In every debate over inequality and redistribution of wealth there is an unnoticed or ignored elephant in the room. Every three working Americans provide sustenance for two who are not ill or disabled and the number of non-working is growing (an additional 10 million were idled in the Obama “recovery” alone) and it is likely to keep growing. At some point, we will hit a 50/50 ratio of idle versus active. The obligations of the working to care for the 70-80 million who genuinely cannot work become more difficult when the 90 million who can work for all sorts of reasons won’t.
The more we provide unemployment insurance, food stamps, subsidized housing, health care and disability insurance, the more the recipients find it all inadequate, inherent proof of unfairness and inequality, and always not enough.
The unhappy truth is not just that we are insolvent, but that we are so insolvent that it is now a thought-crime to talk of bankruptcy, default and irresponsible spending. Such comments are all damned as symptoms of “callousness” to the poor, “obsession” with deficits and proof of “social injustice.” The consensus at the moment is that we damn the agents of inequality, the one percenters, with higher taxes, more regulations and more obligations to others.
At the risk of sounding “callous” to the poor and “obsessed” with deficits, can anyone “show me the money?” In the spirit of “social justice,” let me propose I keep what I earn, you keep what you earn and if you disagree with me, please tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you… and why?
Ed Konecnik
Flushing
