The left in the United States and around the world is fond of redistributing wealth from those who have it to those who don't. But this concept always raised at least two questions in my mind, who is wealthy and who is not? To the person making minimum wage, a bloke earning $25 an hour is wealthy. Just as to a person who is making 200 thousand dollars a year, someone making a million dollars is wealthy. In survey after survey, almost independent of what someone earns, they don't consider themselves rich.
A third, and I think more important, question comes to mind in the redistributive model, i.e. what entity is the arbiter of determining who is the provider and who is the benefactor? Of course, in most cases it is big government that is given the power to confiscate wealth and redistribute it. This necessarily leads to corruption because as the saying goes, "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul." It has become painfully obvious recently that the United States has reached a tipping point which finds us with more Pauls than Peters.
Politicians who implement redistributive policies are not concerned with the financial status of those they call poor, but rather with the disposition of those persons votes. If they truly believed in redistribution as a path to fairness, then why do government and union workers escape the redistributionist's confiscatory policy. Government and union workers enjoy up to twice the salaries as their counterparts in the private sector, and contribute very little to benefits that far outstrip any received by their brethren in the real world. The redistribution model seems to work in reverse when it benefits union workers. Wealth is taken from taxpayers, who make less than the union workers, to pay for their higher salaries and gold-plated benefits.
The reason that government and union workers escape the ire of community agitators and other redistributionists is simple, money. Taxpayer money is given to union workers in the form of higher contracts, which is then collected in the form of dues. Those dues are then "donated" to Democrats, who are the very same people who negotiate union contracts within the framework of collective bargaining agreements. As an added bonus, the Democrat party receives two-thirds of the union votes. It's a money-laundering scheme that would make Tony Soprano wet his pants with excitement.
Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted November 25, 2012.