Does anyone take Gene Lyons seriously? If you don’t you should, and in this article you will hopefully learn why. Even liberals who follow him need to understand where he and his leftist ilk are wanting to lead us.

He wrote an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, November 24, 2004, in which he complained loudly about the President’s plan to change Social Security. He was irritated because it meant some would get off Scotch free on taxes and some would have to pay more. That sounds like a legitimate complaint on the surface, but it isn’t. 

This article isn’t about his screed on Social Security but about an ideological theme that is common in the articles Lyon’s writes for his newspaper column. In fact, the theme is common to a lot of the letters written to the Voices Section of the paper. What is the theme?  That the so called rich should pay more taxes to support more and bigger government to help the so called poor of society with the government deciding who is rich and who is poor and who is the needy. 

Lyon’s thinks that it is fine for the government to take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots” , ala Lyndon Johnson in a speech from 1965.  Well, after all these years the “have nots” still don’t have as much as Lyon’s and his pals think that they should have and the haves still have too much according to the wisdom of the all knowing Lyons. 

The ideology he spouts has roots way before LBJ. It began with a Communist; Karl Marx, and an atheist who thought religion controlled people to their detriment. Marx's ideas were known as Communism, formed from the word common. The meaning is that workers would share wealth in a communist or common society. Marx wrote that wealth should be distributed "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," the common basis for all such doctrines and ideologies.

How does what Lyon’s spouts about differ from Marx?  When his diatribes are followed there isn’t much difference. He believes that those with the most should pay the most in taxes and those with less should pay little or none at all. What does Lyon’s have against the wealthy?  If it weren’t for those who have gained wealth of some kind, Lyon’s more than likely wouldn’t have the job he has now. Most assuredly, if his ideology ever gains a foothold, what guarantee does he have that he will survive the new order?

Where do people like Lyons and his followers and the ones who write letters to Voices complaining about the “rich”, develop the notion that those with wealth should be forced to provide for others?  This nation wasn’t built by providing for people under some government scheme to equalize wealth for those who made less. The founders looked at socialistic ideas and found them wanting. Early forms of communism were tried in the colonies and they didn’t work; and they won’t work now.

Under Lyon’s scheme income is to be shared with the “lessers,” but what happens when all the income is gone and there is nothing to share except misery for all? At the moment, the amount in taxes in all forms taken from earners at all levels is approaching 50 percent. If the trend continues, there won’t be anything left for anyone including Lyon’s since the newspaper will cease to exist and even if it survives, it will be state controlled. Do you need to be reminded about the old Soviet Union and who controlled the news?

To all of you who think his work is so wonderful and to you liberals who will become successful on the economic ladder of life, remember that you will be forced to share that which you will earn under the communist share plan. Will you now think it is great that the government takes from the “haves” and gives to the “have nots”? That is why you need to understand what Lyons is saying each time he mean mouths the wealthy. If you don’t, the relief for his disturbance will cost you dearly.   

© 02-06-2009 DEC