A Democratic argument against savings...

I recently heard the following quote from Jim Moran [Democratic Congressman from VA]:

“For the last seven years we have had the highest corporate profit ever in American history… But it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem, because we have been guided by a Republican Administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it. They have an antipathy toward the means of redistributing wealth.” Jim Moran D-VA Congress

Now this quote is from a while back but it really demonstrates a fundamental difference in how many Democrats view the world.

As recently as just a few years back, I would have found it difficult to believe that any politician could say what Jim Moran said without being thrown out of office. The notion that our government is actually stating openly that it is their belief that the wealth we earn as workers in this country is not our own is shocking.

Let’s follow this line of thought a bit more here. If those who earn wealth are not entitled to keep it then we must be saying that it is not really theirs in the first place. If the wealth is not the property of the person who earned it, then we have to ask who actually owns it. Could it be the wealth of those to whom Congressman Moran wishes it to be redistributed? That explanation seems to fall apart as well. If it was their wealth, then there would be no laws against the poor simply going in and taking what “already belongs to them” back from those who have it. As laws do exist to prevent this, it would appear that the only other option is that the wealth belongs to the government itself. [And we should really remember to look at Moran’s words carefully here to see the true meaning of his words.] Remember, Moran is not really arguing for taxes here; but, rather specifically mentions “people who have wealth” in his comment. We are not merely talking about whether it is okay to tax higher wage earners; we are discussing whether those who have wealth in any form can have it taken away.

This belief can only come about as a direct result of a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. It would be impossible to believe that Moran could miss the implication that ,by noting the Constitutional rights to “keep and bear arms,” be “secure in their Persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” be protected from “excessive fines,” etc…, the framers were not only acknowledging, but, rather codifying the idea of ownership of property and wealth. As this is the case, one must logically assume that Moran is either unfamiliar with the document that is supposed to guide his daily work, that he is incapable of understanding it, or that he is simply ignoring it. Either option here should be grounds for his removal from office.

The implications of Moran’s misguided belief are far reaching and widely destructive. If people are not entitled to keep wealth, one must question what this means for property ownership, 401k plans, Money Market accounts, etc….

Remember that this is not some fringe group nutcase here; this is Virginia’s Congressman from the 8^th Congressional district. He has been in office since the early 90s and continues to bring his misguided views to the House even now.

Where was the outrage here?

That sentiments like these can go unchallenged by those whom Moran represents suggests that there is at least some agreement as to its truth. This is perhaps the most frightening point of all.