Is it even possible to run a country that undistributes the wealth?

Glenn Beck has been busy the last few weeks defaming Jim Wallis as a Marxist because he said he's in favor of wealth redistribution. I was going to write a post pointing out the fact inconvenient to those like Beck who think is Manichean sound bites that if you pool your resources as a society through taxation and then spend that money on x and/or y you are redistributing the wealth, the point being that "redestributing wealth" does not in and of itself equal commumism, much less Marxism. As I said, I was going to write such a post, but didn't because by the time I had the time to do so I noticed that Ed Brayton had already done so.

First of all, let's recognize the undeniable truth that all taxing and spending by the government is a redistribution of wealth -- every single penny. Redistribution of wealth does not mean merely taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Every dime of taxes -- even when it's spent on things Glenn Beck would surely believe must be done, like defense spending -- redistributes wealth in some way because it takes money away from some people (reducing their wealth) and gives it to others (increasing their wealth).

And, of course, there is the counter-example that David Cay Johnston has been documenting in his books Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch in which Reaganomic and plutocratic policies embraced by both parties for the last 30 years have redistributed wealth upward to an elite few of super rich, hardly a Marxist process.