"In a fully free society -- which
the United States more assuredly is not -- people would be at liberty to
earn income through voluntary exchange (without anti-competitive
privilege or subsidy) and to keep what they legitimately acquire. Taking
someone’s belongings without consent would be regarded as theft. That
would go for politicians as well as anyone else. All transfers of wealth
and income would have to be accomplished through persuasion and consent.
Physical force and fraud would be forbidden. Taxation, in the words of a
great libertarian, Frank Chodorov, is robbery."
“Shared Sacrifice”: Obama's
Demagoguery
by
Sheldon Richman,
July 29, 2011
The most offensive claim made during the debt-ceiling controversy is that
there’s a moral equivalence between cutting government spending and
raising taxes. President Obama asks for “shared sacrifice” to reduce the
budget deficit. In his view, if the government spends more than it takes
in -- it currently borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar spent --
the “balanced” approach is to “cut” spending and raise taxes.
There are quotation marks around “cut” for a good reason. No one --
Republican House Speaker John Boehner included -- wants to cut spending
in the commonsense meaning of the term: namely, reducing government
spending from today’s level ($3.8 trillion). No, in Washington-talk, to
cut a budget is merely to reduce the rate of increase that would
have occurred in the future if current law were left unchanged.
If the politicians were honest -- and reporters committed to telling the
public the truth -- they would talk about smaller increases in spending,
not “cuts,” but even that wouldn’t be entirely truthful, because in many
cases the reduction in future increases itself is an illusion. It
involves merely canceling the authority to spend money that no one
expects to actually be spent.
As noted, the so-called balanced approach to deficit reduction sees a
moral equivalence between any reduction in spending (even from future
increases) and raising taxes. Some people go further and treat
government’s abstention from taxation as spending in itself. Think about
that: If the government, in its mercy, decides not to take $10 from you,
that is an expenditure. By that logic, if the politicians change
the law and take the $10, that’s a spending cut! Only in
Washington ...
Bluntly put, there can be no moral equivalence between government’s
spending people’s money and abstaining from taxing that money. To believe
otherwise is to believe that the government owns all income and wealth --
which would be equivalent to believing that the government owns us!
In a fully free society -- which the United States more assuredly is not
-- people would be at liberty to earn income through voluntary exchange
(without anti-competitive privilege or subsidy) and to keep what they
legitimately acquire. Taking someone’s belongings without consent would
be regarded as theft. That would go for politicians as well as anyone
else. All transfers of wealth and income would have to be accomplished
through persuasion and consent. Physical force and fraud would be
forbidden. Taxation, in the words of a great libertarian, Frank Chodorov,
is robbery.
Thus the government’s decision not to tax cannot be a form of
spending, and it cannot be equated with a refusal to sacrifice in behalf
of fiscal integrity.
That is not to deny that in our corporate state, large incomes can be
acquired through government-granted privilege and other political
machinations. But the way to deal with that is to end all privileges.
Politicians are hypocritical when they call for higher taxes on all
people making more than $200,000 a year even those who earned it
without political favor while leaving the system of privilege
essentially intact.
Part of the political game now being played is assigning blame for the
growing debt and deficit. The Democrats, the more openly big-government
side (Republicans are for big government too but are more covert about
it), say that the deficit is attributable as much to the failure to tax
-- through the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 -- as to the propensity to
spend. Even a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush official, Bruce
Bartlett, agrees. They claim that the government’s fiscal condition would
have been far better had those cuts not been enacted, particularly
considering that George W. Bush launched two wars and enacted a Medicare
drug program. It’s certainly true that big expenditures without revenues
to cover them created the deficit -- but the moral course would not have
been to abstain from cutting taxes or to raise them. It would have been
to not spend the money. The wars were immoral (though profitable
for the well-connected), and the drug program was an expansion of the
welfare state, which forcibly distributes other people’s money.
A humane society does not require robbery and political corruption. It
requires freedom for people to earn, to keep what they earn, and to help
each other through mutual aid.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107w.asp
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
