Posted on 03/01/2013 6:42:43 AM PST by marktwain
The ‘need’ word has infected political rhetoric. President Obama recently suggested that we should eliminate certain tax loopholes because some taxpayers are doing just fine and they don’t need tax relief, i.e. the money. More troubling, he didn’t argue that the government had new and pressing obligations, requiring increased revenues, nor did he argue that the government’s need for the money was relatively greater than that of the taxpayers. He made the social justice argument. You should be allowed to keep the wealth that you need.
The government identifies monetary need in a curious fashion. Current spending (consumption) is generally regarded as meeting some need; deferred spending, such as savings and investment is not. In fact, it is a marginally suspect activity.
So, to summarize; if taxpayers save or invest, rather than spend their money, it is evidence that the taxpayer doesn’t need (or never needed) the money. Ironically once the government acquires the money, spending is often characterized as investment . Apparently ‘government investments’ do pass the needs test.
The ‘need’ word has surfaced in other contexts. Gun owners are reminded that that no one needs a high capacity magazine. That may be news to the guy with a bear wandering about his campsite or to a woman dealing with a dangerous stalker. We are told the everyone needs health insurance, even those who are financially capable or those who are satisfied with the limited or carefully tailored coverage they already have.
Government ambition is pervasive. Increasingly, citizens are required to pass some arbitrary needs test in order to exercise their first and second amendment rights or to maintain their economic autonomy.
It is important to note that the loopholes that the president finds so distressing are very often the end products of previous government efforts to influence the behavior of the citizens. Now that he wants to influence them to behave differently, he employs political language creatively. He doesn’t argue against individual rights or advocate for an expansion of governmental power. The president simply dismisses those concerns as unimportant, superseded by social justice considerations, rather than the limits of the law.
The constitution guarantees the rights of the citizens. The government, on the other hand, has no natural rights, only constitutionally-imposed duties.
If the president wants to argue that he needs additional revenue to meet the constitutional obligations of government, he should do so. We are free to amend the constitution and to have our Congress change the laws. But no president should promote expansions of limited government authority in the name of need. The government is entitled to lawfully extract by taxation the monies necessary to meet their constitutional responsibilities. A taxpayer’s need (or lack thereof) for his own money isn’t a relevant consideration, nor a legitimate concern of the government.
Right out of Karl Marx's manifesto. Surprised? I think not.
“NEED”
Just another in the now endless list of words that are now bastardized by the “they” hordes!
Words I try not to use….
Semper Blogging!
*****
I keep telling the Leftists i work around that the more power they give to the government, the closer they come to being livestock. The progression is: Slavery, where they depend upon the government and are usually treated humanely because of the laws. Pet-hood where they become property of the government and the laws against putting them down are pretty irrelevant. Finally reaching Livestock, they exist only at the pleasure and need of the government and have as many rights as the cow that donated the flesh for that nice steak.
I usually get a bunch of empty (bovine) stares.
If these needs are defined as human rights, then its a legitimate objective of the government to secure them for the people.
We’re accepting European values and Europeans don’t mind paying crushing taxes so the state will look after them. Anger in Europe happens when the state fails to hold up its end of the social compact.
A cradle to grave system delivers security and equality but it comes at the cost of liberty and autonomy. Increasingly though, in the Western World, people want that kind of trade-off.
You get into very dangerous ground when you start allowing government to define your ‘needs’.
-Technically, you only need to eat much more basic, unprepared, raw foods, cheaper and easier to produce,, no meat, and arguably more healthy; Gruel. Sack of flour, and rice and beans. Enjoy.
-Clothing, a Mao suite for you. You don’t “need” anything else.
-Shelter: Stack and pack in a Agenda 21 housing development, share facilities with neighbors, maybe even kitchens and bathrooms.
-Transportation; cars? LOL, heck no. Trains and only when the government thinks you “need” to travel.
-Entertainment? Only what the government thinks you “need” to see and hear.
-Medical care? You don’t “need” a specialist. A pain pill for you, you are going to eventually die anyway.
“From each according to their abilities, too each according to their needs” -Marx
“NEED”...wanting what someone else has worked for.
“GREED”...wanting to keep what one has worked for.
“COMPASSION”...the policy by which politicians arrange the redistribution
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.