Independent Newspaper Says Redistributing Wealth Not Okay in Some Instances

Photo of Pam Meister.

The Fairfield County [Conn.] Weekly is one of those papers that is available for free at diners and bus stations, and it's usually very liberal in its views. (A sampling of recent article titles includes one where the author claims Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) was checking out her décolletage at an event, and another calling former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a "quaint torture-monkey.")

In the first read-through, this article took me by surprise...could one of Fairfield County's most cherished liberal institutions be going "right"? Entitled You're Worth It! For one measure of your worth to society, look back at all you W2s, author Phil Maymin tries to make sense of who is revered in our society and why. He goes through a series of examples (Bill Gates, sports stars, philanthropists and artists whose work gains wealth posthumously), and finally decides:

So perhaps it is not easy to define a person's exact value to society, but we have a basic guideline that works fairly well fairly often: the more people are willing to hand over their own assets and wealth in appreciation of a person, the greater his or her value.

Okay, fair enough. Maymin then turns to politicians:

What about politicians? Are the best politicians the ones that raise the most money for their campaigns? If not, where does the logic of this measuring break down?

The actions of politicians are of generally two types: those in the best interests of all and those in the best interests of a few. Special interest groups contribute to politicians in the hope that they will bless their constituency with special laws. There are price floors on sugar to benefit the sugar lobby, agricultural subsidies to benefit large farms, tariffs on certain imports to benefit particular domestic industries, and untold earmarks, pork belly projects, tax loopholes, and other favors to benefit the contributors—all on our nickel.

Here comes the kicker:

It will be this way so long as elected officials have the power to redistribute money and assets. But it can be minimized. On the federal level, all that is required is a strict limitation on the powers of government officials so that they only focus on issues of national defense, and not on what kind of toilets are illegal or managing farm industry. All that'd be required is some kind of document that spells out what Congress can do, with all other functions relegated to the states or citizens themselves.

Of course, we have such a document. It's called the Constitution. And every elected politician swears to uphold it. Yet very few do.

Did I read that right? A liberal paper claiming that Congress shouldn't be redistributing money and assets, but focusing on federal defense and leaving most of the rest up to the states? Holy cow, Batman! But wait, let's go back to Maymin's description of this kind of hooliganism (all emphasis mine):

The actions of politicians are of generally two types: those in the best interests of all and those in the best interests of a few. Special interest groups contribute to politicians in the hope that they will bless their constituency with special laws. There are price floors on sugar to benefit the sugar lobby, agricultural subsidies to benefit large farms, tariffs on certain imports to benefit particular domestic industries, and untold earmarks, pork belly projects, tax loopholes, and other favors to benefit the contributors—all on our nickel.

All of that is true. But there's one kind of wealth redistribution that Maymin forgets: social programs. You know, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, welfare, unemployment and so on. These programs are financed by money taken out of your paycheck and given to people you don't even know, without so much as a by your leave. And some people want to see more of it.

See why I was almost fooled? Maymin trots out the Constitution in as the guide we should all be adhering to when it comes to monies handled by Congress. But he fails to mention one of the biggest ways that Congress redistributes wealth "all on our nickel."

Sigh. So close. Maybe next time...

 


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It sounded encouraging

given the fact the fellow actually had the guts to reference the Constitution and report that it is being disobeyed even after the oaths swearing to uphold it.

 I have to agree, though. I checked the pork barrel size a year ago or so, and found the entire trough was said to be less than 1% (28 billion) then as I recall.

 So, with social security and the health and pills pot, and the DOE, and the AGW research, and all the other programs minus the 20% or so that is military, he forgets to mention about 79% of the breaking of the Constitution when it comes to spending tax dollars, as you pointed out.

 It's one of those: " OMG , I can't say that, little old ladies are listening " type of things. " I have to attack what everyone is upset and can complain about, the USA's big huge business capitalism that gives us all the opportunity to be rich and powers the gigantic social security and welfare and education and research trough."

 Yeah, it's twisted, and still shrinking and fearful and not honest. In other words, it's already so far beyond recall, only a gigantic calamity can change it.

 I agree it was nice though that he had the gum to say the bare minimum.

 Don't forget though, if it ever does get screwed back around straight, the states can have gigantic welfare programs, and a lot of them will. I think they'ed advertise for citizens bragging about their "free rides" known as the social safety net.

 Face it, the Feds aren't going to "get with the Constitution"  - EVER.

2 for 1 give away

Ms. Meister in addressing Maymin he misses so very much. His bigotry to including Gates, jocks and givers away of cash is ignorance of the entire military, historical and religious communities who would be the first to name Tommy Franks, Teddy Roosevelt and D. James Kennedy as being looked up to.

Here am I reminded though of a slogan from 1978, "Don't cuss a farmer with your mouth full". Farmers made money under Richard Nixon and it was not until the 90's that ranchers turned a profit and the last 10 years grain farmers are in the black........problems are in the corporate dairy, swine and poultry due to their margins, but in all of this people like Maymin nor urbanites had no problem with American agriculture being literal slave labor for the past 40 years all for the "cheap food policy".

This type of ignorance in including corporate structures and Sam Donaldson with payouts is not the same agriculture for example of the "sugar industry". Most people do not know that "sugar" does not come from sugar cane, nor corn, but is raised in the Red River Valley of North Dakota by Crystal Sugar contracts with family farmers growing sugar beets.

While I have huge problems as occurred with feedlot farmers having their fat cattle die due to heat and demanding government relief as I do in all these disaster payments for everything from New Orleans to Minnesota bridges as Davey Crocket pointed out everyone has a hog for the trough, I do not mind subsidies on sugar which guarantee prices at a set level which consumers can afford and keeps those family farmers on the land producing renewable wealth every year not as slave laborers, but as people who earn money and spend money.

The one thing a farmer always does is spend money in the community. He has to for tax deductions and simply because this group of people always does spend and rarely invests.

That is the simplicity and ignorance of a Maymin in not realizing that people do need a guarantee in these million dollar expenditure days of inflation knowing that by the end of the year they will have enough to live on and invest into crops next year. It benefits society as a stable food supply and an affordable price is the basis of an entire nation.

Maymin always sees the problems with things that he as a hog is feasting upon benefiting greatly, but never sees the problem in insurance, Social Security, welfare ALL sucking the life blood out of businesses.

Frankly, I would like to see Newsbusters copy the free give away paper in print as it would be a welcome read compared to the free leftist papers out there.........

I do though have a use for leftist papers though as I gather them up and my chickens just have a wonderful time playing on them and shredding them to bits returning them to the ground from which they came. Wonder if Maymin ever knows his words come to use for..........the enjoyment of chickens.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS