Some may think we are close to time travel but we can be assured that the masses don't have power to use it within the next generation or two. For if they could, they would comeback in droves and wage a revolution of their own with an all too familiar battle cry: “No taxation without Representation!”
Surprising to us however, we are the tyrants and they are ones we have put in chains. How? Deficit spending and our national debt are exactly that – taxing those without a voice in our political process, the unborn that is, and laying the burden upon their shoulders.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1819, “The power to tax is the power to destroy (Footnote 1).” It certainly is a power that, when misused, can lead to a destruction of economy, prosperity, growth, and liberty. It is also a power that when properly wielded provides for efficient government, enforcement of the law, protection of our citizens, and support for the prosperity of the people.
Because it is a double edged sword, and because it is the people's money that must be collected, the power of taxation can only be justly employed when it is by representation of the people who must be taxed.
If you and I are represented by our Congressmen who serve us for the duration of their term, who is it that represents those who are not yet even alive? By the law of representation, no one can.
If we believe that representation is the only just way to regulate taxation, burdening the unborn and unrepresented with the expenses of today is unjust and immoral.
Debt is bondage. Anyone who has had debt knows the truth of this saying. To be in bondage as a result of our own choice is one thing. To be in bondage for the choices of the dead is entirely different and infinitely more cruel. It is a form of slavery, taxation and redistribution of wealth to which they will see and receive almost no benefit (Footnote 2).
It is simply wrong to ask future generations to pay for our education, our wars, our freedom, our cash for clunkers, and our welfare entitlements. There is no way around it. It is simply wrong and unjust. The unborn are not the recipients of the benefits of these policies, entitlements, programs and wars. Alonzo Fyfe put it this way:
“The National Deficit is the redistribution of wealth – the value of the slave labor – that is to be taken from those who have no political voice to be handed out to those whose votes the politician wants to buy.
It is no different than imposing a tax that is imposed only on those who are black, then using that money to write checks that are distributed to white people (Footnote 3).”
Certainly there are some rare exceptions to when this would be just. However, those exceptions are rare and involve in no way entitlements for the living today.
As has been shown in several of these short essays, the true costs of health care reform placed on the American taxpayer are not even fully known but surely far exceed those being projected. Current unfunded liabilities for Medicare are already $74 trillion (footnote 4). Currently, the house version of the health care reform bill has over $13 trillion of unfunded liabilities (footnote 5). As much as I agree with the President that health care reform should be deficit neutral, the fact of the matter is, it won't be. Among so many other things, the government's management of Medicare is proof of this.
Paying for our health care is our responsibility. We cannot argue with this. We cannot put our children and grandchildren in bondage for our benefit today.
If we create a bondage for those who cannot be represented in the process, and redistribute their wealth even before they are born and have a chance to acquire it, it is the truest form of taxation without representation and the greatest form of tyranny and oppression.
If We the People, through our representatives desire this kind of health care reform, then so be it as long as we, and only we, are the ones who pay for it. If we make this choice, then we must live with the consequences – not the unborn and those who have no voice in our system, those whose futures should be their own, and not ours, to decide.
Our beautiful National Anthem contains these solemn words:
“Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”
It may yet wave, but for the unborn they are not free. And for us, if we fail to do the right thing and not take responsibility for our freedoms and privileges by paying for them in our own time, then no longer can America be called the home of the brave - as Bravery is to do the right thing in the face of difficulty and opposition. Bravery is to sacrifice. Bravery is to seek the truth and to live by it. Let us be Brave and keep ourselves, our children and our grandchildren Free.
___________________________________
Footnotes
6 comments:
Forgive me Ken while I once again play devil's advocate here. Debt is something that is on my mind as currently we are in discussion with a bank about getting approved for a home mortgage. I'll admit at intervals of the process I think, "wow is that system kind of screwed up." But always after careful consideration I realize why it is that way and it kind of makes sense. I've come to discover the way to make money isn't done by staying out of debt and saving your money in a piggy bank, it's done by investing and part of investing is managing debt to work for you.
I generally agree with you about taxes and deficit spending. However I think the current situation is my exception. We all like to talk about the cost of the actions taken by the government, but what I'm more afraid of is the cost of inaction.
The world is in constant change and I agree with you that the US is sick. Our education system is dismal, we've turned from producers into consumers, and our military and global influence continues to wear ever more thin. There are countries that are growing. What's the cost of losing our super power status? If we don't overhaul the systems we have now there is a good chance that we could lose everything. Is that worth some extra taxes? I think so.
People like to throw around the idea that this shackles are children and childrens' children in debt or whatever. I think that's a little drastic. It's like someone criticizing a parent for taking on a mortgage or really large student loan, I'd ask rather what's the cost of not taking that loan? Are we really considering our childrens' children? or are we just upset that our paychecks are $10 less?
Bryan,
I think that some perspective is needed to help us get a better understanding of our current predicament. Here are some things to consider:
1. Our national debt right now as a percentage of GDP is as large as it was at THE END of World War II. Heaven forbid we enter another world war, we won't be able to afford dishpans to throw at our enemies.
2. Parents typically get a mortgage for 30 years. That is essentially the working life-span of the average person who buys a home. The way our federal governement borrows and spends is like getting a 60 year mortgage. The benefit of goods and services purchased with the debt will be long gone by the time the interest comes due.
3. Demographic shifts are seismic and will affect us within 10 years. With our society aging and becoming lopsided toward senior citizens, there won't be enough people working to support the taxes necessary to pay for the debt for these new programs!
I guess Bryan you are assuming that the US has plenty of credit to use and might as well dip into it to keep things running smoothly. If you lived in 1980 with Ronald Reagan you would be correct. However, our deficits have grown so large for so long now that the piper must be paid. It will be paid one way or the other. The question is just how painful will it be?
I don't think there is enough Oxycontin to go around to numb the pain that is coming.
One more point.
Bryan, you said
"It's like someone criticizing a parent for taking on a mortgage or really large student loan.."
The only reason criticism would be offered is if the applicant already had 3 mortgages and 20 student loans with no visible means to pay them back.
This is the reason I offer criticism.
Bryan -
I wanted to elaborate a little on what I said yesterday.
I believe that a National Debt is good and healthy - at the proper levels. Debt binds together our Union and our world. I did not state in my post that debt was bad but only that if we incurred it, we should pay it off.
In your comment you said, "I think that's a little drastic. It's like someone criticizing a parent for taking on a mortgage or really large student loan, I'd ask rather what's the cost of not taking that loan? Are we really considering our childrens' children? or are we just upset that our paychecks are $10 less?"
It isn't drastic if you think of it this way. If you take out a loan to purchase a home or go to school, you are the one liable for the debt and the one responsible to pay it off. That is a great and good thing. It is honorable and right to do so. You and your family is blessed for it. What isn't honorable is if you take out a mortgage and student loan, live in the house and receive the benefits of your education and then require your children and grandchildren to pay it off. That is deficit spending as we know it.
That is what constitutes taxation without representation. Debt is bondage. There is nothing drastic about saying that. There is nothing wrong with incurring it - so long as the debtor is the one who incurred it and not someone else who had no say and no benefit in it.
Certainly there are times when spending can be shared between those who incurred it and those who receive the benefits of it. Education might be one of them. Infrastructure might be one of them as future generations are the recipients of those benefits. Entitlement programs however are not. There is no moral basis for requiring the unborn to pay for the health care benefits, housing, food, power bills, or education of the dead. Wars are another thing that cannot be passed off to the future. We are fighting for our lives today - not the lives of the unborn. They will have wars of their own. We cannot lay on their shoulders the blessings of the dead.
The cost of inaction must be always considered and carefully weighed in the balance. Jeremy's points are spot on with who will pay for it. Sadly, it will be much, much more than $10 as the demographics are drastically changing and as America continues on its course of entitlement programs, consumerism rather than production, and a reshuffling of world geo-political forces. I hope the model can sustain itself.
With that said, I think spending should be cut and taxes should be reformed to create the optimum level of income for the government to bring fiscal balance to our nation. I have no problem saying that spending in certain areas should be cut and taxes should be raised. We increased our deficit by $1.5 trillion this year and actually your taxes didn't go up by $10. They went down by $10 or more. That kind of a system cannot sustain itself and the shock of it will be pretty hard to deal with. We will have to deal with it though. Furthermore, if this kind of health care reform is passed, it needs to be passed with the commitment of the American public to pay for it - today. To sign on to that we must all be aware of the real costs each one of us must and should bear. I think it isn't practical or right for the wealthy to pay 100% of the incremental costs. I think we all should bear our fair share and contribute to the additional costs as we all would receive the additional services.
Think for a moment about the cost of inaction. I too was horrified by the drastic actions made by our elected officials last year at this time when President Bush handed over billions of dollars to financial agencies with little to no strings attached. I downloaded and read the original economic stimulus package bill, just as I am in the process of doing with this healthcare bill.
Quite frankly I'm torn, because although it costs so much to reform these systems, I'm more concerned with the cost of not at least attempting to overhauling them. The United States is on a straight path out of it's global leadership position. What was the economic powerhouse is stumbling, what was the world's top producer and land of innovation is now bowing to the East. Our alliances and global influence has been pushed to the point of near breakdown, our military are fighting daily across the entire world. Our education system is doing lousy when compared to other developed and even many developing nations. Any historian would tell you that this is a prime time for a shift in global power.
If I was responsible for the well-being and status of the United States, you would bet that I would do everything in my power to not let such a collapse or loss of power happen. (Not that I personally agree with that, but as an elected official that would be my duty)
Now if I had top analysts telling me, "you can either go into ridiculous debt and try to pull this system out of the spiral we are in," or you can continue with what we've always done and watch the problems get worse. I'd take the previous option.
If you have a plan or an alternative to get the US back on track in these major areas that doesn't require lots of money or time I would love to hear them. I'm sure others would too. I've just yet to hear any other alternative and I haven't come up with any better solutions on my own. I just know if we don't do something to stay on top we are going to be easily passed by other countries and then we'll have no way to pay off any debt big or small.
Who knows? maybe this might actually pay off. Maybe investing money into the infrastructure, health, and welfare of our own country might just actually get things on track enough to pay back that debt and earn some in dividends along the way.
Bryan,
Here is a thought... You mentioned in your last comment: "The United States is on a straight path out of it's global leadership position."
Is that such a bad thing? I want America to continue to be a leader in the world but find it horrifying that we have military troops in almost every country on earth. I want our leadership to remain but our global military reach and influence to come back to normal levels in the balance. This is a topic I cannot speak to intelligently as there is a tremendous amount of complicated factors involved in it - only a fraction of which I understand.
However, it was our global super power state that enabled us to expand the American corporation globally. It was this same status that allowed us to dictate unfair trade agreements with developing nations. It was this same state that has created a dollar hegemony world wide and thus created the American consumer state. This consumer state has led to the near extinction of American industry. This extinction and consumerism has led to a state of laziness and contentment in our country that has greatly contributed to our unhealthy condition. This unhealthy condition has led to the increase in the welfare state and health care costs much more than other things.
So, could it be said if we reversed this trend that Americans would be caused to produce more, work harder, consume less, cause fewer wars and therefore fight in fewer wars, spend less on the military, have more money to use for infrastructure and domestic projects, become healthier and therefore need fewer pharmaceuticals and fewer expensive tests, live longer and be happier?
I know it is too simple a proposition but surely there is some truth to it.
Your friend,
Ken