Jan
6
Class Warfare - Yes; Solutions - No
Filed Under Healthcare | Leave a Comment
With Congress currently working on healthcare reform, many pundits on TV, online, and in print have been analyzing what effect the current Democrat bills would have. While all of the consequences of enacting either the House or Senate legislation are important, I think it also underscores a key flaw of the healthcare reform bills. Rather than solving existing issues with the current healthcare system, it is simply creating new ones. Analysts must devote their time to figuring out all of the new obstacles being enacted without proposing solutions to the problems already present.
Also, the healthcare bills and their subsequent amendments seem to be driven not by reality and economics, but by anger and emotional class warfare. Take this amendment offered in December by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas):
Washington – U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) today unveiled her plan to cut the current $1 million tax shelter for insurance companies’ executive compensation. Current law allows businesses to deduct up to $1 million annually per executive as a business expense. Lincoln’s proposal would limit this amount to $400,000—the President’s salary—for health insurance companies that will profit as a result of health insurance reform.
Compensation, even for executives, is a business expense. It should be included with all other expenses and deducted from income when filing taxes. Moreover, there is no credible reason why executive compensation should be at all considered when enacting any kind of healthcare reform legislation. Blaming insurance issues on executive compensation is like blaming the coach’s salary for a holding penalty.
It also shows that expansive entitlements and legislation will innevitably lead to more and more political control over our personal and professional lives.
There are plenty of other examples out there of these kind of class-warfare shenanigans (when we’re allowed to see what’s going on). The question I would have for voters is this: Do you want your healthcare being decided by politics, as this amendment suggests, or by reality between you and your doctor, and the applicable costs at hand? I would assume many would choose the latter. Unfortunately, however, the Democrat Party seems to be favoring the former.
Jun
11
Salaries, Caps, and Incentives
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
Via Drudge, it appears Democrats both in the legislative and executive branches are eyeing government-imposed limits to executive pay, whether they are on the receiving end of government money or not. President Obama and many in his party hold to the fallacious notion that “excessive” executive compensation were a large component in the ongoing financial crisis.
Were there certain members of management in the financial sector that were rewarded lavishly for track records that were less than deserving? Of course. Then again, the same argument could be made for many a legislator…
But where such command-and-control policies such as executive pay caps go awry is their basis on the idea that the government can make decisions better than the people can regarding their own money. In this case, we’re talking about shareholders in the companies in question. In the end, CEO’s and their ilk are being paid with the shareholders’ money, and they decide (through elected boards of directors and more specifically compensation committees) how much their managers should be paid. To impose government controls on what management can be paid and how such matters should be decided is nothing less than the federal government telling the shareholders that they are too stupid to allocate their own money.
I am in no way advocating that those who drive their companies into financial ruin be rewarded. What I am advocating is that these people be shown the door by their employers, the shareholders who gained their equity and voting rights with their own hard-earned money, not the the Fed, the President, or Barney Frank.
An interesting spin on the issue is this story (also featured on the Drudge Report) of the suggestion of the feds capping union boss pay. Fat chance.
What I see as the more interesting undercurrent in this debate is the recognition by liberals that people do, in fact, alter their behavior when considering incentives. They realize that if CEO’s are rewarded for short-term results, they’ll get short-term plans. They follow the incentives. So how can the government crack down on pay for companies in financial trouble when the government was the one who rewarded bankrupt auto companies with huge taxpayer-financed takeovers?
If people respond to incentives, then what exactly are we rewarding with welfare?
If people will act in a way to gain money, will they not do the opposite when a behavior takes away money, as in taxation?
Cigarette taxes are meant to curtail smoking.
Carbon taxes are meant to curtail energy use and emissions.
Wouldn’t taxes on working, saving, investing, and employing have similar effects?
Perhaps the liberals believe government incentives somehow fall into another category. Perhaps raising taxes is good?
Then why wait to raise taxes? If its good, why not do it right away? If you’re not doing it now because its not good, are you promising that you will be doing something harmful to the economy in the future?
There seem to be a lot of inconsistencies with those currently in power as to whether people respond to incentives or not. But in the end, it is the American economy that will suffer for their ignorance.
May
7
Thanks For Clarifying That
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
The official website of the POTUS, whitehouse.gov has a blog up that details all the wonderful things that The One is doing to make our lives better. With Obama’s recent initiative to eliminate off-shore tax havens generating some feedback, the Obamablog sought to address it with a little Q&A in this post, including the following clarification:
kylekunkler: Ending deferral (when US already has 2nd highest corporate tax) will only hurt US MNCs and cost jobs! http://tinyurl.com/coofnd
Jason Furman: Kyle, you are correct that the United States has the second highest statutory tax rate in the world, the official rate published in the tax code. But the United States also has more loopholes and special tax preferences than many other countries. As a result, the United States has a much lower effective tax rate. If you look at corporate taxes as a share of GDP they are below those of most major economies. The result is a tax code that is complicated, inefficient and unfair. One of major causes of these problems is the way that we tax – or more often do not tax – the foreign earnings of American companies. The administration’s plan is intended as a major, first step in addressing this problem.
Oh, I get it. Thank you for clearing that up, Mr. Furman! While the United States is supposed to have the second highest rate (statutory), all the loopholes that Obama will get rid of are keeping the actual rate paid (effective) down. But no need to worry, Obama’s brilliant plan will get rid of all those loopholes and tax havens to make sure your fears are perfectly legitimate, Kyle. Thanks for asking!
The article that the questioner cites is actually a very interesting one from Bloomberg, explaining one of the tactics that businesses use to avoid paying taxes:
Once the assets were in the haven, the U.S. parent company borrowed from the subsidiary. The interest payments were deductible in the U.S. and tax-free in the haven, the GAO said.
So the administration’s plan is to simply make this practice illegal or at least more difficult. But my main objections to that logic are:
- Companies will now have even more incentive to move their operations overseas altogether, as opposed to just a portion.
- Other countries may see this as a quasi-protectionist measure and attempt to restrict international trade.
- Just like the old laws, any attempt at government restriction will be easily manipulated by powerful and wealthy elites, like large corporations. The new laws will only hurt those not powerful enough to gain access. Such is the problem with big government.
Just because the government tries to restrict actors in the economy, like multinational corporations, from acting in their own self-interest does not mean that they will stop trying. As we can see, even with complicated laws in place, the companies still found a way around it. Whether it be regulations, taxes, fees, or counterproductive subsidies, government action will always force the private sector to allocate more resources to compliance and evasion (as the Bloomberg article illustrated) than to more worthwhile activities. And people wonder why productivity of American workers has declined over the years! Individuals are still working just as hard (if not harder), but at tasks like creative accounting and compliance that don’t produce anything like an assembly worker does.
P.S.: And that’s still not addressing the hypocrisy of an administration full of tax cheats shaming those who used legal channels to avoid paying taxes.
Apr
24
Reaction to Tea Party Protests
Filed Under Economics | 2 Comments
Hello readers. Sorry I haven’t been around as much as I’d like, as I’ve had a lot going on and this time of year is ordinarily very busy for me. Last week the Tea Party protests were held all over the country, protesting the massive spending and fiscal policies of the federal government. As I worried earlier, my job prevented me from attending the local Tea Party in Tampa, but I was there in spirit. For those who couldn’t attend, Moonbattery gave a great roundup of protests.
For anyone paying attention, the truth about the Tea Party movement is this:
- The Tea Parties were organized at the grass roots level; only after it caught on did some larger groups become involved.
- The Tea Parties are in essence protesting spending and bailouts - not taxation (yet). Protesters realize that reckless spending will one day lead to either high taxation or high inflation, so it is best to protest it now. Many dismissed the Tea Parties by saying no one is paying higher taxes. No shit Sherlock. But how else will you pay for all this spending, hmm?
- The Tea Parties are not GOP events - they recognize that the first bailout was under President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson, and it continued under the Obama-Geithner administration. The Tea Parties protested big government in all its forms, regardless of whether there is an elephant or a donkey behind it.
- From all accounts, protestors were courteous, clean, and went out of their way to respect private property and pick up any mess made.
Many did not see the Tea Parties in a positive light, including Paul Begala who referred to tax day as “Patriot’s Day”:
Happy Patriots’ Day. April 15 is the one day a year when our country asks something of us — or at least the vast majority of us.
For those who wear a military uniform, those who serve the rest of us as policemen and firefighters and teachers and other public servants, every day is patriots’ day. They work hard for our country; many risk their lives — and some lose their lives.
But for the rest of us, the civilian majority, our government asks very little. Except for April 15. On this day, our government asks that we pay our fair share of taxes to keep our beloved country strong and safe.
…
This country has showered me with the blessings of liberty. So what do I owe my country in return? Paying my fair share of taxes, it seems, is the least I can do. Thanks to President Obama and the Democratic Congress, 95 percent of Americans will get a tax cut this year. No one — not even the wealthiest 1 percent — will have to pay higher income taxes until 2011.
So why are a bunch of Fox News clowns and right-wing cranks hosting “tea parties” all over the country? The Boston Tea Party, in case the clods at Fox didn’t know it, protested “taxation without representation.” Note the second word: without. The goofballs tossing tea bags today have representation. They voted in the election; they lost.
That a bunch of overpaid media millionaires would lead a faux-populist revolt is comical. They somehow held their populist instincts in check as George W. Bush and the Republicans cut taxes on the idle rich and put the screws to the working stiffs.
Bush’s tax policies were a godsend to the Paris Hilton class, but they sent the country on the road to bankruptcy and helped ruin the economy. But now that we the people have decided to set things right, now that we’ve hired Obama to fix the mess conservatives created, now they’re protesting?
Not only does Begala shamelessly subscribe to the lie that taxes are something “our government asks,” but he decries the organic grass roots movement as a creation of Fox News to help the Republican party. Does he not remember the anguish in the Conservative movement with the bailout bill in 2008? And again, THIS IS NOT ABOUT TAXES. It is about the spending that will lead to higher taxes down the road.
No matter the criticism, here’s to the Tea Party protesters who felt compelled to get out and fight for the future of their country. Job well done.
Mar
30
I was over at the Crapperty File at CNN looking for some blog bait, and one of Jackie Boy’s questions was “How would you change income tax laws?“ There’s no question that Cafferty himself is a statist moonbat, and his audience is usually a bunch of incoherent, class-warfare morons. However, the answers to this question were overwhelmingly not what I expected. While there were a plenty of responses such as this from Bob:
Changes that should be made include returning to a 39% top tax rate, having hedge fund managers’ compensation taxed as regular income instead of being taxed at the 15% capital gains rate, taxing adjusted gross income under $200,000 at a 10% rate and to top it off, remove the income “cap” on wages taxed for Social Security.
And this from Kenny:
Anything over $5 million a year, I would impose a 90% tax on. Simply put, if you can’t live on five million each and every year, you’re doing something so incredibly stupid you don’t deserve that kind of money anyway!
Many of the responses took a very level headed, equal-treatment tone. Libertarian Neal Boortz somehow managed to infiltrate this group quite a bit. Take this from Anna:
That’s an easy one. Set a percentage – say 10%. Set that percentage for EVERYONE. No loopholes. No deductions. Straight percentage. No matter what your income, everyone pays the same percentage. No one should complain. And the taxes can be collected on a rotating basis. Like getting a yearly inspection. That way, you always have money coming in.
… this from Stan:
I would create a Federal Sales Tax. The benefits are that it would be easy to administer, streamline the IRS, encourage savings, eliminate the underground economy, and be fair to all. Some will argue it penalizes the poor/lower income because they spend 100% of their economy out of necessity. However, the benefits far outweigh the downside.
Or this outright endorsement of the Fair Tax from Micehlle[sic]:
This is such a no-brainer to me. Do away with the IRS and implement the Fair Tax. This will tax people based upon what they spend, not what they make. If every American citizen had the money the IRS withholds from their paycheck, talk about an economic stimulus. Plus, this would significantly broaden the tax base as it will force people to stop living under the radar and pay their fair share.
If Geithner and many, many others in Washington can’t figure out the 67,000 pages of our Tax Code, how should any average Joe be expeceted[sic] to?
The Fair Tax was an official proposal by Libertarian radio host Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder, and outlined in The Fair Tax Book. In a nutshell, the Fair Tax as proposed by Boortz and Linder would replace all federal taxes with a national sales tax of 23% of the final bill of sale, equivalent to a 30% conventional sales tax. The Fair Tax’s biggest advantages are that it treats everyone equally, is much easier to file and predict, and does not feature loopholes and deductions that politicians can use to control your behavior and help their buddies save money. It is a knife in the heart of class politics, and makes the cost of government very transparent in everyday life, as opposed to some figure on your paycheck stub, or an expense to be paid by “other people” or “the rich.”
What does such an outcry say about the American populace? First of all, we are not nearly as liberal as the past two elections would suggest. Call me crazy, but somehow Obama running on tax cuts and bombing Pakistan doesn’t suggest a liberal mandate to me.
Nor is the American public strictly conservative. What I do think are viable positions in American politics are a simplification of the tax code and equal liability. Sure, there are nuts out there that demand that everyone making over a certain amount is “too rich for their own good” or “too greedy,” but most people will be willing to have inequality in exchange for prosperity. The key for fiscal conservatives and libertarians is to show how harmful progressive taxation is on business and jobs. I think it is already clear that complicated tax rules favor the political elite and those that can afford the best lawyers.
Another winning point that fiscal conservatism needs to champion is America’s disgust with deficits. We have allowed the fallacious belief to persist that budget deficits are a result of tax cuts cutting federal revenue too short. As I have shown earlier with a nifty chart, revenue is not the problem. Spending is. However, the Republicans lost the ability to attack spending as an issue when they wasted money like sailors in port in the six years they were in power.
The national debt and federal budget deficit is a result of rampant spending that far outpaces a healthy revenue stream. The liberals know the best way to make higher taxes palatable for the average voter is to use deficit reduction as an excuse. The Democrat mantra is not tax-and-spend; it is spend-and-tax.
The fiscally conservative/libertarian/Republican agenda can win again if it can demonstrate to America that progressive income taxes don’t work and that spending and deficits are only excuses to confiscate more of our income. Success is staring us in the face.
Mar
19
On the Obama ‘Town Hall’ (Rally)
Filed Under Economics | 2 Comments
Yesterday, President Obama held a rally in California (he called it a town hall) to garner support for his budget. While a lot of topics were covered, I want to focus on one important part:
Let’s talk tax policy for a second, because, again, some on the other side have said, oh, Obama, he’s a tax-and-spend Democrat — tax and spend. Well, it turns out, yes. You know, what I’ve said is we should return to the tax rates that we had under Bill Clinton, which means — which means this: which means that for people who are making more than $250,000 a year, they would pay instead of 36 percent, they’d pay 39 percent. Like, a 3 percent increase on their tax rate.
Now, these folks can afford it. They were rich — they were rich back in the ’90s. It’s not like suddenly they’re going to have to go to the poor house. But what that does is it allows us to pay for health care reform for a lot of people who are out there working every day but are just one illness away from bankruptcy.
Now, that’s — I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I don’t think that’s socialism. I think that’s part of understanding that we’re all in this together and that if the middle class is working well, if working people are doing well, then everybody does well. (Applause.) Then they can buy products and services, and businesses will succeed. That’s the philosophy that we are pursuing in this budget; that’s why I need your support.
This is where The One shows that class-envy is at the center of his politics. “These folks can afford it,” he says. Is affordability the qualifier we look at when determining tax policy? If I happen to have an extra $10 at the end of the week, does that mean I have any less claim to it than if I needed it?
Then Obama tries to pass the fallacy that if we tax one individual and give to another, it will stimulate the economy. How does this make sense? If Jack is buying $500 worth of goods and Jill is buying $100 worth of goods, does that make any difference than if they were both buying $300 worth of goods? No. Progressives and Socialists care little about economic growth. They care about shared misery. In a capitalist society, some folks are more adept at finding new products and services, and get richer than others. If we try to ’spread the wealth around,’ these producers will have less capital and incentive to drive this innovation and prosperity. Is equality (if it could be achieved) worth sacrificing all of the benefits we reap from the innovations of the “rich”? Yes, Bill Gates is ridiculously wealthy, but aren’t our lives much better off because of the PC revolution (Mac fans can substitute Jobs for Gates and the iPod for PC)?
Mar
16
Health Benefits May Be Taxed
Filed Under Healthcare | 1 Comment
It appears the “change” we will be getting from President Obama is change from his own campaign rhetoric.
From GOP 4 Liberty:
Remember back to the October 8th Presidential debate. The one where Barack Obama chided John McCain’s health care plan by saying what John McCain ““doesn’t tell you he’s going to tax your employer-based health-care benefits for the first time ever.” Obama argued that this would lead to ““the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”
Today, March 15th, four months after Barack Obama won the election and almost two months after taking the oath office, the administration seems to be considering that idea themselves.
Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear of the NY Times tells us,
“At a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Ron Wyden , an Oregon Democrat whose own health plan would make benefits taxable, asked Peter R. Orszag, the president’s budget director, about the issue. Mr. Orszag replied that it “most firmly should remain on the table.”
Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council.”…
…When Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, advocated taxing benefits at a recent hearing of the Finance Committee, which he leads, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner assured him that the administration was open to all ideas from Congress. Mr. Geithner did, however, allude to the position that Mr. Obama had taken as a candidate.
The Congressional Budget Office says that including health benefits in taxable income could mean $246 billion in additional revenue for a single year. Stopping short of full taxation, as Mr. Baucus and others suggest, would mean less new revenue.
During the campaign, Senator McCain’s plan was to indeed tax employer-paid health benefits, but raise the deduction of private health insurance premiums to a greater rate than previously allowed. This lowered the total tax liability of dollars used to fund health insurance, and gave the individual the deduction as opposed to the corporation. This would mean the individuals who are making decisions about health care costs are the ones actually receiving it. As we have seen in almost every other area of consumption, a competitive free market allows individuals to demand better products at lower prices. Yet with employer paid health insurance, incentivized by the tax deduction, the consumer (the patient) could to a limited degree make a choice in regards to quality of service, but was unaware of the price. Medical professionals would oftentimes refuse to discuss costs with the patient, as the insurer would be the one paying, and provider would get the money. Naturally, prices began to rise to a point where millions of Americans can not afford health insurance.
So why not be in favor of the presidents plan? Unlike McCain’s plan, President Obama will not be offsetting the tax increase on health benefits with an expanded deduction on private insurance premiums. The government will be pocketing the money, which will be used to fund an enourmous federal beuracracy that will create millions more consumers who make decisions with no heed to price, rasing costs for everyone. Private insurers will be forced to raise premiums, making health insurance unnaffordable for many more people, which will be used as an excuse to add to the government largesse. This is nothing but a concerted effort to force citizens into poverty, and to use it as an excuse for government control.
I included the following on my Quotes page that relates to the effects of government spending on costs:
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
-Milton Friedman
This article from 2005 also highlights a lot of the issues I discussed.
Mar
9
A Not So Looney Toon
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
LibertarianRepublican featured the following video from 1948 about a salesman peddling a little “Ism” to some American groups:
As the video shows, this “Ism” could be socialism, communism, or just collectivism in general. This is one of the better and more straightforward videos explaining the difference between individualism and collectivism, and the supreme dangers of the latter. The main points of the video were:
- It is very hard to define “American.” Whether it is a teenager, a senior citizen, mothers, fathers, blacks, whites, and everything in between, an “American” can best be described at an individual level instead of as a member of a group.
- Someone seeking power, like the hat-wearing politician or the snake oil salesman, will often employ a strategy of lumping people in groups (labor, management, farmers) and prescribing collectivist solutions rather than allowing individual decisions. Such practices are especially effective in a time of duress.
- Visions of “utopia” will come at the cost of freedom, and any attempts to slow or stop utopian programs will be met with charges from interest groups of slowing progress (much like what happened with the bailout and stimulus bills).
Regarding capitalism specifically:
- “Capitalists,” “investors,” and “speculators” are very often regular, hard working people who use their hard earned savings to fund further growth.
- This capitalist-fueled growth provides jobs and prosperity for many new generations of people.
- Like in the case of Doakes Motors in the video, entrepreneurs, capitalists, workers, and consumers are all better off by having the freedom to voluntarily cooperate with each other motivated by their own self-interest.
- Society is better off collectively by allowing individuals to experiment and take on risk to develop new products and services for a profit. Socialism may say they support the masses, but what system is built on the premise that everyone, even a lowly mechanic like Joe Doakes (or Henry Ford, or Michael Dell, or Eli Whitney, or Oprah Winfrey) may be the next innovator who changes the world?
Nowadays, we can see how prophetic a cartoon like this is. As “John Q. Public” warned:
“When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other, through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.”
See anything like that here?
It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.
Step 1: Divide the public (business owners vs. workers like bus drivers, teachers, auto workers). Step 2: Make promises (”tax cuts,” healthcare, “green jobs). Step 3: Go after the villians (entrepreneurs, the wealthy).
Mar
6
Government = Force
Filed Under Libertarianism | 3 Comments
This story on CNN highlights the largest knowledge gap about government that is so dangerously prevalent today:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Obama will ask wealthy Americans to deal with a tax increase and pay higher Medicare premiums to help fund a $634 billion health care “reserve fund” aimed at reforming the system, according to senior administration officials familiar with the budget being unveiled Thursday.
President Obama will not “ask” anyone about higher taxes. He will force them to pay it. The founding fathers understood this concept very well when designing our government, yet we have seem to thrown it aside. Every action undertaken by government is through the use of force. No exceptions. Even if the action is good, even if it is just, even if it benefits literally every single human being, it is still a mechanism of force.
Force is the very reason free people decide to institute a legitimate government. In an anarchist society, there are people that would use force and fraud against their fellow humans. We use government to use force against them. If someone is trying to rob me, the government’s duty is to force that person to stop. If I sign a contract with someone and they violate the terms, it is the government’s duty to force them to comply with the agreed-upon terms.
If people were doing things by their own free will, force (and therefore government) would not be necessary. However, this is not the case in the real world, and the government must be present to force some people to do things. People exchange goods voluntarily through business. People help each other voluntarily through charity. People spread values voluntarily through families and community. People force others to do things involuntarily through government.
Every time action is proposed by the government, it is an act of force and should be treated as such. That is why it bothers me so much when, like the story above, it is suggested that the government is “asking” something. Nonsense. They are telling us what to do. As I illustrated in the paragraph before last, this force can be justified when someone is also using force against me. But to do anything other than this on the part of the government is a clear violation of one’s rights and against the charter of government decided upon when free men instituted the organization. This charter is the constitution.
I also hate it when politicians express a “vision” they have for America. Republican visions often include Judeo-Christian values and a strong America abroad. Communist … ahem, Democrat visions involve mass charity and communal values. In and of themselves, these points may have merit. Western culture (of which Judeo-Christian religion is a large component) is CLEARLY superior to most other cultures. Western culture values property, the rule of law, and individuality. These tenants, as history has shown, lead to increased prosperity and human rights, unlike other parts of the world where forced abortions, beheadings, and female circumcision are the norm. Conversely, charity is a value that is and should be encouraged in society. People are largely a product of their own decisions, however everyone at some point needs a helping hand, including your humble blogger. I have been on the giving and receiving end of kindness towards others regardless of compensation, and it is something I believe America excels at.
But can we, let alone should we, use the force of government to achieve these ends? Are we winning hearts and minds for Western culture by dispersing our military all over the world? Can we legislate morality? Is it really “charity” when we force someone to redistribute their earnings to those who didn’t create the wealth? No. The difference between taxes and charity is the difference between rape and making love. The ends are similar, but he means are in no way congruent.
The only “vision” a politician should have is a list of things which they will force people to do. After all, a politician is essentially auditioning for a job as the operator of the force machine. What should they use this machine for? All of the government’s funding comes from taxes taken by force (I sure don’t know anyone who just writes checks to the Treasury out of the goodness of their own heart). Every action and regulation perpetrated by the government is forcing someone to do something they would not otherwise do (if they would, the government would then not be necessary). Therefore, in true libertarian form, I suggest the government should only use this force to prevent other, illegitimate force.
The “vision” of a politician may involve spreading a religion, or cultural values, or having the wealthy help pay for the expenses of the poor, but these actions should all be voluntary. If these are the ends the person wants to achieve, then perhaps they should join the clergy or the Red Cross. There is a line between thinking something should be accomplished, and using force to make it so. Once we allow a segment of our lives to be under the jurisdiction of force, it will be up to whoever is in power at the particular moment to decide the standards by which force will be implemented.
I would like to finish with a quote from one of our founding fathers:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
-George Washington
