Robin Hood Government

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 4/12/10. You can read the newspaper version online here, or check out the print column every other week.

One Saturday night, a wealthy couple went to dinner at Le Poulet, an upscale downtown restaurant. Upon being seated, their waitress, Claire, came to take their drink orders. “We’ll both have Champagne,” the man said. “I was just promoted and we’re here to celebrate!” Claire smiled, took the order, and briskly walked away.

Recently, Claire’s best friend Sharon had fallen on hard times.  She had lost her job, her car had broken down, and she was severely behind on her rent. Unless she came up with $500 by Tuesday, Sharon would be evicted. “How lucky, a promotion,” Claire thought. “I wish people like Sharon and I could afford just one meal at this place.”

As the night wore on, Claire closely observed the man and his wife, overhearing several conversations about plans for a new home, an upgraded car, and a summer vacation. A few hours later, the couple finished their meal and left a substantial tip.

As she went to clean their table, Claire noticed the man had left his money clip on the chair. It had $500 in it—enough to keep Sharon from being evicted. “They’ll never notice the difference,” she thought. “If they have enough money to buy a new house and new cars, and eat here…” she paused, conflicted for a moment. But she quickly made up her mind: “Bottom line, I know Sharon needs the money more than they do.” She took the cash, placed it in an unmarked envelope and slid it under Sharon’s door later that night. Claire knew she did the right thing.

******

One thing is immediately clear from the story: Sharon needed the money more than the wealthy couple. They were rich; she was struggling just to get by. They were going to spend discretionary money on vacations and cars; she faced eviction from her apartment. Claire was just trying to help a friend.

But, was Claire right?

Most Americans would say that while Claire was well-intentioned, theft is still theft. If she had compassion for her friend, perhaps she could have used some of her own money, asked for donations from friends and family, or sought the help of a local charity. Per the Golden Rule, if Claire were in the wealthy couple’s position, wouldn’t she want her money returned? Maybe then the couple could have chosen to make a donation to help Sharon. Besides, the couple had a right to their own money—we would never want to live in a society where that which you worked for could be so easily taken…right?

Liberalism, at least in its current incarnation, would firmly disagree. Notions of “compassion,” “fairness,” and “redistribution” have dominated the past year’s political landscape. President Obama used taxpayer money to bailout underwater homeowners because they “needed help.” The so-called “stimulus” sent nearly $4 billion to ACORN (the far-left group that focuses on development of poor urban communities), spent $20 billion to hand out additional food stamps, and gave $36 billion to expand welfare programs (how did this money stimulate the economy?). Similarly, the administration’s budget, which adds trillions to the deficit, expands entitlement and welfare programs to previously unseen levels, all in the name of “compassionate government.”

Most recently, of course, was the passage of healthcare reform. Democrat Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said ObamaCare provided a much needed “income shift” to help the poor:  “The mal-distribution of income in America [has] gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.” As the President said during his campaign, he would be proud that Claire chose to “spread the wealth around.”

When it comes to government spending and taxation, it is easy to lose site of where money comes from and where it goes. Just as Claire stole to give to a friend in need, federal spending on special interests is nothing more than government-sanctioned theft. Liberal politicians love to play the role of Robin Hood: Steal from the rich to give to the poor. They believe their actions noble, heroic, and morally justified. They forget that redistribution is a fundamental infringement on private property rights and Liberty.

Liberty means government taking only what it must, aggressively protecting the right of every citizen to keep what they earn. It is not about politicians legislating forced equality of outcomes. It is about small, Constitutionally-constrained government. It is about a society where individuals are self-reliant, free to use the product of their own labor, and can pursue happiness—they are not given it at the expense of others. Compassion and charity have a rightful and powerful place in society; but that place is through private religious and charitable organizations, groups funded by choice.

Those that find Claire’s theft well-intentioned but wrong must understand the same of government spending. Redistribution is not a form of morality: i.e. those that have more should give to those that need more. Rather, it is a form of tyranny: those that have more must give to those that need more. As Karl Marx, the father of Communism once famously said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” He would be quite comfortable in the current political landscape.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net