I grew up a fan of wrestling and still admit to checking a pro-wrestling website from time to time. Not really sure why I enjoy watching it; I can come up with a string of theories as to why the WWE and its various competitors attract millions of fans: escapism, primal-rage satisfaction, morality-play substitution, soap operas for guys, homoerotic frustrations, cultural traditions, the will to violence. Maybe it’s the athleticism — a unique combination of genuine athletic skill, agility, grace, and acting. Consider: Ultimate Fighting Champsionship — which is really real — is a bit more bloody and not nearly as fun to watch. The wrestlers mostly spend their time locking one another in painful holds, rolling around on the mat, and trying to put those painful holds on the other guy.

Maybe it’s the possibility, however faint, that we’ll see something “real” — someone get hurt, someone start to close his punches — the NASCAR crash phenomenon.

A really good wrestler like Benoit can make even the most jaded fan suspend disbelief for just a few seconds. Benoit was characterized as a “scientific wrestler,” which really meant that his performance skills blended a mix of Olympic (ironically, “amateur”-style) grappling with an unmatched ability to sell his interaction with other wrestlers. He was built like a pit-bull, and even he looked a little like one: he had a small, pug face that looked as if it were smushed into his neck. Speaking of necks, he was fond of breaking them — he was probably the only active wrestler whose career survived these accidental injuries he inflicted upon others.

A horrible irony: the script for Monday night’s World Wrestling Entertainment broadcast was supposed to feature a three-hour “commemoration” of the WWE’s chairman, Vince McMahon, who was “killed” by a car bomb two weeks ago. McMahon, of course, was very much alive. At the beginning of tonight’s Raw, a red-eyed, haggard-looking McMahon informed fans that Benoit had died, and that the night’s broadcast would feature a real, tribute to Benoit.

There are many concepts of the clichéd American Dream. Former President Bill Clinton’s administration believed the American Dream to consist of everyone residing in America to enjoy comfort and free medical care (Roark 1135). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed the American Dream to be one of racial equality, as Barnet and Bedau described in their reproduced speech (803-806). Different people romanticize various notions of monetary, racial, and religious equality, diversity, and tolerance. This assortment of liberal ideals has caused the Americans’ accord to stray from the actual dream.

“Early to Bed, and early to rise, makes a Man healthy, wealthy, and wise,” is a common quotation from America’s colonial era (Roark 117). Benjamin Franklin, inventor, scientist, statesman, and co-draftee of the Declaration of Independence, wrote these words to delineate the fundamental nature of the American Dream. He recognized that Americans are expected to work for their comforts. John Smith, early leader of the British colonists, embodied this idea with his “no work, no food” policy for the Jamestown colony (Roark 37-45). If the colonists did not work, they did not eat. No legislative philanthropy existed. Lincoln discussed this idea in his 1861 State of the Union Address:

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own . . . the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. (Boritt 192)

Somehow, this vision of working for one’s own benefits has become perversed into the ghastly conception that opportunity for capital gains should be distributed uniformly throughout the masses by way of federal mandate. America was founded with a capitalist economy at its base. However, socialist programs such as welfare, medicare, and social security negate the achievements of hard-working Americans (Hannity 8). Such programs deduct from these citizens’ accomplishments by taking their hard-earned dollars and conferring them to those described as less fortunate. This has led to the corruption of the American Dream.

The Internal Revenue Service was originally enacted in 1862 in order to pay for the Civil War (Roark 519). Shortly after the war’s end, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional. In order to finance World War I, the income tax was reintroduced, relying on the then-recently passed 16^th Amendment, which gave congress the express power to levy a personal income tax, as basis. The tax on income, as an emergency measure, was also continued during the Great Depression and through World War II (748).

The U.S. Constitution guarantees Americans the right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” but as long as the federal government continues to appropriate their earned income before they are allowed the chance to enjoy it, the American Dream will be lost to the history books (Hannity 208). Many feel that the wealthiest Americans pay lesser money in federal income tax, and that the majority of the burden falls upon the middle class to pick up the tab. This is not true. Conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh refers to a “New York Times” article when he affirms that the portion of the population with less income pays less in tax:

Think of it this way less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like “thousandaires.” The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives – and those who don’t want to, aren’t. (Only the Rich Pay Taxes)

Source: Limbaugh, Rush. “Only The Rich Pay Taxes.” 10 October 2003. Rush 24/7. 03 June 2005 <www.rushlimbaugh.com>

Dr. Alan Keyes, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council, is a strong proponent of the abolition of the federal income tax. He expresses this when he writes:

The income tax is a twentieth-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 80 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed. No mere ‘reform’, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money. Only abolition of the income tax will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business not the government’s. Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would rejuvenate independence and responsibility in our citizens. It would also put the American citizen back in control of fiscal policy . . . the best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes . . . With a sales tax, we could deny funds to a spendthrift government–and give ourselves a tax cut–whenever we make the private choice to alter our spending and saving habits. (112-113)

The U.S. government did not always have a federal income tax with which to fund its expansive budget needed to pay for unrestrained, extensive spending. The government did not always even have unrestrained, extensive spending, and thusly, had no need for the current large income to comply with the hefty budget. It used to rely on tariffs, duties, and excise taxes in order to meet its fiscal needs (Keyes 112-113). The country can revisit the American Dream. With the eradication of the federal income tax, and the spendthrift governmental programs which necessitate such funding, America can know herself again. Realizing that the modern federal government has monetary needs which exceed those of the Founding Fathers’ time, a federal sales tax on non-essential commodities can be implemented in order to supplement the tariffs and duties. This way, Americans can keep all of their earnings and only those with enough money to buy non-vital commercial wares such as televisions, cars, and computers will be taxed. Keyes discusses this issue with unwavering resolution:

We must abolish the income tax and replace it with the tax system that was intended by our Founders when this nation began – a tax system that leaves our people in control of 100% of their dollars, and that gives to the earner the first use of every dollar that he or she earns. Abolishing the income tax should be the premier goal of all tax discussion and policy for the next several years… Liberty from the income tax would mean, of course, liberty from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We would no longer have the IRS, because we would no longer have a tax code that requires the government to demand that we report our income to its agents. We would no longer have our privacy invaded by a government that was interested – officially and legally – in burrowing about in our business to find out how much we make, where we make it, and when we got it. (43-47)

A 1993 study at the Cato Institute by economist Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University to examine the economic impact of replacing federal income taxes with a national sales tax shows the superiority of the latter system. He found that the national savings rate would be more than doubled. His study showed that income would be raised by 6 percent and interest rates lowered 50 percent. His study concluded that “a shift to a national sales tax has the potential for dramatically improving incentives to save” (Kotlikoff). Only necessities such as food, medicine, and rent, purchases would not be taxed. People would regain control of their own financial matters. A tax break for an individual could be achieved simply by prudently practicing frugality. Citizens will again know the American Dream of the freedom to enjoy the results of their own labor.

Works Cited

Boritt, Gabor S. Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream. Memphis: Memphis State

UP, 1978. 192.

Hannity, Sean. Let Freedom Ring. New York: Reganbooks, 2002. 8, 208

Keyes, Alan. Our Character, Our Future. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. 112-113, 33-37

King Jr., Martin L. “I Have a Dream.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions A Guide to

Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. ed. Sylvia Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 7^th

Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005. 803-806.

Kotlikoff, Lawrence. 1993. Boston University. 04 June 2005 <http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-it68.html>.

Limbaugh, Rush. “Only the Rich Pay Taxes: Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes.” 2003. Rush24/7. 05 June 2005 <http://www.rushlimbaugh.com>.

Roark, James L. The American Promise. 2^nd Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 1135,

117, 37-45, 519, 748.

“Who Wants to Be a Millionaire: Changing Conceptions of the American Dream.” 2002.

Liverpool John Moores University. 04 June 2005

<http://www.americansc.org.uk /Online/American_Dream.htm>.