Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Read My Lips! MORE New Taxes?




The top video, of course, comes from the former president George H. W. Bush (or, shorthand Bush 41). He made this promise and terrific soundbite during his successful 1988 presidential campaign.

We've come quite a ways since then. I read recently that state governments are proposing making new or increasing taxes on a wider variety of goods and services. The local example is the governor's so-called "obesity tax" which will tax the stuff that increases that particular health risk. It includes all non-diet sodas. The bottom video highlights this. It's easy for for me to sit here and be OK with that, since I don't drink that much soda, diet or otherwise.

But it does make an interesting point. What are the limits of taxation? When is it too much. (Some may argue that any tax is too much.) Another side of the issue is this: Why are we so surprised and outraged when we hear phrases like "obesity tax" floated?

I should make one thing clear at this point. I am all for paying taxes. It's our duty as citizens to pay our taxes to help the government carry out its business. But this doesn't mean that every tax is necessary and/or fair. And our government gives us the right to peacefully express our disapproval and disappointment at those taxes we feel are unnecessary and/or unfair. So please, dear reader, pay your taxes!

The issue here is why we get upset when ideas like the obesity tax are foisted upon us. I believe there are a couple reasons for this. And, yes, both sides of the political spectrum are to blame.

Let's start with the left. We all know about the stereotypical "tax and spend liberal". You know, the one who wants to raise taxes to fund every government program with a bloated budget, no matter how crazy or unimportant or obscene it may be. Unlike others, this stereotype has a nugget of truth in it. Some of us do see value in a variety of things and feel that the government should help pay for it. After all, we never know what we will learn or the good that will come from it. And without government assistance, the gains will never be made. And the best way to get said money is from the taxpayers.

Moving on to the right. Here we work in the stereotype of the evil conservative who hates just about everything except Big Business. He or she wants to cut funding for things that make the world better and funnel all that saved money into military defense. Like its cousin in the above paragraph, this stereotype also contains a nugget of truth. Some of us do think that while these programs are probably important to somebody, the government has more pressing issues on which to spend its cash. The cash that the government does get does come from taxpayers, who should be giving less of it. Cut spending, reduce taxes.

Both are good valid, arguments. It's not hard to see why people are confused and outraged. From the ratcheted-up rhetoric of both parties, an interesting phenomenon has occurred. A new idea has emerged. Somehow, Americans have gotten it into their heads that you can have everything and you don't have to pay for it. Where did this come from? I argue that it is from the people we choose and elect to lead us. Maybe not on purpose, maybe by design. But, I believe it is their use of "wedge issues" that shift the focus from things of substance to things of style. Prime examples: Flag burning. Flip-flopping. You name it. All designed to act like mental rodeo clowns (or quites, for you bullfighting aficionados).

I see why people are upset. Are our leaders listening?

No comments: