We’re hearing a lot from the Democrats these days about “income inequality.” They say that the poor are too poor, and the rich are too rich. Apparently, they believe that if everybody received the same personal income, all our problems would magically disappear.

Of course, like most liberal theories, this has been tried before. It was called “Communism,” and it failed miserably. The core idea for a European system was first offered in a letter written by Karl Marx in 1875 and enforced in Russia after the revolution of 1917.  What was proposed as a true communal society became a brutal oligarchy that resulted in the deaths of uncounted millions.

When our founding fathers wrote the documents that created our present governmental system, they drew generously from history, predominantly that of the Greeks and Romans. They envisioned a nation where there would be no aristocracy and where the people would elect representatives to carry their wishes to an assembly where laws would be made.

The new Americans discovered that they could practice their particular skill and thus accumulate wealth, unfettered by oppressive taxes. Those who were most industrious hired other craftsmen and accumulated even more wealth. Our democracy evolved into a meritocracy, where those who worked prospered and those who worked harder prospered even more.

Of course, there were those few who subverted the system to amass huge fortunes at the expense of the average worker. The “robber barons” flourished in the 19th century, but the rise of the labor union movement, followed by the passing of the 16th amendment, which established a tax on personal income, leveled the playing field for American workers.

Because of these events, our meritocracy survives today.   Median personal income in America is among the highest on the planet, but that standard of living is threatened by the explosive growth of the welfare state.

Beginning in the 1930s the government created program after program to transfer wealth from the individual taxpayer to those who could not, or would not, provide for themselves. The current spending on welfare programs consumes about 24 percent of the federal budget.

Democratic politicians have known for years that increasing welfare benefits prior to an election will motivate the recipients of that increase to vote for them in large numbers.

A recent study by the Cato Institute calculates that welfare payments to individuals average $35,000 per year. An individual working full time at the minimum wage would earn about $15,000.

The French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Nearly half of the eligible voting public is now receiving some sort of government payment. If the Democrats are allowed to continue their wealth-transfer policies, it’s likely that they will never lose another presidential election.

Incidentally, the Clintons have increased their fortune by $30 million in the past 16 months. Who knew that hot air could be so valuable?

John Jamieson is a veteran of more than 20 years’ service in the Army who retired to Farmville in 2002. Following retirement, he worked with Farmville Area Habitat for Humanity. His email address is rnco39@gmail.com.