If the Republicans
regain power, they will be worse still. Americans should understand
that they will affect no "change" in their government
by electing either of these two parties. The federal government
is a monster that has taken on a life of its own. Both parties
are now its minions and are now indistinguishable from one another.
Our Declaration of Independence says that "mankind are
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security."
Are we there yet?
"When the people find they can vote themselves
money, that will herald the end of the republic."
- Fall Of The Republic - Buy
the DVD here
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
