The Politics of Envy

The concept of sin is nearly as old as time itself. Just about every religion includes basic tenets concerning man’s treatment of his fellow human beings. In Judeo-Christian doctrine, The Ten Commandments are mentioned in the Book of Exodus – the second book of the Bible. The Tenth Commandment is the one that deals with envy.

It specifically states, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his #, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.” Forbidding the coveting of “…any thing that is thy neighbor’s” is the catch all in the Tenth Commandment. In other words, not only is it sinful to kill one’s fellow man or to steal from him, it is a sin to covet – or desire – anything that belongs to him; not just his wife, manservant, maidservant, ox or #. This would, by just about anyone’s interpretation, include his money. How is it then, that government can foster and sanction sinful behavior? President Obama (along with nearly every Democrat for that matter) wants to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. The hyper-partisanship in Washington DC has, for years, been fueled by the left and their propensity for playing the class envy game. Continually vilifying successful Americans has been part of the left's game plan for decades. But, is class envy not tantamount to coveting?

---

Are the Democrats and those that vote for them not committing sin? Liberals have fostered the perception that the wealthy’s possessions are ill-gotten; that they have somehow stolen what they own. And that this wealth has been stolen from the poor. Liberals’ portrayal of the poor as victims of the wealthy serves to reinforce this myth. As shown by public opinion polls, much of the electorate has played right into this notion as a sizable percentage of the population espouses raising taxes on the wealthy. The Democrats, by Barack Obama's own admission, want to "spread the wealth around" in the interest of perceived economic fairness. Naturally, the government needs tax receipts to pay for essential services mandated by the Constitution - specifically the defense of our nation. However, the size and scope of government has grown exponentially over the past century. It now encompasses endless programs and bureaus that almost anybody (leftists notwithstanding) can see are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Of course, all of these machinations must be kept satiated financially. But the wealthy - the top five percent of earners - already pay the vast majority of income taxes: nearly sixty percent. While the lower fifty percent of earners pay less than three percent of the nation's total tax bill. Those on the left, amidst all of the debt debate, argue that everyone needs to pay “their fair share”. But does placing the burden for sixty percent of the nation’s income tax revenues actually constitute “fairness” for that top five percent? How can America, with its founding rooted in Judeo-Christian principles, espouse taking, by law, more than one-half of the money that someone has earned? And it is not merely the act of taking of that money that is immoral. But the giving of it to someone else whom the government deems to be more deserving – in the name of fairness – seems morally reprehensible. In The Bible, the prophet Isaiah states, "Feed the hungry! Help those in trouble! Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you shall be as bright as day.” Isaiah states nothing about the government taking, by force, that which another hath earned and bestowing it upon another that hath not earned it. Yet liberals continue to insist that those whom they define as rich are failing to pay “their fair share”. However, the liberals never state exactly how much more these evil persons should pay; just that they should pay more than they currently do. But when one looks at it in an objective manner, one can easily see that the wealthy pay more in the way of all kinds of different taxes: They generally live in more expensive homes so they pay more in real estate taxes. They may well own investment property and are, in all likelihood, paying a substantial amount of taxes on such property. And let us not forget the corporate jets so reviled by the left. Not only are sales taxes paid on the purchase of aircraft, but they use a great deal of fuel and taxes are paid on those fuels. To say nothing about the taxes that are paid in the course of maintaining, servicing, and storing these airplanes. Let us not forget the men and women that fly them. Not only do these people earn paychecks, but THEY pay taxes, also. It has been said by a number of political pundits that very few workers are employed by poor people. Given the economic climate in which we live, with the unemployment rate over nine percent, one would think that we as a nation would be doing all we can to encourage the wealthy to spend their money on corporate jets, luxury yachts, fancy automobiles, vacations, etc. When the rich spend their money, the entire economy benefits as workers toil to manufacture the jets, the boats, and the cars. And pilots, taxi drivers, and hotel personnel make a living catering to vacationing families. However, encouraging consumption by the wealthy does not purchase votes for liberals; demagoguing the wealthy does. So, sinful or not, it is politically expedient for liberals to fuel the fire of class envy. It may not be good politics or ethical politics. But it certainly seems to be effective politics.