The United States is a Colony, and the Uber-Wealthy are Its Master

An intriguing and unique perspective is to view the United States rather than as a superpower directing the world's political and economic direction but as a colony, first among other colonies, serving the world's wealthiest.  This conclusion, when viewed objectively, seems compelling and undeniable. This investigation aims to evaluate that thesis from a dispassionate viewpoint.

A colony is over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control. If one assumes that the extremely wealthy serve the role of a foreign country or state that controls the governance and decision-making of the United States, then the premise is accurate. 

One of the basics for managing colonies is to control their governance and suck wealth from them, with little consideration for the welfare of the population. Consider the British Empire and its treatment of Ireland and India as a primary example. Ponder the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the German Empire, and the Japanese Empire, which were all similar in exploiting colonies and territories. The playbook is standard, and each population under control makes an inordinate sacrifice to make their masters rich.
​
In this scenario, albeit novel, the rich have formed a central core of governance, extracting wealth from their subjects and enjoying inordinate power.  

Chart Depicts the Enormous Growth of Wealth of America's Top Billionaires in the Past Four Years

The statistics are well-established, and the facts are undeniable:

• The wealthiest 1% of Americans possess 42% of household wealth.
• The top 0.1% of Americans' (net worth more than $20 million) share of national wealth has tripled to 22%.
• The spiraling wealth disparity disproportionately harms racial minorities as the median net worth of a white household ($141,900) is thirteen times that of the median Black household ($11,000).

Do the ultra-wealthy exert control over the US government? While direct evidence may be lacking, the influence of big money in federal elections, made possible by the Citizen's United ruling, has opened the door to 'dark money. ' It's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore that the one who pays the piper calls the tune.

'Dark money' refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where one cannot discern the source of the money. Politically active nonprofits such as 501(c)(4) are under no legal obligation to disclose their donors, even if they spend to influence elections. Billionaires and large corporations pour money into these groups but don't suffer the repercussions of adverse public reviews.

Opaque nonprofits give unlimited amounts of money to super PACs. While super PACs must disclose their donors, these groups are effectively dark money outlets, and no one can trace their funding back to the original donor.

Dark money groups spent about $1 billion to influence elections in 2010 and 2020 when the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling opened the door to this secretive and nefarious tool for managing the United States government through controlling its elected officials.

As the influence of big money increases, its control of the government helps it take more and leave less. Money seems a conscious entity at times, ever hungry for more, hence the increase in wealth at the expense of the impoverished.
​
Federal legislation controlling political campaign contributions and eliminating dark money contributions would help immensely improve governance in the United States. The current decision gives money a voice, which is indecent and immoral. Reform of this is necessary to rid the governance of unholy influences.

Clarence Thomas is Laughing All the Way to the Bank

Federal legislation to control gifts to Supreme Court justices would also help. Recent disclosures of huge donations of luxury travel, vacations, and forgiven loans display the avarice and indecency of the wealthy and the corruption of the Supreme Court justices. Once again, the paymaster calls the tune, and the justices vote their way to the detriment of most citizens.

The United States government, in turn, provides direction and enforcement to sovereign governments, including an immense navy that protects shipping worldwide. The remaining branches of the United States military, with a standing presence in over one hundred different countries, provide on-the-ground presence, enforcement, and the ability to deploy troops and quell uprisings.
​
United States taxpayers pay for and staff an immense military organization. This organization keeps governments in power that favors the wealthy and keeps supply chains and markets stable and available for goods and services.

The United States' Defense Spending is More Than the Next 10 Countries Combined

The combined defense spending of the subsequent ten countries is less than the United States value, and defense spending accounts for half of the federal discretionary spending.

Is anyone paying attention? 
​
There are unconsidered costs associated with the bloated defense budget and United States military presence worldwide, which are lost opportunity costs. Speculate, for instance, if the United States halved its defense budget, freeing up almost half a trillion dollars each year for investment in programs that create wealth rather than simply consuming it.  

The Results of Proxy Wars are the Deaths of Innocent Civilians

Proxy wars keep the military sharp, evaluate new military systems, and expend old and outdated ammunition and military systems, so taxpayers must fund their replacement.  Active proxy wars in Yemen and Ukraine allow for such, and who benefits?  The wealthy finance and own military contractors, which are the benefactors of these proxy wars, and the poor starve and die as a result.

Who pays for this?  United States taxpayers directly, but there are innumerable consequences. First, the consequences of sending people to war are substantial. People die, are maimed, and so are permanently physically disabled, and the mental health consequences are severe. These uncounted consequences are the biggest crime of the wealthy.

An example is the supply of United States-manufactured F-16 fighters and Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine. Allied governments are replacing these with upgrades, so supplying them to Ukraine costs little, as they would be scrapped otherwise. Their replacements, notably the F-35 fighter, cost much more, and the companies that manufacture them are owned, in large part, by very wealthy people. The F16 is an aging and outmoded platform, and battle tanks are sitting ducks on a battlefield.

Another consequence of the disparity of wealth is political unrest. The United States is a sick country in many ways, going through an existential political crisis. The wealthy don't mind that, as people screaming at each other about electric vehicles, windmills, and racism keep the people from the easy conclusion that they have much more in common than not, and the wealthy exploit their labor and take and hoard an inordinate share of wealth. The people who create the wealth are poor, while the wealthy fly their luxury jets to Davos and plan their next steps.

The uber-wealthy will not give up their ill-gotten gains without a struggle. The first step toward reform would be an international agreement on baseline tax rates so the wealthy can't use tax havens to their advantage or compete with nations against one another.  The money couldn't hide then and would be available as tax revenue.

The Reagan regime sponsored two significant tax cuts: the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, summarized by trickle-down and supply-side economics. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 cut the highest personal income tax rate from 70% to 50%. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 cut the highest personal ​income tax rate from 50% to 38.5%, which decreased to 28% in trailing years.

Reform of the federal tax code to roll back reductions in tax rates would make an immediate and generational change, allowing money for the betterment of the population. This additional revenue could eliminate childhood poverty, establish free post-secondary education for qualified students, and make strategic investments in public works producing wealth, such as high-speed rail, ports and harbors, airports, and improving energy infrastructure.

Movement on these matters should not be tribal political. Reform and the resultant bettering of life for most Americans are not a matter of politics; it's a moral decision, and the proper course is not disputed.  Hoarding wealth is immoral; condemning and correcting it should be easy.

Another innovative measure that could help would be labeling Infotainment programs on politically branded media outlets such as Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. A mandatory disclaimer indicating the programs currently represented as news are editorial commentaries for entertainment would erode the credibility of such, and rightly so, and perhaps encourage viewers to seek unbiased coverage, would help the population lower their hatred of the 'other side,' with whom they share the exact core needs, ambitions, and desires.
​
We are all one people. Our differences are finite and almost inconsiderable, while our commonalities are profound. Our enemy is the rich and their nefarious methods of gaining wealth and hoarding it.