FREEDOM TO FAIL

Posted on March 26, 2012 by

Famous mountaineer, George Mallory, chose to climb Mt. Everest in the 1920’s and died in the attempt.  He was free to make that choice and suffered the results.  His widowed wife and family suffered from his loss.  If others had prevented him from trying such an adventure, they would have been curtailing his freedom.  True freedom brings with it the possibility of failure.  True freedom includes the Freedom to Fail.  The great heroic deeds of history—daring risks against great odds—are testimonials to those willing to risk failure to win great goals.  The true triumph is because they did not fail when they could have.

There is a great cost to such freedom.  We do not regret so deeply when individuals suffer from their own bad choices because we recognize it is proof of their freedom—a most prized characteristic of a free people.  But we regret profoundly when the bad—even evil—choices of some cause suffering and tragedy to others.  An extreme example is when crimes are committed against innocent victims.  But more common is when parents make choices that not only ruin their lives, but create almost insurmountable barriers to the success of their children.  The parents’ freedom to choose has resulted not only in failure for themselves, but also in failure for those dependent upon them.

Entitlements are intended to eliminate failure.[i]  No matter what choices anyone makes, everyone in America is entitled to free emergency room care—regardless of whether or not they can pay for it themselves, have health insurance, are legally present in the country, or even if they deliberately caused the physical harm requiring treatment—they are all entitled to good medical care.  This entitlement eliminates the cost of their Freedom to Fail.  Actually it doesn’t eliminate the cost, it just transfers it to others.  Someone has to pay for the expensive emergency room care.  Those who pay taxes and have health insurance become victims to those who are entitled. The same is true of every other entitlement.  If everyone is entitled to a college education, then subsidies for college must be provided for all, regardless of the choices prospective students have made.  If everyone is entitled to housing, then housing must be provided regardless of how unable those receiving it are to maintain such housing.  Every entitlement is a transfer of cost from those who have failed—admittedly not always due to some particular fault; it could be unavoidable misfortune—to others.

Many entitlements are intended to insulate innocent children from the bad choices their parents have made.  Because such children have not been prepared to succeed in our very competitive world and, therefore, are unable on their own to obtain the essentials for a decent life, we as a society choose to give them entitlements to compensate.  It is a good investment if those children eventually become self-supporting and end their need for entitlements.  It is a failure if, generation after generation, entitlements must be continued.

Not only do free people have the Freedom to Fail, nations also have that freedom.  History is littered with nations and civilizations that have failed disastrously.  The result of a nation failing is much more catastrophic because if affects everyone.  There is no over-seeing super government granting us an entitlement to insure our nation survives and prospers.  A nation can attempt to entitle itself to unearned help by borrowing from others, but then it is really no longer free and independent.  It will exist only so long as its creditors tolerate its extravagance.  If a nation is not adequately prepared to repel invaders, or if it has an economic system that simply doesn’t work, or if it is unable to maintain civil accord and unity, it fails.  Where are the Etruscans and Aztecs today?  The freedom for each nation to choose its political and economic system carries with it the Freedom to Fail.  Who is going to provide entitlements to our government?  Who will insulate our nation from its Freedom to Fail?  Who is going to entitle us with the money to turn around our current rush toward national bankruptcy?

Our attempt to offset the personal Freedom to Fail with entitlements has had the effect of creating a population demanding entitlements to shield them from the results of their bad choices.  That unconsciously leads to the dangerously incorrect assumption that somehow our government is equally entitled to be protected from its wrong choices, from its Freedom to Fail.  Many are living under the foolish fallacy that our nation can transfer the cost of its failure to others.  But Freedom to Fail is inescapable at the national level.  There are no entitlements at the national level for America.  Wake up!  We as a nation must face the reality of our own Freedom to Fail.

[i]  By this definition, Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements.  Social Security, though flawed, attempts to return as an old age pension an equivalent of what individuals and their employers have paid into the program.  Medicare, again paid for throughout a person’s working life, is intended to be prepaid health insurance for old age.  Some will receive more back than they paid in.  (See http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2011/01/06/will-you-get-back-your-social-security-taxes-in-retirement).  This is very different from true entitlements which simply transfer money from those who have paid to those who haven’t.

Posted in National Debt, Political Culture, Unfair Taxation | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

LIFE

Posted on March 19, 2012 by

You can enter the most luxurious home, with huge rooms, decorated by the most renowned interior designer, filled with plush carpets, elegant furniture, and cutting edge technology and there will still be something glaringly absent: LIFE!  You can enter a very modest home with worn-out furniture and dirty dishes in the sink, but one full of children, and there is LIFE everywhere.  The contrast is stark!  The first is sterile; the second is almost overwhelming in its abundance of LIFE.  Sometimes those fated to live in the former buy dogs or cats, fill aquariums or tend plants to provide something living.  It is a paltry substitute for a family and a home filled with LIFE.

There are many reasons beyond any individual’s control why they cannot have families—reasons of health, emotional condition, cultural norms, or finances.  Many live the most worthwhile lives without children—we do not measure George Washington’s contribution by his family.  Because of compassion those blessed with large families do not want to contrast their blessed situation to those without.  But their silence is dangerous.

The danger is illustrated perfectly in Aesop’s Fable of “Sour Grapes.”  A fox saw some luscious grapes hanging from a tree limb above his head.  After trying again and again to reach them, jumping as high as he could without success, he finally gave up and went on his way, exclaiming, “I am sure they were sour.”[i]  We hear now—in our decayed culture—the same refrain: that children and families are somehow “sour.”  When those who know, those blessed with LIFE, are convinced beyond words that they are the sweetest fruit of all.  Because so many have failed to jump high enough does not change the sweetness of the grapes.

When a baby is born there is a glow around the mother.  There is no experience to equal it.  Delivery is difficult at best.  But what success can compare with creating a new LIFE with its unlimited potential.  Never again will the new mother doubt whether or not she has achieved something worthwhile in life.  Each Mother has fulfilled the crowning function of all life in bringing forth new life.  At the deepest, even biological level of her being, she knows she has achieved a form of immortality.  It is an experience reserved for mothers that no other experience can even come close to matching.  Ask any mother.

Within hours of birth, the tiny infant—perfectly formed and glowing with new life—is nursing.  In the most compelling way, the mother knows that her child’s LIFE—that most precious LIFE—is wholly dependent upon her.  Again, there is no human experience to match it.  It is unique to motherhood.  To see her baby grow and flourish from the sustenance she provides is such a powerful proof of her own worth.  What an affirmation of her value.  It is true that millions upon millions of mothers give birth and nurse their children, from one corner of the globe to the other, but that does not detract from the miraculous wonder each time it occurs.  The fact that the sun has come up for millions upon millions of days does not lessen its magnificence.

As the baby is nourished, and loved, and learns the challenging lessons of how to eat, digest, and sleep, the parents begin that life-long, ever-changing, ever challenging, ever fulfilling relationship with their own child.  It requires sacrifice on their part from the very start.  But there is no experience like holding your own baby in your arms.  There is no experience like the baby’s first smile—when parents know the baby recognizes them and is happy because they are there.

That feeling is multiplied in a home of many children.  When the father comes home from work there are little ones rushing to greet him, hugging him around the knees and shouting for joy.  No one, anywhere, will greet a man as a good father is greeted at home.  The floor may be covered with toys, there will be school projects littered across the kitchen table, there will be constant demands for help on this or time for that, there will be arguments, even fights among siblings, but most of all there will be LIFE!  Everywhere you turn, children running, pushing, talking, singing, playing, smiling, shouting.  It becomes a whirlwind of happiness—not because everything is neat and orderly or everyone is perfectly behaved, but because it is a scene bursting with LIFE.  As the Psalmist so beautifully expressed it:  “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.  As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.  Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, . . . “(Psalms 127:3 – 5)

As children grow their parents are drawn into ballet lessons, violin recitals, homework, high school choirs, drama, and sports—that never-ending procession of activities that single adults never experience.  Parents get to relive the joys of childhood and teenage years through their children.  The LIFE of the children spills over to enrich the lives of all in the family.  You see mother surrounded by tall, handsome, and strong sons; or chatting in the kitchen, sharing the joys of homemaking with beautiful daughters.  You see father with an arm around the shoulder of his child, encouraging, advising, and warning—concerned with someone who matters more to him than himself.  It is a type of heaven on earth.  Then comes that stage when children are dating, courting, marriage and finally—like fireworks in the sky—grandchildren.  The joy is repeated, but magnified!  LIFE seen from one generation away is even more precious and rewarding—if that is possible.

The list is endless: late night talks, pillow fights, days at the beach, holiday picnics, birthday parties, graduations, even family funerals when loved ones gather together to celebrate the life of one they love—a shared love and admiration that binds the generations of a family together.  It is undeniable that raising a family demands all that the parents have to give, and more, and it is undeniable that children can sometimes cause piercing disappointment.  Families are an investment.  Like stocks, they go up and down.  But if you can hold on through the troughs, the returns are unmatched.  And how pitiful to be alone at your own funeral.

As old age comes, all success other than family fades.  What were once heralded achievements at work are unknown to a new generation.  Memorabilia from world travel, awards, even clothing is put into storage or given to charity.  Memories dim.  It seems that the memories that persist, those most deeply etched in us, are those of family—a testament to its ultimate importance.

Parents who have weathered so many years together, experienced such a depth of life, become bound inseparably.  The love that brought them together, that created LIFE in the first place, is now reinforced with the respect they have earned from year upon year of shared sacrifice and success.  It is a crowning blessing.  They both know—in their roles as mother and father—that their different, but complementary viewpoints, have been essential to the family.  They are a team, fulfilling the purest and best intent of Nature.  They have created a family and filled it with LIFE.

Many fail to achieve it.  It is the great challenge to do so.  Many, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to accomplish it.  But that doesn’t change the fact that the sweetest fruit of life is a family full of LIFE.  How tragic, how misdirected, are those who miss out on the true purpose of living because they choose not to have a family!  How sad that their own lives never experience the joys, the fulfillment, the triumph of LIFE—creating, nurturing  and rejoicing in it.  Women who substitute careers for motherhood live out their lives without LIFE.  Men who reject fatherhood never experience true adulthood.  Real men aren’t identified by their tattoos.  Real men get their children through college and protect their homes from the sleaze of a decadent culture.  Most appalling of all are those who encourage abortion—choosing death over LIFE!  Has any act ever been more repugnant to true womanhood?  The very essence of womanhood is creating and nurturing life, not snuffing it out.  Has any man failed more miserably to protect his offspring than those who sponsor abortion?  How would earlier generations—who sacrificed all to protect their posterity—judge ours?  Fortunately the future belongs entirely to those who choose LIFE!

Here’s to LIFE!  Here’s to family!  Celebrate it!  Rejoice in it!  Protect and nurture it!  Strengthen and encourage it!  That is what government is for.

[i]   http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/aesop-fable-the-fox-and-the-grapes.htm

Posted in Defending Family, Political Culture | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

PROMISCUITY vs. PATRIOTISM

Posted on March 12, 2012 by

Two new issues are now part of our national political discussion: the role of religion in our system of government and the role of government in our sexual lives.  The first issue has been raised repeatedly in the Republican Party debates.  We hear contenders for the highest office unabashedly discoursing on how religion has played an important role in their lives and in the nation’s history.  It is a refreshing change in a country where the bare mention of a Creator in school sends atheist parents racing to call the ACLU.  The second issue has been raised by President Obama’s mandate that contraceptives be provided to all, for free.  The icon of the need for free contraceptives is a  woman, not married, who  clearly doesn’t need contraceptives to better schedule the birth of children within a happy home.  Thus we have a national discussion of promiscuity.  There is even a faint hint—though most political commentators flee from it as they would an assassin—that promiscuity is a sin.  What a change in a country where suggesting something is sinful is harshly condemned as intolerant and silenced either by derision or persecution.

Promiscuity is “promiscuous sexual behavior” which means “not restricted to one sexual partner.”[i]  Prostitution is committing sexual acts for a fee.[ii]  The difference is that prostitutes get paid, those who are promiscuous don’t.  Promiscuity is the opposite of Fidelity—the essential foundation of Family.  The Marine Corp motto of “Semper Fidelis” = “Always Faithful” applies to Marriage and Family as much or more than it does to the Marines.  What child wants a promiscuous father?  What child wants a prostitute as a mother?   Who would claim that promiscuity contributes to happy and successful families?  We call those who aid, abet, and prosper from prostitution “pimps.”  What shall we call those who aid, abet and prosper politically from promiscuity?  Certainly they are enemies of Fidelity and Family.  You can’t be for promiscuity and Family.  They are opposites.

Does personal immorality undermine a country?  It certainly undermines Marriages and thus Families, the true foundation of any country.  These issues are not new.  In fact they resonate from ancient times when other civilizations faced the same moral decay that worries so many of us today.

In 440 A.D., witnessing the collapse of the once all-powerful Roman Empire “. . . Salvian, a priest from the region of Marseille, addressed the central and difficult questions, ‘Why has God allowed us to become weaker and more miserable than all the [Germanic Gothic] tribal peoples?  Why has he allowed us to be defeated by the barbarians, and subjected to the rule of our enemies’?”  His answer: . “‘We enjoy immodest behavior, the Goths detest it.  We avoid purity; they love it.  Fornication is considered by them to be a crime and a danger, we honour it’.”[iii]

Will failure of Families affect our nation?  One of our great modern historians, Will Durant, who along with his wife Ariel won the Pulitzer Prize for the concluding work of their 11 volume history, The Story of Civilization, reached this most remarkable conclusion about what caused the Roman Empire to fall:

“’The two greatest problems in history,’ says a brilliant scholar of our time, are ‘how to account for the rise of Rome and how to account for her fall.’ . . . A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.  The essential causes of Rome’s decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars. . . . Biological factors were fundamental [emphasis added].  A serious decline of population appears in the West after Hadrian.  It has been questioned, but the mass importation of barbarians into the Empire . . . leaves little room for doubt. . . . So many farms had been abandoned, above all in Italy, that Pertinax offered them gratis to anyone who would till them. . . In Greece the depopulation had been going on for centuries.  In Alexandria, which had boasted of its numbers, Bishop Dionysius calculated that the population had in his time halved. . . . Only the barbarians and the Orientals were increasing, outside the Empire and within.

“What had caused this fall in population?  Above all, family limitation [emphasis added]. . . . Though branded as a crime, infanticide flourished as poverty grew.  Sexual excesses may have reduced human fertility; the avoidance or deferment of marriage had a like effect, and the making of eunuchs increased as Oriental customs flowed into the West. . . . Second only to family limitation as a cause of lessened population were the slaughters of pestilence, revolution and war. . . .The holocausts of war and revolution, and perhaps the operation of contraception, abortion, and infanticide, had a dysgenic as well as a numeric effect: the ablest men married latest, bred least, and died soonest. . . . The rapidly breeding Germans could not understand the classic culture, did not accept it, did not transmit it; the rapidly breeding Orientals were mostly of a mind to destroy that culture; the Romans, possessing it, sacrificed it to the comforts of sterility.”[iv]

How significant, and relevant, that the historian found pestilence, war, and revolution only secondary causes.  He feared contraception, abortion, infanticide undermined Rome.  Greatness was sacrificed for the “comforts of sterility.”  How up-to-date is Salvian’s description of a culture so sunk in immorality that they honored it.  How descriptive of modern Western Europe and America is Durant’s diagnosis of Rome’s fall.

That these issues are being openly discussed is a shock to those who reject any suggestion that there is such a thing as right or wrong, virtue or vice, for human conduct.  But the mockery of non-believers is no longer sufficient to silence the believers. Those who do believe that private morality undergirds public morality and claim that it was a Creator, and only a Creator, who endowed us with inalienable rights are now publicly and cheerfully upholding their beliefs.  What a hopeful change!

How beneficial it will be if the marvelous trend grows for public discussion of the role of morality—of being “Just”— and of God in establishing and maintaining America.  How wonderful if Americans learn and believe the last verse of our National Anthem as well as the first—and joyfully sing together:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

[i]  Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition, 2007 (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, Springfield, Massachusetts, 2007).

[ii]  See: http://prostitution.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=764

[iii] Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 30.  His award winning history ends with “Romans before the fall were as certain as we are today that their world would continue for ever substantially unchanged.  They were wrong.  We would be wise not to repeat their complacency.” p. 183.

[iv]  Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1944) 665-666.

Posted in Defending Family, Freedom of Religion, Political Culture | Tagged , , , , , ,

FAIR TAXES

Posted on March 5, 2012 by

In the vigorous political debate over fair taxation Democrats complain that the rich are not paying enough in taxes.  Republicans reply that half of the country isn’t paying any income taxes at all.  So what would be a Fair Tax?  One candidate suggested a 9-9-9 tax where everyone would pay a 9% tax on income with no exceptions.  The obvious problem with that, in a country where half don’t pay any income taxes, is that the poorer half will see their income taxes jump from zero to 9%.  Should the poor be expected to pay income taxes, as would be required under any flat tax proposal?  Or should wealth be seen as an economic aberration to be eliminated by taxing the rich but not the poor, coupled with extensive federal grants for housing, education, medical care, etc. for the poor so as to redistribute that wealth more equally?

Voters need to make up their minds on these key issues, because those they elect will be enacting one version or the other of a Fair Tax.  Is a Fair Tax one where each person pays the same percentage of his or her income—as in a 10% flat tax?  Or is a Fair Tax measured by how much people are allowed to keep after they are taxed—where allowing rich people to keep too much is offensive?

Imagine a family facing the same type of debt crisis America is.[i]  The parents are retired on a modest income but own their own home.  Their oldest daughter has a great job and earns over $200,000 a year.  Their next child, a son, earns only $12,000 at a part time minimum wage job.  The third son has a decent job, earning $60,000 a year as a reporter.  Unfortunately for the family, when this third son is sent on an assignment to Monterey, Mexico, he is kidnapped.  The family is told that unless a ransom of $200,000 is promptly paid, they will never see him again.  Put yourself in the parent’s living room.  The children have rushed home to determine how they are going to deal with this demand.  Here is the conversation:

Son:  I told him it was dangerous and not to go.  It’s his own fault.  Why should we help him?

Mother: You can’t let your brother die, even if it was his bad decision.

Daughter:  I know, I know.  Can’t the government do something?

Father:  We talked to the FBI.  They said they can’t do anything in Mexico and that the Mexican government was helpless to stop kidnappings.  They suggested we pay the ransom.

Son:  Where are we going to get $200,000?  I’m broke.  I can’t even afford new tires for my car.  I’d like to help, but I can’t.  Sis, you’ve got plenty of money, can’t you pay it?

Daughter:  I’ll do anything I can.  I don’t have $200,000 but maybe my husband and I could borrow it.  We don’t have much equity in our house though.  But why should I be the only one paying?

Son: Because you’ve got the most money.  Mom and Dad are living on Social Security and Dad’s pension.

Daughter:  O.K., I’ll do whatever has to be done to save my brother.  We’re a family.  I’ll call my husband and see what we can do to scrape it up.  We’ll sell all of our investments, max out our credit cards, and borrow from friends if we have to.  What a nightmare!  We’re going to be paying this off forever.

Dad: When he gets home, maybe he can pay you back.

Daughter: Don’t count on it.  Maybe he can.  But even with his help, paying off $200,000 is going to be tough.

Mother: We’ll try to help too.  I’m so sorry we don’t have that kind of money.

Son:  Actually you do.  Sell your house and move into a small apartment.  Is having a big house more important to you than helping Sis pay the ransom?

Dad:  I guess we could do that.

Daughter:  I guess brother, because your income is so pitiful, you’re not going to help?

Son:  I would if I could, but I’m broke.  I don’t have a fancy house or car like you.  I’m barely getting by.

Daughter:  How about you, Mom and Dad?

Dad:  I don’t think we can sell our house that fast.  That’s a lot of money for us.

Daughter:  O.K.  My husband and I will come up with it.  I’m not going to let my brother be murdered.  But one thing for sure, when he gets back I’m going to tell him that none of you would lift a finger to pay the ransom.  Out of the whole family, I’m the only one who cared enough to contribute.

Son: That’s not fair.  I’d contribute but I don’t have any money.

Daughter:  I believe you.  You never have any money.  But believe me when I tell you I’m going to let your brother know you wouldn’t contribute one penny to save his life.

Mother:  Don’t start a fight.  We all want to help.  But we don’t have as much money as you do.  What would be fair?

Daughter:  I don’t think my paying all of it is fair, no matter how much money I have.  He’s your son, and your brother, too.

Dad:  She’s right.  We all need to contribute.  We’re a family.

Son:  We’ll it’s not fair to ask me to contribute as much as Sis.  She might have to sell one of her cars, but I’ll go without gas for my car.

Dad:  What if we all agree to pay 10%?  That means Sis will pay a lot more than the rest of us, but then we can at least say we helped and, given our different incomes, we all contributed the same amount.

Mom:  Does that sound fair?

Daughter:  Yes.  I don’t expect my broke brother to pay as much as I do, but if he pays the same percentage, that would be fair.  Who knows, maybe he’ll win the lottery and then his 10% will pay off the whole thing.

Mom:  We can pay 10% too.  It means things will be tight, but I couldn’t live with myself if I did nothing to save my dear son.

Son:  I can do that.  And, frankly, I would be ashamed not to help.  I love my brother as much as any of you do.

This family was facing the same problem America faced when it declared independence from England.  Where would they ever get the money to fight a war against the most powerful country in the world?  It required an overwhelming commitment.  Fortunately for us, those early Patriots were willing to make that commitment.  Just above their signatures to the Declaration of Independence they wrote:  “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

That is the great commitment!  That is the level of commitment that permitted this country to be born and to become great.  Now, however, we have so many who refuse to pledge their fortunes or even a small part of their income.  They say, “Let the rich pay.  They have more money!  Don’t expect me to help.  It’s their problem, not mine!”  That is the re-election platform of President Obama.  But it is not fair in a family and not fair in a country.  Everyone should pay something. We need a flat tax.

Posted in National Debt, Unfair Taxation | Tagged ,

MONUMENT

Posted on February 27, 2012 by

This is a pretend story.  It will NEVER happen.  I hope you enjoy it anyway.

Once upon a time the President was sitting in the White House talking with his Budget Director.  He realized that the money for the nearly $4 trillion dollar budget had to come from somewhere.[i]  Henry, his Budget Director, told him about 42% came from individual income taxes and about 9% from corporate income taxes.  Another 1% came from estate taxes.  40% came from payroll taxes.[ii]  “Of course that is not enough to cover all the federal government spends,” Henry explained, “that is why the deficit is growing so rapidly.”

Who pays all of these taxes?” the President asked.  Henry responded that taxpayers are ranked by their “adjusted gross income” as reported on their tax returns.  The top 1% pay 36.7% of all income taxes, the top 10% pay 70.5% and the top 50% pay 97.3%.  Those in the lower 50% pay only 2.25%.[iii]

“That seems like a lot for the top ten percent to be paying,” commented the President.

“Oh, it’s much better than that, President.  We really get them!” chortled Henry.  “The top rate for rich people’s personal income tax is 35%.[iv]  But you must realize that almost all corporations are owned by rich people, so the rich are really paying the corporate income tax too.  The corporate tax rate can be up to 38%.”[v]  That means when their corporations earn profits we grab 38% of it, and then when the corporations pay those profits out to their shareholders as dividends we tax the same money up to another 35%.  If the value of their stock goes up over the years, and they sell it, then we tax that at a 15% capital gains rate.[vi]  And when they die we take 35% of their property through the federal estate tax.[vii]  Don’t be disappointed President, we’re doing everything we can now to raise all of these tax rates on the rich so we can get even more money from them.”

“How much more money would rich people be getting if all income taxes disappeared?”

Henry looked thoughtful for a moment and said, “Well, I guess it could be 73% because they wouldn’t have personal or corporate income tax to pay.”

“Are the non-rich paying any taxes?”

Henry answered apologetically: “Yes. We can’t avoid it.  Even the rich could not pay for all of Social Security and Medicare.  Everyone pays payroll taxes to cover those programs.  That provides 40% of federal revenue.  Of course when people receive back what they have contributed to Social Security we tax them on that as well.”

“Thanks, Henry.  I’ve got to think about this.”  It was a new and astounding realization for the President.  Rather than being enemies of the country, the rich were overwhelmingly its primary benefactors.  The President wanted to analyze and understand what he had heard.  He needed to get away from the Oval Office, maybe even get out of the White House so he had his chauffer and Secret Service take him on a short drive around the mall.  He admired the tall and striking Washington Monument and thought, no matter how courageous the early Patriots were, they would have never won the war without money to buy munitions, food, and everything else that went into winning.[viii]  The President then came to the Lincoln Memorial, and realized once again that winning the Civil War—with the wonderful result of freeing the slaves—depended not only on brave troops and generals, but also on money.  Who provided it?  One major source was the nation’s first progressive income tax.[ix]

As the President thought about these crucial wars, as well as all wars since then, he realized everything depended upon tax payers.  Yet they went unacknowledged.

Upon returning to the White House the President called in his Cabinet and pronounced: “I have come to the realization that tax-payers, particularly the rich—in fact, overwhelmingly the rich—are a primary cause of all that we have accomplished since the nation’s conception.  Yet no one ever applauds their contribution.  As far as I know, there is not a single monument to tax payers yet their contribution is far more valuable than so many politicians whose statues litter the landscape.  I propose a new National Monument to Tax Payers!”

His Cabinet was shocked!  They were also terrified, because their entire plan for his re-election (and thus keeping their jobs) was based on vilifying rich tax payers.  He was adamant, however.  “We’re it not for taxpayers—overwhelmingly rich taxpayers—our troops would be fighting with sling shots.  There would be no welfare payments for the poor, no tuition grants for students, no investment in research.  We need to honor those who provide all of these things.”

“But, President,” spoke up the Secretary of the Treasury, “tax payers shouldn’t be honored.  We force them to pay taxes.  We take it from them whether they like it or not.  We confiscate their property if they don’t pay!”

“That may be true, Secretary” said the President, “but don’t we honor the draftees along with those who volunteered to fight in World War II.  Compulsory contributions are still contributions.”

That ended the discussion.  Soon plans were going ahead for a new monument, a duplicate of the Washington Monument, to “The American Taxpayer.”  After great debate, and only upon the final insistence of the President, it was decided the Monument would reflect the respective contributions of each group of American tax payers.  The Washington Monument is 555 feet tall.[x]  Rather than being smooth, like the Washington Monument, the American Taxpayer Monument would have faces of great taxpayers displayed in bas-relief on its sides.  They discovered that the portion devoted to really rich tax payers, those in the top 1% who contributed far more than anyone, would take up the bottom 200 feet of the monument.  The next 9%, those in the top ten percent of tax payers but not in the top one percent, would take up about another 200 feet.  Most of the remaining space, about 140 feet, would go to those in the top 50%.

Pictures of the remaining 50% of income tax payers were an artistic challenge.  Millions and millions of them had to be scrunched into the top 12 feet—the top 2.2% of the Monument.  The U.S. Commissioner of Fine Arts objected, claiming that those who paid no income taxes should not be so poorly portrayed.  He rightly noted that these millions upon millions provided much of the greatness of America.  The President’s response was, “Yes, you are right.  Someday we’ll need monuments to Academics, Laborers, Artists, whomever you want.  But right now the country needs money.  Let’s celebrate those who provide it!”

Yes, yes, it will never happen—a President expressing gratitude for those who provide the where-with-all for every Presidential program.  But I told you at the beginning this was just a pretend story.

 

[i]   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01/federal-budget-factsheet-fiscal-year/

[ii]   http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-revenue-sources

[iii]  Those are number for 2009.  http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

[iv]  http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

[v]   http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html

[vi]   http://taxes.about.com/od/capitalgains/a/CapitalGainsTax_4.htm

[vii]  It’s scheduled to go up to 55% next year.  http://wills.about.com/od/understandingestatetaxes /a/estatetaxchart.htm

[viii]  Read, for example,about Robert Morris.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_(financier)

[ix] http://walter-coffey.suite101.com/financing-the-civil-war-a242244

[x]  http://www.nps.gov/wamo/index.htm

Posted in Defending Freedom, National Debt, Unfair Taxation | Tagged , , , , ,