Takers

Mr. Obama won a second term in the White House.  As in the past, the country split in two, with the left and right coasts voting Democratic and the middle voting Republican.

The election is clear proof that takers now outnumber the makers, just as New York City tenants outnumber landlords.  California voters passed a ballot measure which imposes a "temporary" tax increase just as New York City tenants voted for a "temporary" rent control system three generations ago.

Chickens Coming Home to Roost

This situation of a majority of voters demanding benefits from the public treasury was predicted shortly after America was founded.  Henry Randall sent a copy of his Life of Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Macaulay, a British author and Member of Parliament.  Part of Lord Macaulay's reply of May 23, 1857, was printed in American Heritage, February 1974, p 104:

Dear Sir,

... I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty, or civilization, or both.  In Europe, where the population is dense, the effect of such institutions would be almost instantaneous.

What happened lately in France is an example.  In 1848 [after the French revolution that finally ended the Orleans monarchy - ed] a pure democracy was established there.  During a short time there was reason to expect a general spoliation, a national bankruptcy, a new partition of the soil, a maximum of prices, a ruinous load of taxation laid on the rich for the purpose of supporting the poor in idleness.

Such a system would, in twenty years, have made France as poor and barbarous as the France of the Carloviangians.  Happily, the danger was averted; and now there is a despotism [under Napoleon III - ed], a silent tribune, an enslaved press.  Liberty is gone, but civilization has been saved.  [emphasis added]

Lord Macaulay pointed out that all of the formerly downtrodden French poor wanted immediate access to the good life the moment the aristocracy was overthrown.  The resulting welfare system and taxes to support it destroyed industry in France.  The economic situation became so bad that Napoleon III was able to take supreme power, just as economic unpleasantness in Germany after World War II made it possible for Hitler to assume supreme power.

In Lord Macaulay's view, basing welfare and its necessary taxation on democratic impulses would eventually destroy society.  He would regard the European and OWS riots as a sign that collapse is nigh.  As Peter Pan put it, "This has all happened before and it will all happen again."

Welfare Wars

Nobody believes that people ought to be left to starve in the streets, but the devil is in the details.  Our system creates three classes of people:

1. Welfare recipients who're profoundly ungrateful for what they receive from the government.  They're united in their desire to get more.  London students rioted at the prospect at having to pay more for college tuition; OWS participants not only want free tuition, they want guaranteed high-paying jobs.  They end up despising the taxpayers who support them as suckers, and they have a point.
2. Corporate kleptocrats who make campaign contributions to persuade lawmakers and rule-writing agencies to favor their businesses over their competitors.  We saw examples in the Obama administration's many "investments" in so-called green energy companies connected with donors to his campaigns.  "Corporate welfare" costs us as much as the other form.  
3. Taxpayers who are convinced that all forms of welfare are far too generous and that taxes are too high.  They end up detesting chiseling welfare folks who'd rather do drugs at public expense than work, and being deeply suspicious of authorities and business executives who regulate and fleece them for corporate advantage.  They, too, have a point.

The widespread perception that the welfare system is loaded with cheats was illustrated during a Republican Presidential Debate:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.  [emphasis added]

The mainstream media reacted in glee at this confirmation of what they've always believed about those callous, bloodthirsty Rethuglicans.

Asking the Wrong Question

As asked today, the welfare question has become, "How high do we have to raise taxes to get enough money to give the poor whatever it costs to persuade them to re-elect Democrats?"  Anybody who objects to paying higher and higher taxes is callous, heartless, or worse as far as the mainstream media are concerned.

The health care question has become, "How do we find the money to pay for whatever health care procedure any doctor or any pressure group decides any person ought to have?"  This isn't possible because there's no limit to how much medical care any society can consume; there's always one more test, one more drug, or one more day on total life-support.

The corporate question is, "how much do we have to spend to create environmentally-sensible green jobs?"

It Doesn't Really Matter

It doesn't matter how anyone asks any of these questions or any other questions.  As Lord Macaulay predicted, the election boiled down to the 47% who feed off the government.  This includes corporate plutocrats and politicians such as Al Gore who've made millions through government-backed "investments."

Mr. Obama projected an aura of caring about people like the Obamaphone lady who vote for more and more benefits from the public treasury.  As the Federal reserve continues to pay off Mr. Obama's supporters by printing more and more money, we're heading for inflation such as no American has seen before.

What will happen when the few remaining workers decide it isn't worthwhile for them to spend their lives working only to have all their work taxed away?  If the goods aren't produced, they can't be given away regardless of government policy.