Last week, when Orlando-based news anchor Barbara West quoted Karl Marx's
famous slogan — "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs" — and asked Democratic Sen. Joe Biden to explain how Sen. Barack Obama's
stated plan to "spread the wealth around" did not make him a Marxist, the
vice-presidential nominee fired back: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

West was not joking. But given the public thrashing she received afterward, she may
wish she was.

Like Joe the Plumber, who was subjected to a full-frontal media assault after
questioning Obama about his tax plan, West and her TV station found themselves
blacklisted by the Obama campaign, blasted by Biden on the stump and denounced
as biased by the same media establishment that twists itself into knots denying
its own pro-Obama bias.

Amid the hubbub, Obama's campaign once again managed to dodge tough questions
about Obama's economic philosophy. Those questions increasingly dog undecided
voters and supporters who warmed early to Obama's helping-hand refrains but now
wonder how much his handouts will cost them.

Obama's soak-the-rich rhetoric has endeared him to many voters seeking an
economic savior. When times are tough, we want someone to promise us that life
will be fair, that we'll get our fair share — or more — and someone else will
foot the bill.

Obama has tapped into this desire, turning our economic loss into his political
gain. He has done this not by touting a record of economic leadership — his
record is as thin on this issue as on most others — or by pledging to shrink
government's size, which his spendthrift plans would not allow. He has been
careful not to use overtly socialist rhetoric, aside from his "spread the
wealth" slip. Rather, Obama has promised that his tax hikes and spending sprees
will be paid for by the nameless, faceless "rich."

Obama's claims have met few challenges from journalists, even though most
economists agree that hiking taxes on business owners and punishing economic
success in a recession is a better way to grow unemployment lines than a healthy
economy.

Nor have mainstream media outlets paid much attention to the startling radio
clips that surfaced this week from Chicago public radio station WBEZ. In a 2001
interview, Obama criticized the Supreme Court because it "never entered into
the issues of redistribution of wealth." He said the court led by liberal Chief
Justice Earl Warren was insufficiently radical because, "It didn't break free
from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution — at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court
interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of
negative liberties: [It] says what the states can't do to you, says what the
federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal
government or the state government must do on your behalf."

Obama said that it was one of the "tragedies" of the civil-rights movement that it
did not focus on "the political and community organizing" that can bring about
"redistributive change" and that, while it would be difficult to force the
courts to mandate such change, "any three of us sitting here could come up with
a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."

Such comments make Obama's denials of his fondness for income redistribution
and judicial activism tough to swallow.

America's free-enterprise system isn't perfect. But history shows that
economies micromanaged by government bureaucrats bent on enforcing income
equality are more likely to spread poverty than wealth by penalizing hard work
and entrepreneurial spirit. Voters attracted to Obama's class-warfare rhetoric
should remember that when Uncle Sam plays Robin Hood, it's not just the rich
who get soaked.

Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television and radio host and St.
Louis-based fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is
www.colleen-campbell.com.