First, America is not rich. At least not America as the left usually defines it. You see the left sees the government as the great checkbook in Washington. They don’t understand that the government has no money and no source of producing it. I’m not talking about printing money because they can do that, but those greenbacks are only a symbol of someone’s tax burden. All wealth in this country is created by those who produce products—meaning anything of value: widgets, services, information, et al. The government pays for nothing and provides nothing. All they can do is redistribute wealth by taking it from those who earned it (and therefore deserve it) and give it to those who did not earn it (and therefore do not deserve it). The government does this through coercion. They come to your home or place of business and require that you report exactly how much money you have made and give them a proportional amount. This is acceptable when one considers what the government does appropriately. When the government spends seized money on the military it is protecting all of us from enemies. When they spend this money on police they are protecting us all from those who would steal and kill. Entitlements are a different story.

Government efforts to champion the poor by providing for the have-nots would be fine if they spent their own money, but all their money comes from us. They must first coerce it from the rightful owner before they can give it to another. Of course they take their cut off the top to finance the bureaucracy. This is actually theft because the person taxed loses money that he earned and gets nothing in return. Actually what the government does is far worse than simple theft. Robert Nozik (Nozick, 1974, p. 169) says, “Taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose.” This forced labor is, in effect, government sanctioned slavery. When you consider the money is given to those who did not work for it you can only conclude that the producer is made slave to the unproductive. Those who work hard to build wealth must work even harder to make up for what the government forces them to provide for those who choose not to work, or not to work as hard.

Second, with our progressive tax system no program benefits all Americans the same. Like I said taxation is appropriate for things that only the government can or should provide. We would not want private armies roaming the land or police working for the highest bidder so the government provides these and must tax to do so. However, when money is taken and nothing is given it is easy to see the wrong that is done. Lately, the problem is another type of entitlement. We are not faced with one that only benefits the poor but it is claimed that its implementation will benefit all Americans. The debate I am speaking of is healthcare. The plan, right now, is to create a government safety net for those without insurance, but the details put forth show a deeper desire to create a government program meant to spread and grow until its tentacles entwine all Americans. The final goal is a one-payer system in which all people will be on the government plan. Many see this as an acceptable use of tax power because those who pay the taxes will participate in the program—getting something in return. Actually, the problem with this view is that only those who work and can afford it will pay for the program that is meant to cover everyone. Those who currently pay for their own insurance and care will continue to do so, but they will send the check to the Federal government along with a hefty additional sum to cover their neighbor. This is not a program for all Americans but one more example of the productive subsidizing the unproductive.

This brings up a major problem to consider. With our progressive tax system, those who produce wealth pay for their own police and military protection and also for the protection of those who do not produce. This is still a subsidy of bad choices. The only fair tax is one that is totally flat and shared by all Americans, rich and poor, big and small alike. Any attempt at a graduated tax system gives higher value to some Americans by taking away from others.

America is not a rich country. Among the American people are rich and poor. Like all nations we only have the wealth produced by our people. Each American is entitled to the wealth he produces and none other.

Works Cited
Nozick, R. (1974). Aarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is saying that we must take action to bring down the deficit if we want the economy to grow. In saying this, the call is on for higher taxes to pay for the misdirected stimulus spending. So deficit spending has gone from the answer to the problem in less than eight months. What about the harm that higher taxes would do to our economy. When you raise taxes you reduce the amount of money available for investment and business expansion. It was argued during the debate on stimulus that it would be paid for through an expanded tax base once we recover, but no new taxes would be needed. Of course anyone with half an understanding of economics knew this was half-baked at best and a blatant lie at worst. The opposition pointed out over and over that record spending matched with our current conditions would necessitate higher taxes.

It would be helpful if the Treasury Secretary would do some reading on economics and while he is at it perhaps a perusal of the Constitution.

This plan is blatant redistribution of wealth. As evidence of it, look at the various ways being considered to pay for this care. One of the latest is a tax on health policies costing $25,000 per year. This means that those who work hard and pay high premiums to get the best coverage would see their own health care costs to provide for others. “Soak the rich,” is a popular mantra of the left, but this promise must be viewed in light of history. Every government welfare program has started with taxes on the rich, but taxes always grow and the tax base always spreads.

Government provided healthcare, regardless of the method or the plan is an unconstitutional siezure and redistribution of wealth. Such programs subsidize bad decisions and punish productivity, while continuing to divide the nation along class lines.

The Obama plan would require all Americans to purchase health insurance, with government help for those who can not afford it. The problem with requiring health insurance is the same problem with state laws requiring liability insurance, the difficulty of enforcement. How do you know each family has purchased the required level of insurance? The only way to enforce this would be at the point of care, forcing Doctors and hospital staffs to act as health police. Once a person goes to get care and is discovered to not have the required coverage how are they to be handled? Are they placed on the government plan that both versions of this bill would create? This is a blatant effort to force people onto the government plan. What about costs? Once you require the purchase of anything you raise the cost. Every aspiring entrepreneur dreams of selling a product that everyone must have, because this offers the best profits through higher possible prices. Since the government plan has no need to turn a profit it could undercut prices, making up short falls through the power of taxation. In an effort to economize, people would be pressured onto the government plan. Obama’s plan would make coverage more expensive and push far more people onto the government plan,

What about illegal immigrants? Are they to be placed on the government healthcare plan? This plan will not stop them from showing up at emergency rooms around the country so something will have to be done. Health needs of illegals is one factor in the high cost of healthcare today and fixing the system will not be possible without securing our borders. If they are not to be covered on the government plan, how do we force them to pay for their own coverage? American taxpayer would be forced to subsidize those here illegally and the administration will have created one more incentive to flout our immigration laws. Illegals have been completely forgotten in this debate.

The next problem of Obamacare is the requirement that employers provide coverage to employees or pay a fee (spell that T-A-X). Like most liberals Obama, having never run a business, has no understanding of business. People create companies and hire people to turn a profit. Self-interest fuels their activities and causes them to invest their time and money. When you add requirements to this you increase the cost of doing business. A business owner will have more to consider when hiring. Many assume the choices are to pay for coverage or pay the special tax, but there are actually other options. One such option is whether to hire anyone or not. Perhaps the company will find another way to do the work without the hiring more people. Will this only apply to full-time workers? If so another option is to hire two part-time to do the old work of one full-time. Another question that must be answered, would employers still have to pay up for those who have elected the government plan. Most likely not, so employees will quickly find that they are more attractive to employers if they “opt” for the government plan.

Obama’s healthcare plan that makes coverage more expensive, forces doctors to play healthcare police, does nothing about illegals and negatively impacts business and employment. No other proof is needed that this was birthed in the delusional liberal mind.

The usual argument in favor of a minimum wage is protection of the lower classes. It is claimed business owners have so much power that unless the government intercedes people will be forced into sweat-shops, making subsistence wages while languishing in horrific working conditions. These claims usually mask the results of intrusive legislation, while hiding the lesser known motives of those clamoring for the increases. For example, some unions set the pay scales in their negotiated contracts as multiples of the federal minimum wage. If Congress raises this number then all those covered by these contracts get an automatic pay raise—no strikes, no picketing needed, let Congress do it for you. Another group with hidden motives is Congress itself. Every worker pays a flat percentage of their income in federal taxes (SSI, etc) whether they make enough to pay income taxes or not. The employer is also forced to pay a percentage of the employee’s salary in matching taxes. As a flat percentage of wages, when you increase the wages you increase these taxes proportionally. The employee is oblivious to this because his net pay goes up. However, the business owner has his portion increased and ultimately paid the extra amount taken from the employee. Seldom is Congress able to raise taxes with public support.

It is often forgotten that labor is a commodity—just like anything bought or sold. When prices go up for a product, demand for the product goes down. We see this when the price of gas goes up. People find ways to use less gas. They don’t do this to save the planet, or reduce dependency on foreign oil. They are motivated by basic economics—deciding on the best way to use their limited resource (income). Just like the average family balancing their needs, when the cost of doing business goes up the owner must reduce his profits or learn to economize.

The Robin Hood wannabes in Congress imagine that very penny increase to wages is a penny decrease in evil profits for the wicked business man. People do not go into business to provide jobs or to increase the GDP. They go into business to make money. When costs go up a business owner wanting to expand may decide to forgo hiring new personnel due to the higher costs. To do this he may shuffle his current staff or change their job requirements. If the owner is in a situation where he has no choice but to hire he may hold out for someone experienced instead of hiring one in need of training. Those suffering from an increase in the minimum wage are minorities, the uneducated and inexperienced—the same people liberals claim to champion.

Another problem with government intervention in wages is the loss of liberty. Seeking employment is an attempt to sell one’s time and skills. The highly skilled and educated are more valuable because their training empowers them to produce more in an hour than a less trained person. As a result they receive higher wages. Another person with no skills or training must take that into account when negotiating pay. Paying a certain wage for a set period of time is an exchange of value. If the value the employer receives matches up to the amount one is willing to take then a bargain is struck. When government sets a minimum wage, opportunities for the unskilled are reduced. If my time is not worth the artificial minimum, then the government has priced me out of the job market and stolen my ability to negotiate and my right to enact a private contract. If I am willing to sell the hours of my day for $2 each and an employer is willing to purchase them for that amount, what business is it of Congress or anyone else? The minimum wage reduces the freedoms of the average American.

Take notice whenever a politician says that the expensive program he is touting is less costly than doing nothing. This is not an attempt to convince but to obfuscate. It is easy to point to statistics and stories of failings of our current system, because his own system has not been implemented and therefore is difficult to examine. Liberal programs are never measured by what they do or do not accomplish but by what they meant to accomplish. Welfare is a good thing because it meant to cure poverty. Never mind the destruction of minority families and the harm done by these programs.

The healthcare status-quo could never be more expensive than surrendering control of one-fifth of our economy to the government and control of our healthcare decisions to bureacrats. The cheapest healthcare system is one that allows market forces to determine costs, and that rewards creativity and innovation. Government healthcare will choke off innovation, will cost everyone in higher taxes and will drive market forces from the equation. Costs, procedures, and standards will be set by government fiat. Anyone who has experienced healthcare systems run by the US government (welfare systems, BIA Indian Health Services, Veterans Administration, etc.) wouldn’t wish that care on the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, certain Republicans in the House of Representatives thought that you and I do not spend enough on utilities and voted with the majority to dip into your wallet. It is my hope that the eight voting for the bill will face serious primary opposition and be removed from office next time around.

The eight who voted to raise the consumer’s cost of energy:

Mary Bono Mack (R CA)
Michael Castle (R DE)
Mark Kirk (R IL)
Leonard Lance (R NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (R NJ)
John McHugh (R NY)
Dave Reichert (R WA)
Christopher Smith (R NJ)

This is not the first time that false claims have been made about government spending plans, making one thing look like another with a simple twist of words. Back when the Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate, Democrats charged them with cutting Medicare because they were proposing a lower increase than the Dems. Medicare recipients would receive more than before, but because it sounded better for Democratic election efforts, this was portrayed as a cut. Now they are doing the same by claiming a tax increase is not an increase.

Anytime the government makes changes resulting in more taxes owed by an individual or corporation it is a tax increase. Tax loopholes are a negative name for a write-off. During the life of a corporation or a wealthy individual, events occur that the government in its great wisdom has allowed to be written off on taxes. These are written into the code for various reasons, but closing these—even if appropriate—is still a tax increase. Money these entities once kept will be sent off to Washington to fund Mr. Obama’s reelection campaign. If you don’t think his spending plan is to garner votes you’ll find your face in the dictionary under naïve and next to it will be the definition: “See Democratic Voter.” The desire to fund healthcare for all Americans has nothing to do with helping the needy. This is a blatant attempt to make all Americans beholding to the Federal government and especially to the Democratic Party.

Another side to this plan is the old standard class-warfare. By claiming this is closing loop-holes for the wealthy, then it sounds like a blow for the little guy—taking away advantages from the evil rich. It must be kept in mind who will pay these taxes. If a corporation pays out more in taxes it passes those costs along to consumers. This means higher costs for everyone working to keep his kids clothed, housed and fed. So beware, Obama plans to get your vote by taking over your healthcare decisions. He’ll pay for it with higher taxes from you and with higher prices for you. With Barack Obama in the White House, the America we leave our kids will look nothing like the free and prosperous nation we were privileged to be born into.

President-elect Obama surprised me when he came out for tax-cuts. For a moment I lost my head thinking he defined these the way I did and he now understands that letting American’s keep their money is the only solution. Wrong! A Democrat defines a tax-cut as whatever he wants it to be. Those who pay the taxes will continue to pay and those who don’t pay will get a check while they claim to cut taxes. Let me spell this out: Only those who pay taxes can get a tax-cut! Most of those whose taxes he is claiming to cut don’t pay anything. I know, many who don’t pay income tax still pay employee taxes, but that’s who the earned income credit is for. At a certain level you pay no taxes, and get your employment taxes back, so how can you get a tax-cut?

Though the details of Mr. Obama’s plan is being withheld we know that it includes rebates of $500 or $1000 for a couple. We tried this last year, it failed and we have the increased deficit to prove it. Just like last year these stimulus checks will not work for the American family receiving it. The only ones getting a boost will be the lawmakers who bought low income votes at the expense of prosperous hard-working Americans.

Besides this, a few more hand-outs are in the works like unemployment benefits for part-time workers. Huh? You only work part-time but expect compensation when this job closes. Most part-time jobs are meant to be a source of extra money, or for those without employment history to get a start in the working world. Since unemployment insurance is paid for by the employers this expansion of the public dole will be paid for by business owners. How far will this go? It is well known that many people expand their work force at Christmas time and then let them go at the end of the season. Will these seasonal staff be included in this? After all is it the workers fault that Christmas only comes once a year? I guess under the Obama administration Christmas will be all year.

One of the most disingenuous parts of this plan includes letting the Bush tax-cuts expire as scheduled in 2010 instead of repealing them sooner. I thought these were only for the rich and of no benefit to the economy. If these were as bad as Nanci and the gang told us, why aren’t they being pulled right away? They are being left in place because even Democrats know that to suddenly raise taxes would destroy the economy and they would take the blame because the evil Republicans have been sidelined.

We’ve been given a good clue for the next four years. How can you tell President Obama is expanding government? Is he talking?