David Limbaugh writes:

When Obama said he wanted to spread the wealth around, we now know (many of us knew then) that he wasn’t talking about fooling around at the margins. He was talking about major wealth redistribution and punitive action against upper-income earners. While this may tickle the ears of grass-roots class warriors, it’s the anthem of America’s destruction.

When government decides how much money each of us should have, we are no longer free. Make no mistake: Obama will not use the tax code and other weapons of government just to fund government services, but to determine how income is distributed. Don’t let the difference be lost on you.

When Obama says that "there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few … and (that) it is our duty to change it," he is not just saying that higher-income earners don’t pay their fair share of taxes (which is absurd on its face). He is saying that they make too much money – as if that is any of his or government’s business.

While liberals deny this, all income groups did better under the Reagan tax cuts, from the lowest 20 percent to the highest 20 percent, precisely because marginal rate cuts provided an incentive for production by enhancing the connection between efforts and rewards. People work harder when they’re allowed to keep greater portions of the fruits of their labor. Production increases across the board, as does prosperity, thus the term "trickle down."

Conversely, when you separate efforts from rewards, you get less production and less prosperity. True, the higher-income earners earn and keep less, but that does not do middle- or lower-income earners any good.

When the coercive power of government is used to equalize incomes, it guarantees less prosperity across the board and spreads the misery, which is one of the many reasons Marxism and socialism have failed everywhere they’ve been tried.

Read the whole column here.