After Death, There's Taxes

This has been bugging me for a while, but I haven't found time to talk about it. I still don't have time to talk about it, but let's just forge ahead anyway.

So many things that might seem disconnected or trifling are really more connected and of greater import than they first seem. This is because they stem from foundational principles, philosophies, and underlying value systems. We are at war about ideas, because ideas have consequences. That is why oppressors of every stripe move to silence opinions that differ from theirs -- schools, churches, media. These are things that are worth fighting for and about, and sometimes even dying for.

Since death is assured and well taken care of by Christ, that leaves taxes to talk about.

There are a few main ideas about taxes and the role of government in society. Two of the biggest and opposing schools of thought can be stereotyped as

1. More taxes so that government can take care of more things for more people, and
   
2. Less taxes so that individuals can take personal responsibility for themselves and their society.

The ideal probably lies somewhere in between.

Both extremes are subject to abuse. Unrestricted government leads to mass oppression and stifling economy. Unfettered individuality leads to greed and huge inequities of goods and services.

We have a way in America and it's democracy and capitalism; Europe has its way and it's parlimentarianism and soft socialism. There are those in each who prefer the way of the other, but it behooves one to look under the hood before buying. Some say that the current administration wants America to be more like Europe.

What's Europe offering? Let's see what the first EU Council President, Herman Van Rompuy, thinks in his book Vernieuwing in hoofd en hart : een tegendraadse visie (Renovation in Head and Heart: a contrary vision, 1998):

If we don’t want to let the global level of taxation sink away, we will have to consciously levy certain new taxes at the European level or harmonise some of these, for example in the field of environment, mobility, income from capital... Every time it will be a movement upwards." [source]

Sorry, not my cup of tea.

Ford Is Smarter Than Those Other Guys

Here's a very simple reason that Ford is smarter than either GM or Chrysler: if you take a man's money, you do his dance.

Today Obama forced GM head , Rick Wagoner, to step down. Of course it was couched as a request -- but not really. The understanding was that GM would only get additional monies from the Fed if the CEO stepped down -- and GM needs it. The march towards government controlled monopoly of the economy took another fateful step with this move.

The ouster of the iconic automaker's CEO is one of the most dramatic signs yet of how strong a role the government is now playing in the private sector.

GM is asking for another $16.6 billion, while Chrysler wants an additional $5 billion. So far Ford has not asked for handouts from Washington.

And if Ford is wise, they'll keep federal dollars out of their budget. Alone out of the Big 3, Ford has been able to drive their own deal to keep afloat.

The United Auto Workers Union says its members working for Ford Motor Co. have approved contract changes that include freezing wages and cutting other benefits in a move to aimed at helping the automaker remain competitive.

While not out of the woods financially, Ford is making a good faith effort to right its listing ship on its own terms. Ford gives us a powerful example of industry's ability to dig itself out of its own mess; government "assistance" is neither mandatory nor inevitable -- a lesson we would all do well to heed.

Cease The Seizing Already

Don't most totalitarian governments begin with a power grab? Why does the prevailing philosophy believe that the current economic crisis can be solved if only they had more power?

[Washington Post]Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner today told Congress the administration will seek unprecedented power to seize non-bank financial companies whose collapse could jeopardize the economy, a move Geithner said would have allowed the government to bail out insurance giant American International Group at a far lower cost to taxpayers.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Allowing the Treasury Department to take over a broader range of companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process.

Every despot may start out with good intentions, but we know where that leads don't we? Our country succeeds as much as it does precisely because we have separation of powers. That separation extends not just to the three branches of the Federal government and the States, but also extends to the separation between the public and private sectors.

Using such flimsy justifications as "could jeopardize the economy" has frightening overtones; it is a scary pretext that can be extended to mean anything. Important as the economy is, doing "anything" to protect it is distinctly un-American.

We have collectively made made some poor choices financially, and we are reaping those consequences now -- some pretty harsh. But I'd rather take my lumps today and wake up to try again tomorrow, than have the government swoop in to "fix" things and wake up to a Brave New World of their making.

Joe Knows Socialism

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that "income redistribution" is akin to Socialism. That's not the American Dream; the American Dream is closer to the Protestant Work Ethic: work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Plumber Joe Wuzelbacher confronts Obama about his tax plan:


Run on over to IBD to explore the link between Obama's philosophies and Socialism / agitprop. And with the Republican Bush administration buying into banks, we are one slippery slope away from having an economy unlike any our Founding Fathers has ever seen.