What term best describes current government intrusions into the economy and society? I'll leave it to you to define it.

If you are intellectually honest you cannot define it as either capitalistic or constitutional. Equally disheartening, the current administration and Democratic Congress have merely accelerated what had previously been a decades-long, dual-party-mediated, insipid and inexorable creep toward more government control and, hence, more power.

How does one pay for the "benevolent" governmental largess? White House and congressional rhetoric would indicate that higher-income earners -- currently defined as those making more than $200,000 (an extremely fluid number depending on the political masses to be swayed) -- do not pay their "fair share." Class envy perfectly defined.

Is it not curious that the most vociferous proponents of governmental intrusions and funding thereof via a more intrusive and progressive income tax are the extremely wealthy?

Many of the wealthy -- especially those who inherited their wealth -- realize that little to none of their already accumulated wealth will be subjected to increased income taxes. The wealthy elites apparently think only working rubes making more than $200,000 need to shoulder the burden for current governmental malevolence. Elitism perfectly defined.

In this era of change -- defined as "individualism bad" and "collectivism good" -- should not persons with accumulated wealth pay their "fair share"? Henceforth, it is proposed:

All accumulated wealth (stocks, bonds, real estate, and money) over $2 million will be transferred to the Treasury. No exceptions. No trust exemptions. No loopholes. Surely, if it serves the public good without an undue burden on the individual earning more than $200,000 to sacrifice almost half their income, a wealthy individual can survive with $2 million.

It is time for the collective to go after the wealth to pay the debt and deficits. What would be the response of the wealthy elite? Certainly, if it is greedy for someone generating a high income to want to keep more than 50 percent, is it not greedier for the wealthy to keep more than $2 million? If our government wants wealth redistribution let us not creep to that end but be aggressive and achieve the objective.

It is time to force the demagogues who promote class envy -- based on income -- to argue against the above proposal. Their responses would be interesting. We might even learn that many of the politicians have actually read and understand the Constitution.

Dale Schmacht

Evans

(The writer is an area physician.)