President Obama and leading Democrats have been chanting “income inequality” as their newest mantra.

Hillsdale College student Conner Dwinell describes what it looks like in reality:

This week, the Obama Administration announced that its main focus for the coming years will shift from the current (and increasingly prominent) problems with Obamacare to the issue of income inequality in the United States.  According to the left, the difference in income between the “haves” and the “have nots” (formerly labeled by others as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) is an issue of growing concern.  I’m not so sure.

I’ll be up front about it.  I’m a big, fat, smelly “c-word”: a capitalist. As both a capitalist (which now seems just as polarizing as other words with fewer letters) and as someone who thoroughly enjoys the study of economics, I can very confidently say that this push from the current administration and the left is pointless;  ”income inequality” has become a buzz phrase used to keep the majority of Americans at the feet of the government, begging for more.

Differences in income among citizens of a particular region have always existed: from ancient Rome through the Soviet Union, some have prospered while others have become impoverished.  The fact is (and this was very well understood by our Founders) that men and women ultimately work in their own self-interest to benefit themselves and reap whatever reward they can.  As an unchanging, definable characteristic of the human condition, it would be illogical to attempt to change this. And yet, we continue to do so.  Our country was established based upon the belief that more freedoms should be given to the citizens of a state in an attempt to encourage competition and personal excellence than taken away to limit their ability to participate in a free society.  Freedom.  Capitalism.  Prosperity.  They’re great things.

But the left seems more and more convinced that through greater regulation, increased restrictions on trade, and curtailment of free market practices, that the world will be somehow made better. CEO’s will stop making a profit, “greedy businessmen” will start giving more to those in need, those in poverty will suddenly be relieved of their earthly troubles, “green energy” will receive better funding, and the national deficit will be fixed.  (I feel that the last doesn’t need an explanation as to why it won’t be resolved in the near future.)

I heartily disagree with the notion that the inequality in incomes in the United States is a problem. ….

…Remove government interventionism, remove government regulation on business, and stop trying to save everyone all the time.  It’s time to shut up and let capitalism do its work.