Where is Washington taking us?

Published: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 9:15 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 9:15 a.m.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods … a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

The same source defines communism as “a theory advocating elimination of private property … a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production …” and distribution of goods.

And, it defines capitalism as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decisions, and by prices, production and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

Several CNN anchors and contributors (John Roberts, Alina Cho and Christine Romans) apparently don’t understand how critics of the latest version of health-care reform could call the legislation socialist. In fact, they seem not to know the definition of socialism. I suspect they all carry $3 bills with Nancy Pelosi’s image on front.

What is the state of American government and the American economy? Are we socialists, communists or capitalists? Where is Washington taking us?

How much of the economy does the government have to own or administer before we officially become a socialist state? Fifty-one percent?

Seems to me three vital components of the definitions are ownership, production, and distribution. Who controls which definition we fall under?

Obviously, America is no longer a purely capitalist nation. When America was founded we were necessarily a capitalist economy because individuals were limited by circumstances and abilities as to how they might make their livings. Individuals had to grow or produce something to sell or exchange, otherwise they became totally reliant on the generosity of neighbors or charity.

Because of the historical stigma attached to words like socialist and communist in America, few politicians or pundits have identified themselves as either ist even though they have advocated socialist economics or communist government.

H.R. 3962, the health-care-reform legislation recently passed by the House, promises Washington power over, if not control of, 20-percent of the American economy. Washington already controls two out of three of America’s Big Three automakers, not to mention several leading financial institutions.

When Nancy Pelosi said, “We won, we write the bill,” she was speaking as though Democrats were free to write whatever they wanted. Her words are no different from President Obama’s continual reminders to critics that he won and is now president, as if that gave him authority to do whatever he wants. Does the Constitution authorize Congress or the president to do whatever they want? No.

Does the Constitution authorize Washington to force Americans to purchase health insurance or to pay fines if they don’t purchase insurance? I don’t think so. Yet, H.R. 3962 clearly requires Americans to purchase health insurance or pay fines.

Regardless of where one stands on health-care reform, Americans should unite against Washington imposing financial mandates on citizens. Taxes are one thing. Mandatory purchases or punitive fines are another.

Those who argue Washington has the authority to mandate citizens purchase anything or face punitive fines are advocating socialist economics. Washington’s authority ends at the border of citizens’ rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment says authority not delegated to Washington is reserved to the states or the people unless prohibited by the Constitution. Washington has assumed a lot of authority not delegated by the Constitution.

Some might argue, “Well, we have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and they’re not socialist programs.” Really? Just because these programs have been around for decades doesn’t mean they’re not socialist programs.

Ownership, production and distribution are key. In the past two years Washington has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars to own or control banks and corporations. They may be taxpayers’ dollars, but make no mistake: Americans don’t own any of these purchases. Washington does.

Half of us pay 97 percent of all income taxes in America. We pay based on how much we’ve earned. We purchase whatever we own with whatever’s left after taxes. That’s distribution of wealth we can believe in. Apparently, Washington sees things differently.

Danny Gardner lives in Starkville, Miss.


Comments are currently unavailable on this article

▲ Return to Top