THE COMMON WELFARE

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Everyone will instantly recognize the above as the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. But I wanted to focus specifically on one part of it, the bolded section, which sets out a broad task for our government: to ensure that everyone in society is afforded a good life, and that no one is shut out of society and left to starve or suffer. For most of us, it isn't hard to see that the government will have to often be proactive in protecting those things held in common to all citizens, like the environment, critical infrastructure, etc, and will have the affirmative responsibility to provide for those things no person can do without, like health care, subsistence food and shelter, etc.

There are those in PT, though, who have a somewhat bizarre idea of what the government should do, and what responsibilities citizens have to each other. MosesKnows, for instance, seems obsessed with the idea that America is built on the principle of each man receiving the fruits of his labor. That is fine as far as it goes, but MK is concerned with how some of the poorest citizens may be "sponging" off the rest of us, but he virtually never mentions the ways that the very wealthy and corporations take from the system in excess of their due. Where did the idea come from that a farmer who works all year for a harvest to feed his family is the equivalent of a CEO who does relatively little, may in fact harm others, and yet receives payment far in excess of his value? How does it follow that free enterprise means allowing corporations to use their wealth to improperly influence government, and, as is the case now, to insert their representatives into the very positions that regulate their industry, or have prewritten legislation friendly to their interests passed by corrupt politicians? How can MK justify such enormous violations of the common welfare at the top, while sniffing the ground intently for any sign of sloth at the bottom?

RichardCranial also joins such arguments, and his principal weapon is the relative percentages each group in society pays in taxes. Nowhere in his careful parsing of the numbers is there a recognition that our tax system is designed to be progressive. A person making $20,000 should pay a lower percentage than one making $200,000. This is simple common sense. Fifteen percent of $20,000 may well be fair at that level of taxable income, leaving $17,000 to live on. When you make $200,000, even 30% taxation leaves you with $140,000. I'm not weeping inconsolably for the wealthy.

As our society allows you to make more money, you should rightly contribute a higher percentage to the common good. Remember this when you argue with MK or Rich. They truly think that the government should simply allow people to starve if they cannot provide for themselves. If private giving is not adequate, as it inevitably is not, MK and Rich think that the CEOs and the wealthy should keep far more of their income than they do, and let the poor starve. I know that most Americans don't feel this way. We think that the government should tax the wealthy fairly, and provide for the common welfare, be it in food, shelter, health care, or other simple amenities. Other industrialized nations provide health care for all citizens, at less cost, with better outcomes. MK and Rich will try and pretend that the poor will be extravagant, and that we cannot determine an appropriate level of subsistence, so why bother trying? I never hear them suggest limits on the upper boundary of income, though. I think you know that it is eminently possible to provide basic care for the poor, and that we should do so nonjudgementally. That's what it means to be an American.

JC