[Editor's Note: We originally ran this article in July 2012, and with the "Fiscal Cliff" looming and our president and elected representatives in the House and Senate in heated negotiations in an effort to avoid sending us over it, we feel it's time to dust it off to remind everyone of what's at risk: Survival Security and Earned Benefits programs.

Democrats are calling on everyone to do their part as we have historically done as a nation in times of economic crisis (top marginal tax rates were raised from 24 percent to 63 percent during the Great Depression, and continued to rise as we entered World War II, reaching a high of 94 percent).

Republicans are asking the poor to take a hit as well, with changes to our Earned Benefits and Survival Security programs. While we recognize that we need to address the shortfalls in these programs, we believe solutions lie in reducing the number of people forced to rely on them through thriving wages for workers, not in stripping benefits for those in need.

As one of our nation's Founders, 2nd president of the United States John Adams eloquently stated:

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

This article seeks to elucidate one of the most significant reasons our Survival Security programs have come into greater use in recent years: Major corporations like Wal-Mart underpay their workers and use taxpayers to supplement their employees' pay, extracting enormous sums from our economy for their personal enrichment. This practice is in direct moral contrast with our country's stated objectives, damaging all of us, not just those who work for Wal-Mart and other companies like them.

Please continue reading as we illustrate how this scheme works]:

This evening, as I was trying to distract myself from the mundaneness of folding laundry and prepping dinner, I ran into some Facebook drama. I don’t think any of us intends to get into trouble on Facebook, it just happens. Tonight, in the sea of emotions—errr—comments, I felt like I had to represent the facts and of course the topic had to be public aid.

My first thought was, in a country that is supposed to stand for freedom, opportunity, and security for all, why would a human being want to see another human being starve? Why? I am very familiar with the SNAP program (food stamps). It runs at 98 percent efficiency. That means there is nearly no waste, no fraud, and almost total accountability. It is one of the most efficient government programs there is. And that level of efficiency tells us all one thing: The people using the program all need the program because they all qualify for the program. Think about that for a moment.

One of the most noticeable things about the comments I encountered in that Facebook exchange was that people felt that anyone using a form of public aid was using their money. I found it interesting, from a sociological perspective, how possessive these people were of tax dollars that go into the general coffers when used towards social programs such as SNAP, Social Security, Medicare, etc. When referring to those programs I started reading things like: "I don't want MY MONEY..." even though all money goes into one giant funnel. Personally, I don't like working to support what I think are illegal wars that cost an estimated six trillion dollars. I would much rather pay taxes for healthcare and college or trade school for every one of my fellow citizens, but somehow public sentiment has changed to the point where that has a negative connotation, which flies in the face of the very foundation our Founding Fathers established for this country.

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

~ Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783

Following the auspicious decision of the United States Supreme Court to uphold the Patient Protection Act on the basis that a tax on individuals who don't purchase healthcare is Constitutional, Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney had this to say:

"... ObamaCare raises taxes on the American people ... If you don't want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want, instead, a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in [replacing President Obama]. ..."

Previously we reported that Scott Brown of Massachusetts is telling his constituents this, about taxes:

"... the wet blanket of high taxation and overregulation smothers everything that has made America the greatest country in the history of mankind."

John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776: “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”

James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President; Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788: “The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

Alexander Hamilton, Founding Father and 1st Secretary of the Treasury, Citing David Hume, February 5, 1775: “‘Political writers,’ says a celebrated author, ‘have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, but private interest. By this interest we must govern him, and by means of it make him co-operate to public good, notwithstanding his insatiable avarice and ambition. Without this we shall in vain boast of the advantages of any constitution, and shall find, in the end, that we have no security for our liberties, and possessions except the good-will of our rulers—that is, we should have no security at all.’”

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783: "All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

With corporate profits soaring to all-time highs, and employee compensation at all-time lows, talking about why this matters is critical to righting our economy. And how we talk about it will determine if our argument will resonate or fall on deaf ears.

Conservatives place a high priority on the values of discipline and self-reliance. For this reason, they are quicker to defend the wealthy CEO over the poor working-class man. The wealthy CEO “worked hard” and therefore deserves his vast riches no matter the relative size or the effect on society. The poor working-class man deserves his station in life, as well. He did not work as hard as the wealthy CEO or surely he would be a wealthy CEO himself.

These are not values that Progressives will ever be able to change; they are hard-wired into the psyche and are as matter-of-fact to the person holding those values as the Progressive values of community and shared sacrifice.

Because Conservatives hold these values so strongly, they have designed their political policies such that big corporations and the wealthy CEOs who run them are richly rewarded and the poor working-class man is not. The fact that this causes “inequity” is of no consequence because “that’s life.” Any attempt to convince a Conservative thinker that these are bad values is fruitless.

But the problem here isn’t that these conservative values are wrong, because they aren't. The problem is that the “hard worker” and the “undeserving” are backwards—or at least not fully accurate. If we ever hope to get a Conservative thinker—which many independent, or "persuadable" voters are—to “see the light,” the light we show them is going to have to fit within to those values.

The good news is, we can do that!