The Fraud of 'Fairness'

The United States Constitution is the greatest governing document in the history of man. It sets forth the guidelines for a free people to form a more perfect union.

It restricts what the government can do in limiting the individual pursuit of personal happiness.

It strives to guarantee an even start for all of the citizenry as they endeavor to lead their lives as they deem appropriate.

There is not a single paragraph, phrase or word which leads one to believe the Constitution guarantees equal outcome, or even a positive result of an individual pursuit of happiness.

Yet these seems to be a decided slant from the liberal realm and their sycophantic media hacks that continually engages in class warfare, and decries that the “system is not ‘fair’”.

Fairness is applauded as a goal, and if even a single working citizen does not have an equitable result in their labors, then the argument follows that the nation is being unfair.

It is time to call the liberals bluff and put to rest the great lie on fairness.

Consider this proposition.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that there are roughly one hundred and thirty million (130,000,000) people employed. Take that number at face value, and without regard to the job or accompanying benefits package.

The stimulus package passed by the Democratic congress under the direction of President Obama totaled close to one trillion dollars.($1,000,000,000,000)The ineffectiveness of it has led to many to explain that it was insufficient, despite the fact it has had little significant effect on the economy. The projected budgets for the foreseeable future include deficits in excess of one trillion dollars per annum.

So again, take the 130,000,000 employed people.

Give them a tax free single payment of twenty five thousand dollars.($25,000)

The total cost would be three point three trillion dollars. ($3,300,000,000,000)

That would surely generate enough income back to the treasury as those 130,000,000 people began ordering goods and services, investing it, paying down bills – whatever they might choose. The effect of the $25,000 would be even greater to the individual, given that it is tax free money.

The question for this exercise would be thus:

If every one had an equal starting point, how many of them would reappear in a year, or less, requiring additional monies? How many would have lost the entire $25,000 and in some cases wound up losing even more in poor financial management?

Lest anyone think it would not happen, consider how many lottery winners have wound up destitute.

Take this example one step further. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are approximately two hundred million individuals total for the workforce – not under 18 years olds and not those over 65 years of age.

Given that greater number of people, this nation could only afford to grant $20,000 per person. That would bring the total outlay to four trillion dollars.(4,000,000,000,000)

For proper context:

The estimated national budget for fiscal year 2013 is three point eight trillion. ($3,800,000,000,000)

The estimate is just that, for the United States government has not passed a budget for more than three years.

So consider that given the growth of the debt, deficit and the national budget, surely this nation could absorb a $20,000 payment to each of the work eligible 200 million, right?

Would that not prove we were a fair and just nation?

For those who might actually consider this as a reasonable concept, pleased remember that there is no guaranteed equality of outcome.

What would one do for those who did not properly manage that initial outlay?

Yet this is exactly what America is doing each and every year – redistributing money to many who will simply require additional funds next year.

Note that this is not encompassing the children of this nation, those who are retired or legitimately disabled. This applies to only those the government considers eligible to work.

While the separation of church and state is not contained anywhere within the framework of the Constitution, proper and respectful deference must be made when using a saying attributed to the Chinese philosopher Confucius in a discussion on an issue of constitutionality in American democracy:

“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.”

This nation must return to this perspective or we will drown in the flood of debt and deficit, which would not be fair to either ourselves or our posterity.