Emily Latella Explains Wealth Redistribution

As Emily Latella might say, "What's all this I hear about health redistribution?"

"Uh, excuse me. Emily?"

"Why should those of us who are in good health give some of our health away to people who don't have much? What if we get sick? Then what?"

"Miss Latella, that's...uh..."

"Sounds like a Communist plot to me! And another thing..."

"Emily, that's wealth-"

"What's that? Speak up!"

"That's WEALTH redistribution. Wealth. Redistribution."

"Oh. That's very different." Sweet little smile. "Never mind."

People seem to be that confused about what it was Obama actually said. He didn't say wealth redistribution. That was just something the Republican desperados seized upon when they heard him say, "Spread the wealth around."

I'm not surprised that they would try this tactic. What surprises me--and I suppose it shouldn't, given that the majority of voters reelected Bush in 2004, knowing what they knew--is the number of people who accept this interpretation, seeming to need him to have meant that he will take their hard-earned money and give it to the great unwashed.

Let's review, shall we? Wealth distribution, or redistribution, has been around since the dawn of time, to coin a phrase; monarchs used it liberally to keep their royal coffers filled for their wars and other adventures in power-gathering. Serfs and peasants were taxed, as were the aristocracy, though paying them off with part of the proceeds was part of the game, to keep them loyal. Henry VIII plundered church property and redistributed it to his loyalists, thus helping to keep the Tudors on the throne.

Robin Hood, whether real or mythic, was a creative reaction on the part of the powerless to this injustice--why shouldn't some outlaw redistribute the wealth of the rich to the most needy?

But redistribution of wealth has, since the late nineteenth century, been associated almost exclusively with socialism and communism. It's really just another riff on the old monarchical theme, in that the state seizes all production and goods--and the wealth thus obtained--pays the workers, and keeps the rest for the "common good." Its opposite is capitalism, wherein people are allowed to keep the profits from their labor, at whatever the market is willing to pay for it.

Taxes come into play in both systems. Taxes are the "wealth" everybody's so concerned about, although one can't help thinking that some people believe that Obama has a plan to plunder their personal savings. The whole point of taxes is to pay for the nation's foreign and domestic programs. There are two real questions: what is a fair method of taxation, and how should the taxes collected be spent? Should those who make (earn/inherit/invest) more, pay more? Or should we assume that if they get to keep more of their money, they will reinvest it in businesses and enterprises that create jobs and keep those in the middle- and lower-income brackets also earning? Or should there be a flat rate for everybody, regardless of income?

I have my opinions about all of these possibilities, which I'll go into at another time. When Obama threw off his line about "spreading the wealth" during his conversation with Joe the Plumber, he was castigating the Bush policy of giving tax breaks to the very rich--who, as a group, did not live up to their end of the bargain--and touting his own plans to give tax breaks to the middle class.

If people would apply their critical thinking skills in analyzing recent events, they would realize that the bailout of the banks and other financial institutions is really a buyout. Admittedly, it seems to have been the only way to avoid a complete meltdown, but what is more communistic than a state takeover of any industry? And this was perpetrated by the Republican Party, that bastion of defense against communism, necessitated by their eight-year strategy: lower taxes for those who would ordinarily pay the most, and spending taxes collected from the rest of us on the war and all its accoutrements, like lucrative government contracts for private companies with ties to administration insiders.

I'd rather my taxes not go there; I'd rather my "wealth" be redistributed to the returned veterans, and children at risk, and libraries, and a sane health insurance policy.

Wait a minute, maybe Emily Latella got it at least half right after all: not health redistribution, but health care redistribution...

Never mind.