Obama Raises Taxes on the Poor . . . Whaaat?!?

Obama promised throughout the election that he would pay for his massive spending expenditures by taxing the rich. He said that he would only raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more. (Although his advisors said that he would raise taxes on those making as little as $75,000 or more.) I will not preach about the fact that taxing the successful to reward failure serves more to promote failure than encourage success, because most of the people who did not understand that in the first place have already become frustrated enough with my blog to stop reading. However, I do want to point to the politics of those accusations. It is about playing groups against other groups.

When Obama was campaigning, he was threatening to tax a minority of Americans (the rich) for the benefit of the rest of us. He was playing the minority against the majority. With a Federal Court system that does not believe in the principles of the Constitution, that is the best way to win in a democracy. However, the rich is not the only politically attractive minority group to attack, and if you look at Obama’s first tax increase, you will see that he understands entirely how to play the majority of Americans against the minority.

The majority of Americans do not smoke. Most Americans think it is disgusting habit in which they would not partake. That is great. It is bad for one’s health, and the majority of Americans are probably right. However, in the America I know, a person’s life is their own. If they want to smoke, as long as it does not impact those around them, then they should be allowed that right. While the right to smoke might be a priority to some voters, and seen as something they would support, it is most definitely a deciding issue only among a minority of voters. To Obama, this equals pay dirt.

Obama’s first big tax increase is on smokers. This plays well into the politics of using the big hand of government to play one group of Americans against another, but seems to fly in the face of his promise to tax the rich. According to a 2008 Gallup poll, “21% of Americans say they smoke.” However, “only 13% of those in the top two income brackets (those with incomes of $90,000 or more) say [they smoke.]” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105550/Among-Americans-Smoking-Decreases-Income-Increases.aspx

So based on this analysis, and the US Census data projections for 2008: http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/perinc/new01_001.htm, here is what we can conclude:

There are 44,676,980 people making less than $48,000 per year subject to Obama’s tax hike.

There are only 2,135,380 people making over $90,000 per year subject to Obama’s tax hike.

Therefore 2,092% more people are paying more taxes who make less than $48,000 per year, versus those who make over $90,000 per year.

So, there you have it. Obama will raise taxes on 13% of those making over $90,000 per year, and on 24% of those making less than $48,000 per year. Many of those who voted for Obama will be shocked that he raised taxes on the poor, but those of us who understand the politics of group dynamics, which was introduced to George W. Bush by Carl Rove, will understand completely this money grab. Anybody who read about Carl Rove’s method of running an election could only conclude that Obama took Rove’s method, and truly perfected it, to the determent of some working Americans.

So, now you ask yourself: I do not smoke, so why do I care?

The answer is this: You are in a minority. You may be a white, middle class protestant male, but you are a minority. If Obama can play the majority against you, you lose. You may own a gun. You are in the minority. You may bicycle to work. You are in the minority. You may own more than an acre of land. You are in the minority. You may live within one block of a subway terminal. You are in the minority. NO MATTER WHAT, YOU ARE A MINORITY. And if Obama decides you are in the "bad" minority group: YOU MUST PAY!

What We Needed Was Change

Americans elected Barak Obama solely on his promises to change the way things were being done in Washington. If I would have believed him, I might have voted for him. However, I did not believe him, and it turns out I was right not to believe him. Here is a list of the top three things that needed changing in Washington and Obama’s record so far:

1. Eliminate the power of lobbyists.

The first step in eliminating the power of lobbyists would be to reduce the size of government. Without a big bureaucracy to back their initiatives, lobbyists would have little for which to lobby. We all know, after Obama’s so called stimulus package that he will not reduce the size of government, but let’s see where his record stands on at least keeping a face of less lobbyist influence:

According to Boston Globe before Obama’s inauguration, “Barack Obama, who vowed during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House," said through a spokesman yesterday that he would allow lobbyists on his transition team as long as they work on issues unrelated to their earlier jobs.”

We all know that Dick Cheney’s job was not directly related to his ties at Halliburton, but we also know the results. Apparently, Obama can not see the simularities.

From ABC News, “Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration, a recent lobbyist for investment banking giant Goldman Sachs is in line to serve as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.”

From CNSNews.com, “Mark Patterson, a former lobbyist with the financial firm Goldman Sachs, will be chief of staff for newly appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, according to the National Journal.” Now there’s a coincidence.

And from Hotair.com, here is a comprehensive list, so far:

• Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
• Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
• William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
• William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
• David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
• Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
• Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
• Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
• Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
• Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
• Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

So, important change number one, it is safe to say, Obama failed.

2. Bush’s record deficits were perhaps the major cause of the current financial crisis. Let’s see Obama’s “Change”:

Bush’s record deficits were perhaps the major cause of the current financial crisis. Let’s see Obama’s change:

Obama says that he will cut “the one trillion dollar” deficit he inherited by half, but for those of you who graduated American schools, the deficit he inherited was slightly above $400 Billion. So, If he cuts a $1 Trillion deficit he created in half, it would still be more than any of Bush’s deficits.

3. We needed to restore the power of checks and balances by eliminating Bush’s abuse of executive orders. Let’s see Obama’s record:From WFN.com: In the first two weeks since taking office, President Obama has signed a record number of executive orders - eight in his first 11 days in office.

Promises, Promises

From the Washington Times:

Drug Enforcement Administration agents this week raided four medical marijuana shops in California, contrary to President Obama's campaign promises to stop the raids.

The White House said it expects those kinds of raids to end once Mr. Obama nominates someone to take charge of DEA, which is still run by Bush administration holdovers.

“The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

Medical use of marijuana is legal under the law in California and a dozen other states, but the federal government under President Bush, bolstered by a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, argued that federal interests trumped state law. [It is interesting to note here, that it was mainly the Conservative Justices on the Court that opposed this ruling, and the Liberals who supported it.]

Dogged by marijuana advocates throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly said he was opposed to using the federal government to raid medical marijuana shops, particularly because it was an infringement on states' decisions.

“I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," Mr. Obama told the Mail Tribune newspaper in Oregon in March, during the Democratic primary campaign.

He told the newspaper the "basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate."

Mr. Obama is still filling key law enforcement posts. For now, DEA is run by acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, a Bush appointee.

Special Agent Sarah Pullen [for you Obama voters out there, that is Pullen, not Palin] of the DEA's Los Angeles office said agents raided four marijuana dispensaries about noon Tuesday. Two were in Venice and one each was in Marina Del Rey and Playa Del Ray -- all in the Los Angeles area.

A man who answered the phone at Marina Caregivers in Marina Del Rey said his shop was the target of a raid but declined to elaborate, saying the shop was just trying to get back to operating.

Agent Pullen said the four raids seized $10,000 in cash and 224 kilograms of marijuana and marijuana-laced food, such as cookies. No one was arrested, she said, but the raid is part of an ongoing investigation seeking to trace the marijuana back to its suppliers or source . . .

"It's clear that the DEA is showing no respect for President Obama's campaign promises," said Dan Bernath, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, which advocates for medical marijuana and for decriminalizing the drug.

California allows patients whose doctors prescribe marijuana to use the drug. The state has set up a registry to allow patients to obtain cards allowing them to possess, grow, transport and use marijuana.

Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group in California, called the raids an attempt to undermine state law and said they were apparently conducted without the knowledge of Los Angeles city or police officials.

He said the DEA has raided five medical marijuana dispensaries in the state since Mr. Obama was inaugurated and that the first took place on Jan. 22 in South Lake Tahoe.

"President Obama needs to keep a promise he made, not just in one campaign stop, but in multiple speeches that he would not be spending Justice Department funds on these kinds of raids," Mr. Hermes said. "We do want to give him a little bit of leeway, but at the same time we're expecting him to stop this egregious enforcement policy that is continuing into his presidency."

He said he is aware that Mr. Obama has not installed his own DEA chief but that new Attorney General "Eric Holder can still suspend these types of operations."

The Justice Department referred questions to the White House.

Obama could have ended these raids, and helped a struggling business in the wake of an economic disaster, by simply issuing an executive order that the raids stop. I understand that the President did not have the time, having to conduct interviews with all mainstream media outlets, and these other important matters:

From the USA Today:

[Obama] plans to sign an executive order to create the White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (described as an expansion of President Bush's Office of Faith-based initiatives).

(I thought Democrats were all about a separation of Church and State.)

Obama signed an order Jan. 23 reversing the "Mexico City policy" -- a prohibition first implemented by Ronald Reagan, which forbade the U.S. government from sending money to overseas family-planning organizations that perform abortions or offer abortion counseling.

(Apparently, Obama does not support a tax payer’s right to choose not to support abortion. The mantra of the left should be, “I support your freedom of choice, as long as your choice coincides with what I think you should choose.”)

From Arkansas Independent Media [bare with me, this is grueling]:

One executive order, Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws, mandates that all government contracting departments and agencies include a provision in every government contract (other than a collective bargaining agreement and those involving purchases of less than $100,000) stipulating that the contractor post a notice "in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted both physically and electronically," informing them of their rights under federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act…

The second executive order issued Friday, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, requires that any federal service contracts and solicitations for such contracts include a clause requiring contractors and their subcontractors to offer existing employees the right of first refusal to take positions for which they are qualified under the new contract.

(If you are like me, you ask yourself, “doesn’t the President of the United States have more important matters to attend to in his first month in office?” If you are like Obama, you are asking yourself, “What could be more important than paying back those unions who sent me so much money in the campaign?” I am so glad the Democrats ended the “culture of corruption” in Washington. /Sarcasm now off)

From CNN:

Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

(Finally, Obama signs an order that sticks to his campaign promises, kind of. During the campaign, Obama was agreeing with most of us Libertarians that the policies displayed at Gitmo were a disgrace to the United States. However, Obama could have ended the problem immediately, if rather than saying within a year, he would have said NOW. Perhaps he did not think that Bush had the right to hold people without a warrant, nor formal accusations, but he has no problem with him holding the very same power.)

Obama is now President, and he is still hiding behind the “It’s all Bush’s Fault” mentality. I can understand such an attitude when it comes to the economy, but the raids this week on those practicing an activity which violated no state laws were purely within his power to stop. However, he had to first satisfy the wishes of the huge abortion industry, as well as big labor, who gave him big bucks during the campaign. I cannot see how more of the same attitude of, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” in Washington offers anyone hope. Yes, they are different backs, and different scratchers, but they are all using our tax dollars as the fingernails that fulfill the promise.

The Japanese; The Americans; And Making Babies

I came across a couple of different illustrations today of the difference between an optimistic society confronted by troubled financial times, and a pessimistic society encountering similar financial woes. The pessimistic society would be the United States. Our current President ran on the platform of HOPE, but there are those within his party who see Americans as hopeless. Here is what Nancy Pelosi said about three-quarters of a billion dollars of the economic stimulus package going to support “family planning groups.” (From this week with George Stephanopoulos.):

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Now here is what is happening in Japan, which is also faced with troubled times. (From CNN International):

TOKYO, Japan (CNN) -- Even before one reaches the front door of Canon's headquarters in Tokyo, one can sense the virtual stampede of employees pouring out of the building exactly at 5:30 p.m.

Japan's birth rate of 1.34 is below the level needed to maintain the country's population.

In a country where 12-hour workdays are common, the electronics giant has taken to letting its employees leave early twice a week for a rather unusual reason: to encourage them to have more babies.

"Canon has a very strong birth planning program," says the company's spokesman Hiroshi Yoshinaga. "Sending workers home early to be with their families is a part of it."

Japan in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country's low birthrate.

At 1.34, the birthrate is well below the 2.0 needed to maintain Japan's population, according to the country's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

Keidanren, Japan's largest business group, with 1,300 major international corporations as members, has issued a plea to its members to let workers go home early to spend time with their families and help Japan with its pressing social problem.

One reason for the low birth rate is the 12-hour workday. But there are several other factors compounding the problem -- among them, the high cost of living, and social rigidity toward women and parenting.

In addition, Japan's population is aging at a faster pace than any other country in the world.

Analysts say the world's second-largest economy faces its greatest threat from its own social problems, rather than outside forces. And the country desperately needs to make some fixes to its current social and work structures, sociologists say.

Canon says its 5:30 p.m. lights-out program is one simple step toward helping address the population problem. It also has an added benefit: Amid the global economic downturn the company can slash overtime across the board twice a week.

"It's great that we can go home early and not feel ashamed," said employee Miwa Iwasaki.

The Japanese have something going for them that the Americans do not. They understand that a person should produce more than they consume. If a person produces more than they consume, then they are a benefit to society. Therefore, the more Japanese people, the better off Japan is. In America, however, we are told, and government practices reinforce, the notion that it is alright to consume more than you produce. The conclusion leaders like Nancy Pelosi will draw from this mindset is: the more Americans there are, the worse off society is as a whole.

If you need more evidence that the Japanese are better producers, you need look no further than the financial situations of Japanese auto manufactures versus American manufactures. Until recently, American cars sold far more quantity than their Japanese counterparts. However, while the Japanese manufactures were turning a profit, the American companies were turning to the government for a hand out. The difference was that the Japanese companies paid their employees based on the value of the work they provided the company. The American workers expected to be paid more money, regardless of the value of their work. If the value of what they produced was $35,000 per year, a Japanese auto worker would probably paid around $35,000. However an American worker would demand closer to $40,000. When situations like this become widespread, then children become a burden on the nation, rather than an investment in the nation’s future.

Pelosi talks about how children are a burden on society because of the educational costs of supporting them. However, education should be an expense that pays for itself. If that is the case, it is an investment, not a burden. If it is a burden, it is a burden because government schools do not prepare students to be productive members of society. The Japanese do not look at children as a burden to society, because their schools prepare students for successful careers, and instill in them the moral values of living within their means.

I do not believe that the majority of Americans have passed the threshold of believing that they should consume more than they produce. However, because of government taxation and redistribution of wealth, those who produce must produce enough for themselves, and to cover some of the expense of those who don’t produce. It is in the American mindset to be able to spend the value of what you produce, so when one American is spending the entire value of what he produces, and another American is spending a portion of that production as well, then we are left with the tremendous debt, both public and private, that is the true burden to America.

Rather than looking at more Americans as a problem, and spending $750,000,000 to ensure that we create as few as possible, perhaps we should be thinking about how to make Americans more productive. Perhaps we should allow people to keep the money they earn, thus creating an incentive to be as productive as possible. Perhaps we should not be handing out money to those who produce nothing, thereby forcing them to produce something. Perhaps the government should set an example to the average consumer, and not consume more than they collect. (I say collect in terms of the government, because for the most part, the government produces nothing, and only collects, or steals, that which is produced by others.) I believe that at the heart of what makes an American an American is a desire to produce, and if we nurture that desire, then every American will be an asset to society, and perhaps we will all get some time off work to go procreate!

My Hopes for the New Administration

As Barak H. Obama, who has always talked about hope, is sworn in as President of the United States, I thought I would share my top three hopes for his new administration.

Hope 1: Obama will immediately abandon the liberal principles on which he ran, in order to serve the country, the same way Bush abandoned his principles to do what he thought was right for the country. (Remember Bush saying that the United States had no business "Nation Building" in 2000?)

Hope 2: I was wrong, and every experience throughout the history of man is a fluke, and you can actually create prosperity by punishing the most prosperous through taxation, and in so doing, create prosperity.

Hope 3: This is the most realistic of my hopes, but not my highest, as it may cause the recession to last longer than is necessary. My hope is that Obama will follow his principles, and America will see how dangerous said principles are. America would have to follow the same path it did in 1994, after 2 years of the Clinton Administration, in which we elected the most Libertarian leaning Congress of my lifetime, rather than the path of 1936, when America reelected FDR, whose only qualification was the fact that he ran the country for 4 years under the Depression that he helped to sustain. Clinton, after losing Congress, moved to the right, was reelected, and passed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (One of the best pieces of legislation of my lifetime.) Roosevelt extended the Depression for another 4 years, to the point that it took an international economy destroyed by the perils of war for us to be saved.

As to point number 3, I was watching the news at my mother-in-law's house over Christmas, and there was someone on there who actually still stuck to the presumption that FDR saved us from the Depression, despite near economic consensus that his policies extended the Depression. The guy actually claimed that it takes government spending to get us out of a recession. He was never asked why, after years of several billion dollar deficits, we got into this recession in the first place, but I guess that would require a member of the media to have some independent thought, to both question Obama, and Bush's policies at the same time.

The Economics of Emotion

I am going to suggest an experiment, but before conducting it in reality; I suggest conducting it in your mind. It is one that will combine economic theories with the world of emotions. The text book definition of economics is the study of who gets a limited quantity of resources, in a world of unlimited wants. I don’t like that definition, as I would prefer a definition more focused on the production of resources than the consumption; however, I believe it will do for this experiment.

There are two schools of thought on the answer to the above mentioned “fundamental question of economics.” (Some would argue that there are several schools, but other than the two I will mention, all others are diluted versions of the two true schools, with the possible exception of economic hedonism, which does not even claim to have any economic legitimacy on a large scale, so I will avoid it.) One school of thought is that all should produce as much as they can, and all should receive that which will most fully satisfy their basic economic needs. This school boils down to economic totalitarianism, or, by its other names, Socialism and Communism, and is best summed up by Karl Marx’s statement of, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” The other school states that everyone should produce as much as they are willing and able to produce, and they should trade what they produce for whatever goods they can get. This school of economic thought is Capitalism.

In the first school of thought, government is required to step in to ensure that everyone is producing as much as they can, and that nobody is getting more than they need. The only way to ensure fairness in this school of thought is for government to make sure that nobody is getting too much, and if someone is getting too much, the government should step in and spread out that wealth to those who are less economically satisfied. Some look at this type of society, and see everyone living equally, and think it is ideal.

In the second school of thought, there are lots of people who are unable to produce enough to satisfy their basic needs on one end of the economic scale, and there are a lot of people who produce enough to not only satisfy their basic needs, but also enough to live a life of luxurious consumption on the other side. Government has a much more limited role in this type of society, and its primary focus is to ensure that nobody takes that which they did not produce, or that which they did not fairly trade something to get. Some people will look at this type of society, and see the contrast between the rich and the poor, and say that it is unfair.

It is hard, without totally overhauling government, to test the two theories economically, since it is only the government that has the power to rob from the rich and give to the poor. However, most of us do have the power to test the two theories in the world of happiness. As I look around me, I see many people who are happy, and others who are miserable. (There are economically rich and poor in both groups.) An emotional socialist will look at these two groups, and say that it is an unfair state that brings this about, and we should do all that we can to even things out. However, an emotional capitalist will look at these two groups, and won’t care. They will be satisfied with whatever happiness they can create for themselves.

To conduct this experiment, it is important to do it to those close to us, since those will be the people over whom we have the most emotional power. If one person you are close to is happy, and either you or someone else close to you is unhappy, then to test Socialism, I say that all unhappy parties start poking fun at the person who is happy, so that the unhappy parties may be able to get some level of joy out of the situation, and knock the other person down a notch. You will help to bring about the Socialist ideal of “fairness.” If someone you are close to finds a lot of joy in doing something, and you do not, then ask the person to stop doing that which gives them joy, in exchange for something that will give both of you some smaller level of joy. Again, you will help to bring about the socialist ideal of “fairness.”

To test the economic idea of capitalism, do whatever it is that makes you happy, as long as it does not involve “stealing” another person’s happiness. If hanging out with your friends makes you happy, do it, as long as you are not making your friends unhappy. If spending time with your family makes you happy, do it, as long as it does not make your family unhappy. If smoking makes you happy, do it, as long as it is not making someone else unhappy. If drinking or doing drugs makes you happy, do it, as long as it will not lead you to do things that will make you or someone else unhappy. Crate your happiness however you can, but do not ask anyone else to partake in any activity that would make you happy, if it would make them unhappy (as that would be emotional socialism.) If sharing your happiness with others makes you happy, then do it (although not to make them happy, but because it makes you happy to do it.) If someone is irrationally unhappy, not because you are bothering them, but because they think it is unfair that you are happy and they are not, then you are not "stealing" their happiness. They are emotional parasites who create no happiness of their own, and feed off of the happiness of others.

There have been times in my life when I have tested the two economic theories in the above mentioned fashion. I did not do it with the intention of testing economics, but I did it nevertheless. I have found, and I am sure you will too, that practicing the theory of socialism in the realm of emotions resulted in me acting jealous and mean, and while it may have been done with the intention of lifting my happiness at the expense of someone else’s happiness, and to achieve an ideal of “fairness,” the result was a complete drainage of the happiness of all those around me. When I have practiced the emotional idea of capitalism, I have created happiness for myself, and I wore a smile, and my happiness made those around me want to create their own happiness, and find joy in life.

For all of those capitalists out there, I ask that you practice your economic ideals in your personal, emotional life, and it will create happiness for you and those around you. And what creates happiness in your circle of friends and family when practiced on the emotional level will create wealth for all of society when practiced on the economic level. For those socialists out there, I will warn you not to practice your economic theory in your personal, emotional life, as it will destroy happiness for you and those around you. And what destroys happiness in your circle of friends and family when practiced on the emotional level will destroy wealth for all of society when practiced on the economic level.

Libertarian Tax Talk

My previous post begged a question: If government is necessary to maintain peace, but government can not justly take the product of an individual’s labor with force, then how should government, once established, fund itself.

Most of us understand that you can’t spend money that you do not have. The typical politician in Washington seems to not understand that, being November had a record national deficit, but the truth remains: You can only spend what you have (or in the case of deficit spending, what you plan on having in the future. Therefore, that record national deficit last month will eventually come due, and it will be up to us, or our children, to pay for it. As anyone who follows the news knows, a pyramid scheme can not last forever, and the government borrowing more money to pay the debt that it already borrowed is a pyramid scheme on a grand scale.) So the government needs money. But they can not justly confiscate the income of a citizen without that citizen’s consent. So how, then, could government create revenue to fund its necessary functions?

The first part of the answer is to focus on the necessary functions of government. Those necessary functions are only those vital activities that could not be handled safely by the private sector. Those functions that are handled by the private sector, or that are not vital, should not be handled by the government. Once all of those programs are eliminated, then government’s tab decreases substantially. However, the government will still need money, albeit in smaller amounts.

To foot the bill, the government can charge for the services that it provides by those who require the use of said services, or those who create the situation in which those services are needed. The first group would include all of us who depend on a functioning economy for the exchange of goods and services. The second group would include the criminals, who force the state to maintain a criminal justice system.

I will start with the second group, because an explanation of how they can compensate for their actions is simple enough. They will continue to pay fines for crimes committed, as they do now.

The first group is a little more complicated. All of us depend on the services of the civil justice system, even if we did not set foot in a courtroom in our lives. When we engage in an economic activity, we do so with the understanding that if the service or product we were rendered, or the compensation that we received for providing a service or product, is less than what was agreed to, we have the ability to take the offending party to court to receive the actual value or compensation that we deserve. This arrangement is enough to deter most of us from engaging in fraudulent economic activity, and since we are all receiving the benefit from this process, we should all contribute in proportion to the benefits we receive. However, this must be voluntary to be just.

The way that I would suggest providing this compensation is as follows: For any transaction to be supported by the courts, a small percentage of the value of what is being exchanged should be given to the government. If you are willing to engage in transactions without the security of it being backed by the civil justice system, then you would not have to pay the tax. For instance, when I go to the grocery store, I tend to pay for my purchases with a debit card. In that transaction, there are several parties involved, who all require some sort of trust. I trust that the food I am purchasing is untainted. The store trusts that the bank will pay on the demand of my debit card. The bank trusts that I will have enough money in my account to cover my spending. All of this trust is backed by the fact that if anyone of us faults on this trust, the offended party can bring a law suit. Therefore, if all three of those parties would wish to maintain that security under my proposed system, they would all volunteer to pay a small fee to the government to secure that right. If none of the parties wanted that security, then they would have to pay no taxes, but they would also have no protection against fraudulent activities.

Some businesses could, theoretically, in this system, establish themselves as so trustworthy, that one could do business with them without the security of the civil justice system. As a reward for this level of trust earned, they could avoid paying much of the taxes that a business who is constantly violating the trust of its constituents must pay. Those who require the government more, will be subjected to paying more.

There are several other ways where the government will be able to earn revenue, not mentioned above, but equally just. Some just taxes are already on the books. Most states now have lotteries. Nobody is forced to play the lottery, but some choose to do so. They are paying the taxes by choice, so therefore it is just. When going on the PA turnpike, I pay a toll. Nobody forces me to pay the toll, but I do because it is convenient. That tax is just. There are several other examples.

Government was established to prevent people from stealing from one another, but the government has grown to be the biggest thief of all, with the explanation that their thievery is necessary to pay for the services they offer. I have shown that government does not need to be a thief. Compulsory taxation is not a requirement for government to receive necessary revenue, but unfortunately, those who depend on the government for their often extravagant livelihood, convinced us that it is the only way to pay the bills.