Now that Barack Obama has been elected president, no one is accusing him of being a socialist. But I'm still mystified by the firestorm that his comment, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good," set off.

What's so bad about redistributing the green stuff?

Obama was talking to the infamous "Joe the Plumber" about his tax plan, which would set higher rates on Americans earning over $250,000 a year. "Joe" was not in this category. In fact, only about 5 percent of Americans are.

So why did the Republican crowds go wild at the thought of trickle-up economics? Their fortunes -- I'm confident most of the people at these rallies were not earning over $250,000 a year -- were not going to be redistributed. They stood to benefit from Obama's idea.

My immediate thought was a revelatory chapter in Michael Moore's book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" Moore describes what he calls the Horatio Alger syndrome -- we Americans don't want any strictures on wealth because we think someday we will be rich.

It's a sort of knee-jerk reaction that any increase in tax rates is bad, even if it doesn't affect us personally.

I've never held this view myself, being fond of the sort of gentle socialism practiced in Scandinavian countries.

I'm totally willing to pay higher taxes to get good government services.

I was, for example, ready to fork out six cents more on a bottle of wine to help keep Dirigo alive. A state-run health insurance program is like money in the bank to me. If I lose my job, I want the security of knowing that I would at least have a chance to obtain affordable health care.

But it was Moore's documentary "Sicko," that really opened to my eyes to the true power of wealth redistribution. He talked to a French couple who pay higher taxes than Americans do. They have more disposable income, though, because they don't have to pay for health care or save for their children's college education.

I hadn't really thought about it in that way, and I immediately became insanely jealous. I was willing to pony up for security, but I hadn't realized there actually might be a hidden financial benefit. It was counterintuitive. Eye-opening.

Now, I know that those who fear and resent government don't care that the feds routinely pay our Social Security benefits, the state maintains our roads and the town picks up our trash. They would rather forgo security and comfort -- they say -- than relinquish an iota of freedom. But how much independence do we have when we are tied to lousy jobs we are afraid to leave because we need the health insurance? How liberated are we when the major, if not only, measure of our success in life is how much money we make?

Earlier this year, the television show "60 Minutes," aired a segment titled "And the Happiest Place on Earth Is..." Drum roll: Denmark.

Why are the Danes happy? Professor Kaare Christensen of the University of Southern Denmark thinks it's because they have low expectations. In complete contrast to Americans, they never expect to be number one. If they do attain an outstanding status in any field, they are pleasantly surprised. They savor their achievement.

Danes are, apparently, quite content. Perhaps this is because of their "free health care, subsidized child care and elder care, a social safety net spread the length and breadth of the country."

A student told reporter Morley Safer, "I mean, we're pretty much free to do whatever we want. We're secure from the day we're born."

I'd like to whine right here, but that would just make the libertarians snort, "So go to Denmark." While that might be an option, I'd much rather see change in the land of my birth.

It makes sense on so many levels. Tal Ben-Shahar teaches a Harvard course called "Positive Psychology." He told Safer that Americans' high expectations make us unhappy. Close, healthy relationships with others is the best predictor of happiness, not affluence.

"It's about having realistic expectations," Ben-Shahar said. "We can't have it all. But we can have a lot."

I'll take it! The U.S. rolled in at number 23 in the happiness survey. And we're still arguing about redistributing wealth.

But wait a minute -- I'm still not fully comprehending that the candidate who dared propose such a radical idea as that ... won.

Liz Soares is a freelance writer and the author of "All for Maine: The Story of Gov. Percival P. Baxter." She welcomes e-mail at lsoares@gwi.net.