WEALTH AND POWER

I had in mind to write a follow-up commentary to “How We Got Here and Where We Are Headed,” September, 2011. It was to dwell on how redistribution of wealth successfully served as operational policy for the Republic all the way back to the founding. In fact, the Founding Fathers voiced deep concern about the danger to the Republic if too much wealth were to be concentrated in an aristocracy and devised taxation as a means of leveling the playing field and holding the aristocracy at bay.

The policy worked reasonably well since the beginning, with a couple of exceptions (e.g. 1895 and 1928) when the reins were loosened and the economy predictably took a tumble. It worked until the Reagan Administration, when the floodgates were opened to grow enormous wealth for a very few. Not that wealth of itself is particularly damaging, but with it is the irresistible draw to wield power, and that is the danger to the Republic that the founding fathers were concerned about. We see this in the actions of skilled operatives like Karl Rove, Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, Tony Feather and David Bossie, in the employ of Titans such as Met-Life, the Scarfe Family, The Koch brothers, Trevor Rees Jones and the Walton family. We see it in the funding of an army of lobbyists in Washington, working full time influencing legislators and even helping to write legislation. We also see it in the inexplicable ruling by the Supreme Court that allows tons of untraceable money to be spent by corporations to help elect legislators of their choice.

But then a little research turned up an article that covered the subject of redistribution of wealth far better than I could have hoped to have done it. An article titled “Founding Fathers and Wealth” by J. Edward appeared on the web site Daily Kos on April 23, 2011. It can be found by searching online with the title of the piece and author.

Because the Preamble to the Constitution assigns no power to the Federal Government, it has no standing in the judicial world for making judgments. Still, it is a distillation of all that follows in the Articles, Amendments and Bill of rights. There has never been occasion to change its wording. Of the several phrases that make up its content, two implicitly call for significant spending: “provide for the common defense,” and “promote the general welfare.”

Spending on defense carries little opposition. Nuclear threats, nations in foment, terrorist attacks and seemingly endless wars accrue to heavy expenditures in this area. Spending to promote the general welfare is under attack.

The government collects revenue and functions as a redistributor of wealth. There is no choice in this matter, or infrastructure wouldn’t be built and would go untended,

There would be no military. There would be no one overseeing food safety. Air travel safety would be compromised. Natural disasters would receive no relief. Important research and development and space exploration would never take place. There would be no Medicare, no Medicaid. You get the picture.

All these things that the Federal Government funds and controls come under the phrases in the Preamble: “Provide for the common defense” and “Promote the general welfare.”

Thus, one can conclude that redistribution of wealth is a necessary and wise operational policy for a healthy democracy. The extent to which it is practiced to preserve the Republic is the level at which the power of the aristocracy is rendered harmless.