Looking at the so-called "socialist" drift in USA

It seems to be a truism in the modern world that, if a statement is made often enough, it essentially becomes true.

Such is the case with all the hoopla over the rise of "socialism" in America -- a supposed drastic shift in the direction of our nation that just happened to coincide with the election of Barack Obama, the latest in the line of illegitimate Democratic presidents (this one is accused of not having been born in America).

Furthermore, no amount of statements by him that he is a practicing Christian will convince a certain segment of our electorate that he is anything but a closet Muslim.

But, getting back to socialism -- Webster's has the classic definition: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Do serious-minded observers of the current scene really believe there is either an overt or covert plan for the government to "take over" vast segments of our capitalistic system? If so, please provide the proof.

We just don't see much day-to-day evidence that sneaky government bureaucrats are scheming to run the local Wal-Mart or McDonalds, the Union Pacific Railroad or Entergy Corp.

There are, of course several examples recently in which the government has stepped in for a "bailout" of several Wall Street firms, insurance giants, banks and automotive companies. We think reasonable people will conclude the steps were taken in an effort to avoid economic collapse along the line of the Great Depression -- not to control permanently the means of production and distribution.

Only the totally partisan would neglect to note that the genesis of these moves started with a Republican President and Republican Congress in control of the government.

Whether these bailout plans were good in the long run is open to debate, but the decisions were based far more on immediate economic calamity than any secret plan to "socialize" America.

We understand the concern over the large and growing deficits associated with our current situation. On the other hand, we wonder where the Tea Partiers were when the deficits started ballooning under both President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush. The currently "outraged" Tea Partiers must have been drinking coffee at the time.

Many of those same Tea Partiers also appear to be of Social Security and Medicare age -- we can only conclude they didn't sign up for either of those programs for fear of being labeled "socialists". For, after all, it clearly is a form of "social engineering" any time one ultimately receives either less or more in return than the actual paid-in amount.

The reality -- we are living in a time when tax rates on the wealthiest Americans are among the lowest in our history. For much of the past century, the top tax rate ranged from 60 to 90 percent. It was at 50 percent during the Reagan presidency. It is 35 percent today -- does that sound like a "socialist" trend? Any proposals to raise that tax rate currently are modest at best -- and still leave the rate well below historic averages.

Actually, recent years have seen (and this is a continuing trend) a "hands-off" approach to business operations. The result is an apparent need for reasonable government regulation in several important areas -- banking and investments especially -- in an effort to end the disasters caused by wild speculation and the high-stakes gambling that is the derivative market.

Oh, and did we mention the need to have tighter regulations in such areas as offshore drilling? Are such steps signs of "creeping socialism" or common sense?

America developed as an economic superpower on the basis of having a solid and effective balance between the dynamics of the free market and the clear need for moderation and regulation provided by the government. It is a middle-of-the-road approach that led to prosperity and will continue to work if we don't fall for the "socialist state" delusions being fostered for political purposes.