Again, it’s a philosophy

One of the articles I was asked to write for the Patriot Post this week delves into a recent Washington Times story by Chuck Neubauer about a sweetheart deal that involves a company Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband runs, CB Richard Ellis, and legislation she introduced to allow the FDIC to use $25 billion in TARP money to prevent home foreclosures.

I’m not writing here to get into the nuts and bolts of that deal. Instead the story points out yet again that the difference between government as practiced and as our Founders intended remains a chasm, and the gap seemingly only grows wider with each passing day.

People can argue all day about whether Feinstein and her husband intentionally flouted Senate ethics rules or were interested in adding to their already sizable fortune through the contract in question; however, my query is about what possesses someone who is entrusted by the public to represent their best interests to be involved in any questionable situation where she can benefit from taxpayer money?

And the problem isn’t one of having a working spouse, far from it. The problem is the cavalier attitude about spending the taxpayer’s money to prevent foreclosures – a problem which had at least some of its origin in the very government attempting to bail it out.

Much of the anger expressed at our Tea Parties was directed toward politicians who failed to see that government could not and should not attempt to serve as the solution to all of our (real or imagined) problems. But it’s not only politicians; they simply serve as a convenient scapegoat. Too many in society joke about getting their share of the bailout, yet the problem isn’t financial. The problem is one of expectations, as far too many in the public have been conditioned to expect a handout.

A prime example of this comes at tax day – the very day we here in Salisbury stood in the pouring rain and cold to protest – when most filers assume they’ll get a handsome tax refund but forget that all they’re doing is getting money which was confiscated from them over the course of 52 weeks back in one lump sum – without interest. (For the purpose of this argument, I’ll ignore the fact that many are simply getting a handout from the federal government because they don’t pay taxes in the first place.) In truth, a prudent government would not take enough money to give you that large sum back.

Nor would a prudent government be such an alluring target for scam artists who ponder ways to enrich themselves by adding a pork amendment for a favored constituent or writing arcane provisions designed to punish particular behavior or reward another. For just as surely as shifting the rules of the game to tilt in one’s favor, myriad financial interests vie for a place at the table of government in a neverending effort to use the tax code to reward or punish behavior.

Even the FairTax, which I prefer to our current byzantine system, does modify behavior to an extent by favoring non-consumption or reuse over buying items anew. In one respect that is an argument for retaining a flat tax based on income or money earned, but on the whole I believe a consumption tax is better. In either case, only enough revenue should be raised to do those functions the federal government is assigned to do by the Constitution.

Certainly, honorable men and women need to be elected to legislate that which government needs to do. But it’s been my longstanding belief too that if you provide less of a temptation for scofflaws, their behavior will improve. If you don’t have that cookie jar in the first place, the kid’s not going to sneak over and take out a half-dozen chocolate chip cookies while you’re not looking.

It’s up to us to rid government at all levels of as many cookie jars as we can, because that’s a diet we the people can all live and prosper with.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.