Posted on 10/19/2009 4:56:09 PM PDT by UAConservative
This is the original manuscript that I submitted to the Crimson White, my campus newspaper. While I understand their need to edit the size of the article, they truncated much of the content that I believe was necessary to explain my position. I know that they could have included it because I was under the 800 word limit. The published article can be found at the source URL. Anyhow, here goes...
(Begin)
Candidate’s Progressive Views Troubling
Gregory Poole
I am appalled at the brazenness of State House candidate Susan Pace Hamill’s approach on taxation as quoted in the October 15 article extolling her causes on taxes and education. After the article came out online yesterday morning, I promptly read some of her published works and remarks, and I’m a bit leery of her campaign stance versus these publications. I’m probably going to step on some toes, but I make no apologies.
To begin, I believe that Ms. Hamill is rightly concerned with Alabama’s public education system, since our schools are not achieving high proficiency scores, and illiteracy is nearly 25%. Her plan? By allocating $10,000 per student, Alabama would be able to provide a moderate opportunity for success. While I’m indifferent on this aspect, the other point made in her Hofstra Law Review article concerns me deeply. She advocates allocating a minimum of 40% additional funds per student in poorer districts, bringing that total to $14,000 per student.
No doubt, I do want students from impoverished districts to succeed, but this is not accomplished through her proposed redistribution of wealth from average and upper income families to lower income earners, all the while raising the salaries of unionized teachers that are almost impossible to fire even if they have poor performance records.
According to her law article, all but four states have education budgets that even come close to matching her thesis, and she even criticizes those as violating “Judeo-Christian ethics.” With this in mind, the average Alabama education budget per student would have to be doubled for all students, and even tripled for impoverished students. Barry Goldwater was right in the sense that the problem isn’t a quantity problem--we’ve tried this for 40 years and it’s gotten us nowhere--but rather a quality problem. Her approach doesn’t even come close to addressing the individual needs of a student, but rather of the bodypolitik. We must educate individuals that contribute to society, not the reverse.
Nevertheless, if we were to institute Ms. Hamill’s plan, we would need a significant source of funding. This is not apparent according to her campaign website and statements in the CW article. In fact, her plan is to cut taxes while creating the largest spending hike in Alabama history. I am doubtless that the average reader cheers the idea of more education and less taxes.
But where will this revenue come from, since we can’t go into deficit spending according to state law? She has to know this, so now the question becomes: who will get the tax cut? Again, her published works provide insight. She castigates the Bush Administration’s tax cuts as atheistic and objectivist in the Virginia Tax Review, as well as the Alabama income and sales tax structures in the Hofstra article. Furthermore, she asserts that the poor should have a higher taxable income threshold and promotes a progressive income tax structure.
To illustrate this, in a speech to the Progressive think-tank Baptist Center for Ethics in June 2008, Ms. Hamill goes on a rant detailing how Judeo-Christian ethics only embraces the progressive tax structure. To make things worse, she excoriates the doctors, accountants, lawyers, etc. that occupy the pews every Sunday, accusing them of being un-Christian for not giving a higher percentage of their income than those in the congregation that are impecunious. So according to Ms. Hamill’s plan, those below the poverty line will probably pay nowhere near the amount they receive in benefits, which translates to redistribution of wealth, or gaining something for nothing. All of this occurs while goring UA alum’s paychecks in the name of “social justice,” because statistically we will make more money over our lifetimes.
After all of this, there is one simple choice, and that is to either defeat her in the primary or general election. About 100 years ago, Progressives imposed this sort of taxation and education ideology in the name of “Judeo-Christian ethics.” It was a perfect ruse. In fact, The Communist Manifesto calls for all three components of Ms. Hamill’s plan: progressive income tax, state-run education, and the use of the pulpit to cram the agenda down the throats of laymen under the premise of “being good Christians.” Personally, I find it repugnant to craft legislation based on my religious beliefs, as it’s not my place to force my set of Christian ethics on those who disagree, especially when it comes to collective property rights. This creates a “tyranny of the majority,” and a theocracy for that matter. The primaries are still 8 months away, but please remember her previously published and spoken views and cast your votes on these grounds.
That is well written. You should get an A+ easy!
Better than I write.
“Better than I write.”
I would add that UAConservative writes with very good development of topic and with a masterful command of the English language.
He obviously is a young man mature much beyond his years. He will go far in life.
See, someone else who writes better than I do.
=o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.