Alarming Communist Rhetoric and Reality

Increasingly we hear that the US government is moving rapidly towards communism. Most dismiss such rhetoric as alarmist and irresponsible, but Karl Marx himself left certain benchmarks on the characteristics of a communist regime. These are among the "essential elements" of this form of government, found in his Communist Manifesto.

• Under communism, we are told there "should be an abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." We have this, to a certain extent, already, since virtually every county, city, or other local jurisdiction has property taxes. You could own your property "free and clear" for years, but you will continually pay "rent" to your county or other local government for as long as you live in it.




• Marx called for a heavy progressive or graduated income tax. We have it, according to Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, "The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes."




• Communism advocates the abolition of all rights of inheritance. The government is not quite there yet, but is working on it. The trend had been towards increasing the amount people were allowed to pass on to their children and grandchildren. This administration will have them rise to levels we have not seen in decades.




• Communism calls for the centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Have you heard of the Federal Reserve? This institution mirrors Marx's image to a tee.



• Marx advocated the extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state. Who would have believed that we would have the President of the United States accepting the resignation of the CEO of General Motors? The government has exploited our economic crisis as a basis for massive expansion. The relationship between government and business has been "too close for comfort" for years, now the entanglements of where government ends and business begins is almost impossible to determine.
  


• The control of transportation and communications are also parts of the Marxist agenda. It has been under government coordination for decades. As government tries to introduce "fairness doctrines" and wages a war on media networks, the possibilities are endless. If the government starts to bailout dying publications, you can only imagine what that will due to further distort media bias.



• Communism argues for the equal obligation of all to work. This almost sounds like a "responsible" government notion...if you do not work, after all, you should not eat. However, Marx argued that people should be required to work and only be able to retire when the government says you can do such. The government has not reached that point yet (although tax and other laws have enormous influence on when people choose to retire), but it is designing tax and other regulatory law to make retirement all the more unobtainable.



• Free education for all children in public schools. Public education is imperative if a government is going to dictate to a people what it can and cannot do. In the US, it was not until the 1830s that the state governments even established department of educations and there were virtually no government schools for the first 50 years of the republic. The Founders believed education was a check against a government that could grow out of control. Today, most Americans have no idea about what the government can and cannot do, because they have no idea what rights the Constitution gives them or what limits the Constitution puts on the state.
  

The rhetoric is not nearly as alarming as the moves towards Communism the country has been taking for years. It is time for Americans to get honest about the state of our nation, no matter how unpleasant the rhetoric.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

The States and Minimum Wage

Unemployment is rising fast and Americans are looking for quick answers. Currently, President Obama is looking for the federal government to solve that problem and, frankly, that level of government is the primary reason why we are in this mess. The federal government ended the multi-year supply-side tax cut that kept the US going and growing in spite of wars and the implications of September 11th and has continually turned to failed "bail outs" that are not only not working, but will likely lead to hyperinflation like we have only read about in history books.

I think that the President should draw on the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and look towards state solutions to the unemployment crisis. The federal system created by our nation's early leaders points to the virtues of the states as a resource for answers. I think it is exactly where the President should go for employment answers and the place to start is minimum wage.

For some reason, the minimum wage issue has not even been discussed by our policy leaders, but I believe it may be as big as a contributor to our current situation as are some of the other factors that are debated about daily. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment has largely been below 5 percent for years until the summer of 2008. What happen then? The Congress had raised the largest increase in the minimum wage in 16 years. In July of 2009, that minimum wage will jump again to over $7 an hour. It is doubtful the economy can sustain such an increase and as a result, the federal government should consider an alternative approach, which is to eliminate the federal minimum wage entirely because it is a deterrent to job creation.

I know, it sounds radical, but instead of the federal government in Washington, DC telling states, often thousands of miles away, where they should keep their minimum wage; the US government should simply mandate the states to set their own basements. This would create competition among the states and give them a tool to radically change their own economies. Some states (like California) would likely keep the minimum wage at the same rate. Other states might set their own minimum wage but permit cities to have lower wages still if their economies demand such. For example, Camden, NJ; East St. Louis, MO; and Detroit, MI have suffered from long term depressions long before the national recession. This would give them what they need to turn their economies around.

For years states and cities have set minimum wages that are higher than the federal mandate (for example, San Francisco's is around $9 an hour). Minimum wage is not brain surgery and there is nothing about it that would make it necessary for the federal government to set it. It makes perfect sense for it to be determined by the people who are most profoundly affected by it and those are the states and the cities through out this country.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.