On the Norquist Tax Pledge

So, as the fiscal cliff talks continue, some Republicans seem insistent on demonstrating that they are spineless cowards who are completely unwilling to take a stand in the name of principle.  The most recent example?  The expressed willingness by some to ignore Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge.

Grover Norquist, or "The Overlord"

Now, this is not going to be some defense of Grover Norquist, though he most certainly has the right idea.  No, this has far more to do with the liberal obsession over him and the feckless politicians on the "right" side of the aisle who want to violate the tax pledge they took.

First, the obsession.  It is highly aggravating when people talk about Grover Norquist like he is God.  Not only is it aggravating, it is bizarre when they act like he has some sort of power over them to force them to not raise taxes.

Norquist is a man.  Nothing more, nothing less.  He is not some terrible god of thunder who will strike down politicians who stray from what he believes is right.  Neither is he important nor powerful in any meaningful way.  I don't say that to slight the man, for as I said before, he has the right idea.  However, it is shameful and embarrassing when people on both sides try to use him as a scapegoat for their feckless behavior.  Stop and own up to your actions.

Then there are the people who want to ignore the tax pledge that they have taken.  Now, one can argue about whether or not the pledge is a good idea, workable or what have you.  The problem does not lie in the pledge itself.  It lies in the fundamental character flaws that cause one to break a pledge for political expediency.

After all, let us be honest.  The Republicans who are banging the anti-Norquist drum are not doing so because they have had a legitimate change of heart.  They are doing so because it is (seemingly) politically expedient for them to dump fiscal conservatism to look like they are being "bipartisan."

Of course, the correct term is "cowards."

They are cowards for two reasons.  The first is that they are turning their backs on a principled position, as I mentioned before.  Instead of taking a stand for the right thing, as they were elected to do, they are instead more worried about their careers.

However, and perhaps more damning, is their willingness to reject the pledge.  Do their words have no meaning?  They made a promise, no matter what one thinks of its importance or wisdom.  This is not some fickle pinky swear on a schoolyard playground.  They are adults.  Their words have meaning.  And when they say they are willing to break their word for such a cheap reason, it diminishes them, their office and the political system as a whole.

They should be ashamed.

On Why Taxes are Viewed Wrong

So, with the "Fiscal Cliff" battle raging in Washington right now, I'm hearing lots of talk about taxation.  Specifically, Democrats want taxes to go up on the highest earners in any deal that averts the cliff and Republicans want to avoid raising taxes on anyone.  You can guess which one I am in favor of.

I think this debate brings up an important question: what is the proper way to view taxes?  If this seems like a confusing question, read on.

The IRS building.  Because there weren't better pictures.

Let us start off by defining the issue.  This is based off of personal observation alone, but the prevailing view of taxation today seems to be that the collected money is the "government's money."  It seems to suggest that the government is owed that money and indeed deserves it.  It assumes that the government is the only entity capable of effectively spending that money and thus should get that money no matter what.  After all, one cannot call for "tax fairness" without assuming that the money belongs to no one but the government.  It would not be unfair to anyone if it belonged only to the individual who earned it.

The real question then becomes "why is this viewpoint wrong?"

First, we need to redefine what taxes are.  It is not the government's money.  We are legally obligated to pay them to the government, but that does not mean that the government owns it or "deserves" it.  Instead, taxes should be seen as "money entrusted to the government by the people for its continued and proper function."

Taxation has now become a farce, where instead of people giving their money, understanding the necessity of and, therefore, in a way desiring it to go to the government, we now look at tax day with dread and apprehension.  We are forced to hand over our hard-earned money to an entity that absolutely refuses to be responsible with it and then spends beyond what we, as a people, give it.  I have yet to figure out what the 1+ trillion dollars of deficit spending is on.  Heck, I don't really know what the governments spends the money it actually takes in on. 

On top of that, the government spends that money on purposes ranging from frivolous, like turtle tunnels, to immoral, like Planned Parenthood.  To use the latter as an example, I am ardently pro-life (if that wasn't already obvious), yet my taxes (when I eventually pay them; the joys of unemployment) will go to this organization which primarily performs abortions.  I know there are those who say Planned Parenthood provides other services and that it can not spend federal money on abortion.  My answers?  The former is irrelevant to the fact that their chief business is abortion.  The latter is just asinine.  Who actually believes that PP partitions the money?  That would be both inefficient and difficult to track.  It also does not change the fact that tax money goes to fund America's largest abortion provider, whether or not it directly funds abortions.

Why is the government funding something like that?  Non-abortion services aside, it still performs abortions, which a good number of people find abhorrent.  Yet, they are forced by law to help an organization that makes millions per year slaughtering hundreds of thousands of children like they are cattle.

Before you argue that I want to burn the government down (or something equally stupid), I genuinely can not think of a single person who actually thinks that the government should not get some kind of financing, smears against fiscal conservatives aside. The problem is when the government demands our money of us so it can spend more on God-knows-what (and I'm pretty sure only God knows).

If the American people knew their Constitution (and there are a good many who do, don't get me wrong), they would realize that the federal government's top priority, as dictated by the Constitution, is the civil defense and international treaties and interaction.  Nowhere is the government supposed to provide us entitlements or pet projects for our districts and states.

I would be comfortable giving the government my taxes if it spent that money on its priorities first and then spent the surplus on whatever it deems necessary/useful.

Like debt reduction.

Perhaps when people start seeing taxed money as their money, as opposed to the government's, they may start caring about it more.