Mr. and Mrs. Smith: A Redistribution Parable

John and Jane Smith were hit hard by the recession.

Recently married, John worked for a local manufacturing company, while Jane worked part-time at the local supermarket. In preparation for their new life together, they bought a house in Oakfield Communities, a new development in a nice part of town. The house was a bit of a stretch for them financially, but owning a home was a dream come true for the young couple.

Last November, in the midst of the stock market’s steep decline, John worried that his company might reduce overhead.  In January, when the recession accelerated, John was laid off. As the primary earner for the couple, John’s job loss posed a serious problem for the couple–how would they afford the lifestyle they had built on his income? Their home payments were expensive, and they had received health coverage through John’s company.

After two months unsuccessfully searching for a new job, John and his wife were without health insurance, and were falling behind on their home payments.

But all was not lost. The Smiths were fortunate enough to be friends with the chair of Oakfield Communities’ Homeowners Association, Barney Reid. Mr. Reid saw that the Smiths were struggling and had compassion for the newlyweds. Something had to be done to help them.

At the next monthly meeting, Mr. Reid made an impassioned plea to the association’s board: “The Smiths are great people and hard workers. John wants desperately to provide for his wife, and Jane is working long hours at the supermarket. They are victims of the recession that Wall Street gave us. John is still out there looking for a job, and if we don’t help them they might lose their home. And what if one of them gets sick? Without healthcare, it could be devastating.”

Mr. Reid’s message resonated with the members of the board. “This is a compassionate community,” they thought. “No member of Oakfield should ever be without healthcare or be at risk of losing their home. We are fortunate to have jobs, and if we all pitch in we can help out the Smiths.”

Needing to act quickly, the board drafted a letter to the community: “Effective immediately, the monthly association fee will be raised from $200 to $500. The money will go directly to the Smiths to help provide them with health coverage and allow them to keep their home.”

Members of the community were outraged. They had worked to save money and keep their jobs, and had purchased homes within their means. Yes, the Smiths’ situation was sad, but why should they be forced to pay for their healthcare and home? Didn’t they have a right to decide where their own money was spent? What incentive would John have to go back to work?

The board members were confused by the objections—they thought Oakfield residents would understand the Smiths’ plight.

But then they had an ingenious idea. There were five families in Oakfield that each earned over $250,000 per year, far more than the other families. They had more than enough money to live on and more than enough to give to the Smiths. They were, after all, rich.

So the board sent out a new letter: “Everyone in the community wants to support the Smiths, but not everyone has enough discretionary money to help out. But there is one group who does and who will gladly help. Effective immediately, the monthly association fee will be raised from $200 to $2000 for all homes with a combined income over $250,000. All other fees will remain at $200.” The idea was perfect—take from those who could afford to give and give to those in need.

But something strange happened that the board members had not expected. Over the next few weeks, they were flooded with requests for financial assistance. It turned out that the Johnsons were struggling to put their child through college, the Millers’ car had broken down, and the Richards had huge credit card debt to pay off. How would they pay for all these requests? Perhaps they could simply raise the association fees again.

——

If you lived in Oakfield, how might you have responded to the forceful redistribution of your wealth? How would you have felt if your hard work and responsibility were rewarded with payment for the indiscretion of your neighbors? The story seems unpalatable and distant, the injustice exceedingly clear.

But the troubling truth is that the story of Mr. and Mrs. Smith may soon be the story of America.  Financial, auto, and mortgage bailouts took from a few to give to the irresponsible. Historically high tax rates are close on the horizon, the price tag for increased social welfare and a universal healthcare proposal that amounts to forced charity.

We have a president and party in power that want to “spread the wealth around,” and believe that prosperity is something to be given, not pursued.  They call the poor “victims,” and wrap their policy in noble, but utopian notions of “compassion” and “fairness.” Ironically, they find justice in providing for some while taking from others.

The story of Mr. and Mrs. Smith seems remote, but government acts similarly everyday. If the country continues down the path set by the current administration, America will begin to look more and more like Oakfield Communities and less and less like the land of Liberty and Justice for All.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net