As a quasi-retired, semi-employed sexagenarian schoolteacher leering apprehensively at the big Seven Zero, I won’t ever reach a level of affluence that will condemn me to that one percent of money earners who pay forty percent of all income taxes Uncle Sam levies so that he can care for nephews and nieces who pay no taxes — approximately one of every two working people.
And speaking of those tax-burdened benefactors, may the Lord have mercy on them if a presidential candidate who believes in income redistribution ever wins, because he certainly won’t.
Would such a candidate espouse equalizing living standards by instituting financial upgrades for some and downgrades for others? Would such a candidate have a plethora of presidential platform planks promising people peace and plenty if government has carte-blanche power to prop up low-income earners by absconding with wealthy people’s assets — without polarizing the populace?
If there is ever such a candidate, his promises may delude enough voters to oust previous administrations and replace them with one that fills pockets and purses until they runneth over with — cha-ching! — CHANGE, the mindless mantra of ill-informed, liberal, lotus-eaters, lolling in illusory Lalaland.
By alleviating material privations of those who despise free enterprise — who may be school dropouts, street corner tramps or prostitutes, undocumented aliens, or drug addicts, staggering homelessly along streets cruised by uncaring capitalists in comfortable cars — such a candidate, such a messianic mega-man, would gain the undying loyalty of these individuals, because, as playwright George Bernard Shaw observed: “Governments that rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
As presidential races enter what we country folks call the short rows, a contender promising something for nothing may have a winning strategy. After all, such a candidate knows he’ll have the support of countless new voters who either didn’t finish high school or were socially promoted through public school systems where education was secondary to preserving students’ self-esteem and comfort zones, and preparation for productive careers was obviated by the constraints of political correctness and freedom of expression.
Such voters may not be able to discern truth from lies, nor reality from perception, and their gullibility would make them easy prey for predatory politicos whose promises are pregnant with prevarication.
Some in this target-rich voting bloc may be amenable to a socialistic, cradle-to-grave system from which the concept of earning a living has all but been expunged. Some may not only demand something for nothing, but consider it an un-diminishable, ever-increasing right, and thereby take for granted that they will be cared for by a government composed of what appear to be kind-hearted, people-protecting politicians, but who can never possibly provide — even by robbing the rich to pay the poor.
But then, who am I to speculate about the stratagems of social engineering? I’m just an old country boy. Even so, I would sure like to know if we voters, poor and not so poor, would be so foolish as to ever elect such a candidate.
Jimmy Reed is an Oxford, Mississippi resident, Ole Miss and Delta State University alumnus, Vietnam Era Army Veteran, former Mississippi Delta cotton farmer and ginner, author, and retired college teacher.
This story is a selection from Jimmy Reed’s latest book, entitled The Jaybird Tales.
Copies, including personalized autographs, can be reserved by notifying the author via email (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)).
