Ana Marie Cox, writing Tuesday on NewYorkTimes.com, asked Bernie Sanders, “Do you think President Obama is a socialist?” Sanders said, “No.” Then she asked, “What is your elevator pitch for socialism?” Sanders: “My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. “We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all. OK, fair enough. One could probably nibble around the edges of that pitch, but it would be difficult, if not impossible, to refute the main point – that under the current economic system, corporations and the people who run them have amassed too much power, wealth and influence. Sanders, an avowed socialist, believes that pushing the U.S. political and economic system toward a more socialist one is the answer. While I generally agree with Sanders’ description of the problem, he and I part intellectual company when it comes to the solution. Beware when people like Sanders talk about income inequality. It exists to be sure, and it is a very effective political rallying cry for a lot of potential voters. But how, precisely, would Sanders fix it? Taxing the rich is the obvious solution. “Cool, I’m not rich,” you say. “Go after those rich 1-percenters.” Fine, but the mere fact they are “one-percenters” illuminates the folly of that solution. Rick Moran, at AmericanThinker.com sums it up pretty well. Unfortunately, even if taxes are raised on high-income Americans to excruciating levels – some have suggested 95 percent on incomes over $1 million – that’s just a drop in the bucket as far as addressing inequality of wealth. Most of the wealth in this country is tied up in stocks, bonds, and real property – trillions of dollars. ... To make a dent in the problem of income inequality, at least some of that property will need to be seized – probably a lot of it – and given in the form of benefits to the poor. It won’t be a “tax.” It will be called an “assessment” or some other innocuous word that will make a government wealth grab sound palatable. And it won’t just be the super rich who will be affected. As long as incomes remain stagnant for the middle class, the bar will be lowered for those whose property will be in danger. This brings us around to the definition of socialism. I know this is way over simplified, but I had an economics professor back in my college days who described it like this: In communism, the government owns the means of production and controls it. In socialism the government owns the means of production and the people control it. In capitalism the people own the means of production and control it. I think most of us can agree that communism isn’t the answer. That’s probably why, worldwide, the nicest places to live are a blend of capitalism and socialism. Places like Western Europe are more socialist than we are and we are more capitalist than they are. But in both places, both systems are in play. To me, it all boils down to the role of government. Socialists believe the government needs to control more of the means of production in order to maintain income equality. Capitalists believe the government is not as good at controlling the means of production and wish to leave that role to the private sector and free markets. Anyone can plainly see that there are “socialist” programs in place in the U.S. today. Things like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and many other government programs known as “entitlements” are ways the government addresses “income equality” by taking care of those less fortunate. The Affordable Care Act was the latest, largest and most expensive addition to the list of entitlements. In fact, entitlement spending makes up approximately 60 percent of the annual U.S. budget, which is to say there is a good bit of socialism already going on. But I don’t think steering the nation toward more socialism by draconian taxing and redistribution of wealth will fix the problem of income equality. I don’t have any problem with the government providing entitlements to those less fortunate. But if you really want a vibrant middle class and an end to income equality, I believe you have to fix our form of capitalism. Over the decades we’ve drifted away from free markets to some strange hybrid of capitalism where corporations make the rules. It’s not supposed to work that way. In capitalism, the private sector controls the means of production but that doesn’t mean it gets unfettered access to all resources all the time. There have to be rules. Unfortunately today, the rules of production are made by those who control the means of production. Human nature will tell you that can’t end well. But wait, Congress makes the rules, you say. Sure, but at the behest of whom? Ours is supposed to be a citizen legislature where our elected representative looks out for the best interest of constituents. Anymore our “citizen legislators” operate at the behest of the lobbyists and influence peddlers who fund their next campaign. Next year's presidential election is expected to cost up to $5 billion – more than twice the cost of the general election in 2012. Presidential candidates alone collected $400 million in the first half of this year. Are you naive enough to assume all of those “investors” expect nothing in return? That’s why the rules – over time – tilt toward the top of the corporate structure. That’s what creates income inequality. Capitalism isn’t the problem. We don’t need to remove the profit motive or stifle entrepreneurship. We don’t need to hinder innovation. We don’t need the government to take control of the means of production. We need to get the money out of politics. We need to pass meaningful campaign finance laws that won’t allow influence peddlers – corporate or otherwise – to make the rules. Then lawmakers would be influenced by voters and wealth would shift back to the middle of the economic spectrum. Sounds good, but there’s a big problem. When it comes to money in politics – especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings – we may be past the point of no return.
