Ravenwood - 10/12/05 06:15 AM
Approximately 40% of the nation's income is seized by the government in the form of taxes and fees. That means that nearly half of all the income generated in the United States is forcibly taken and spent by federal, state, and local governments. Most of it goes to vote buying schemes intended to keep the current slate of politicians in power. Politicians spend your money on social programs and services that you may or may not use. Instead of making that decision for yourself, you have it provided "free" by the government whether you like it or not. Its an incumbency protection racket, and it will probably get worse before it gets better. Joseph Bast of the Chicago Sun-Times says that government spending isn't just increasing, it's spiraling out of control.
The federal budget grew 14 percent in President Bush's first three years, with discretionary spending growing nearly 50 percent. The 2006 Bush budget would increase the Department of Education budget by 40 percent since 2001 and the Department of Commerce budget by 85 percent. Bush's 2006 budget was supposed to be an "austerity" budget that finally would rein in spending, but it started with a proposed 3.6 percent increase in federal spending and has taken wing from there. The energy and transportation bills signed by the president are budget busters, and the just-announced spending to "rebuild New Orleans" is likely to make 2006 another record-breaker.At all levels of government, it would seem as though partisanship is largely to blame. The party that has power wants to hold onto it, while the party that's out of power is trying to regain it. That means that both political parties are spending large bundles of money on their constituency. They're trying to solve all the world's problems before the problems are even identified. In some instances, such as gas prices, they are creating the very problem they claim to be able to solve.If government is too big, as Republicans love to chant, why is it growing larger and at a record pace with a Republican president and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress? Why did it grow at a slower rate when Bill Clinton was in the White House?
Meanwhile, state governments have been indulging in their own spending orgy. Between 1990 and 2000, total state spending grew by a staggering $512 billion, or 89 percent. All of that new built-in spending is moving through today's budgets like a pig through a python, causing state politicians to cry about "budget cuts" even as they reap record revenue increases due to the reviving national economy.
Government spending is such a touchy subject among lawmakers that they won't even consider tacking the Boortz Addendum onto spending bills.
"The undersigned sponsors of the foregoing legislation do hereby state and affirm their belief that it is more important for the federal government to spend the funds necessary for the implementation of this legislation than it would be for the taxpayer who actually worked for and earned these funds to retain them for use in caring for and investing in the future of their own families."Keep in mind too that taxes are seized using the threat of lethal force. If you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes and see what happens.
Category: Fall of Western Civilization
Comments (5) top link me
"Taxes are seized at the point of a gun..Keep in mind too that taxes are seized using the threat of lethal force."
Just a minor point, but I see this so often and I wonder why it is so popular a remark. Just what do you expect readers to do with this? What is the point? That we shouldn't have to pay taxes at all? Or only if we please? If I accept what you say as true, then we should defend against this "lethal" threat to our lives?
Posted by: mikem at October 12, 2005 6:38 AMMikem,
It bolsters the point. When it comes to taxes, a lot of people don't even think about how much we pay to the government. Sales taxes, excise taxes, gas taxes, etc are all rolled into the price of goods so that we no longer see them. Even payroll taxes are seized before your paycheck is even deposited to your account.
That has desensitized people to just how much money is grabbed by the different levels of government. Ask someone how much income tax they paid last year, and they aren't likely to know. Or worse, they'll say something asinine like "I didn't pay anything, I got money back!"
So when discussing taxes, I like to remind people that they aren't voluntary. Whether it be a 10-cent latte tax, or a diaper tax, or the fees they pay when they register their car, all those taxes are collected using the threat of lethal force.
You may consider them voluntary, but if you tried to buy a latte or diapers or use your car without paying the proper tribute, the government comes and puts you in jail. They are saying to the American people, that the money you've earned is better spent by politicians than by the people who've earned it. Not only that, but they feel so strongly that they deserve your money more than you, they are prepared to kill you should you not pay.
I'm not advocating violence, but it wasn't long ago that the tax man faced being tarred and feathered for unreasonable taxation, or that Americans would rather dump tea into Boston Harbor than pay a tax on it. Now-a-days people just shrug it off, especially when it's a tax on somebody else and not them.
Taxation should be a rare event, reserved to pay for core services that the government has been authorized to provide. What's more, people should not be able to use their vote to take money out of their neighbor's pocket.
Posted by: Ravenwood at October 12, 2005 8:18 AMIf government is too big, as Republicans love to chant, why is it growing larger and at a record pace with a Republican president and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress? Why did it grow at a slower rate when Bill Clinton was in the White House?
As one who used to wear the Republican label, I can tell you that the key point he misses is that Republicans do not generally say that government is too big - conservatives do. Especially these days, there is a distinct difference.
Posted by: roger at October 12, 2005 11:21 AMMy experience is that from 1980 on, Republican politicians have been winning elections by complaining about big government. This has been a winning platform, at least at the Presidential level. No candidate who was clearly more for big government than his opponent has been elected President since Jimmy Carter. (Bush Sr. and Dole seemed to like big government as much as Bill Clinton - who was rather moderate as Democratic Presidents go.) So we elect small-government candidates, and then they betray us.
Actually I chalk Clinton's victories up to the Perot factor, and Perot - as nutty as he was - was for smaller government.
Posted by: Ravenwood at October 13, 2005 5:37 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
