Tax Dollars at Work... Yours!

They say that if you stack the US Tax Code one page upon another, the pile of paper will reach into the heavens. I’m sure that’s true, for two very simple reasons.

First, like most laws written in Washington, those seeking special consideration in the code have lobbied for language that addresses their individual concerns, and nearly everyone is seeking special consideration these days. Second, if "we the people" knew exactly what Washington was doing with all of our hard earned money, there would be a lynch mob on the steps of congress before sundown…so keeping the details buried in a mountain of legal jargon might be a matter of life and death, at least for a few politicians.

As an example, most American taxpayers are aware of that little piece of case law known as Roe vs. Wade, which has resulted in the senseless murder of more than 40 million innocent American children and most US taxpayers oppose this inhumane affront on the Constitutional Right to Life.

But most are not aware that every taxpayer in America is subsidizing the practice. That’s right; atop the list of legitimate Medical Expense Deductions in the IRS Code is Abortion, which means every US taxpayer is picking up the tab.

In addition to written tax code, we have the equivalent of case law, (activist administrators, just like activist judges), whereby a single individuals interpretation is often used to expand the scope of the written law, providing special consideration for special interests not specifically addressed in the written code itself.

Such is the case with a recent taxpayer funded Sex Change Operation. Generally speaking, elective, specifically cosmetic surgeries such as breast augmentations, face lifts or liposuction, are not deductible as a medical expense from ones personal taxes, appropriately so.

However a tax examiner’s refusal to allow the medical expenses related to Rhiannon O'Donnabhain's sex-change operation was recently overturned and allowed by IRS Commissioner Mark Everson. "This important decision recognizes that sex reassignment can be as medically necessary for some people as an appendectomy or heart bypass surgery," said GLAD attorney Karen Loewy, Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

What some argue is a physical birth defect; others argue is simply a mental malfunction. Either way, "we the self-governed", have a Right to decide if our tax dollars will be used to pay for things such as abortion or sex change operations.

On December 14, 2004, the Traditional Values Coalition issued a letter to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, urging him to reverse his decision which allowed the use of tax dollars to fund sex change operations.

They have also prepared an E-Mail Campaign asking American taxpayers to join in their effort to stop the IRS from funding gender-reassignment procedures with taxpayer money. The same should be done regarding public reimbursement of abortion expenses.

This is just the beginning. Over the years, our tax dollars have been increasingly redirected from there legitimate intended purposes, to literally thousands of misguided special interest programs that the taxpayers themselves would never knowingly support.

This is accomplished by quietly altering tax code to provide a deduction, a reduction in tax obligation for those having an abortion or sex change operation in this case, at the ultimate expense of taxpayers who predominantly oppose these procedures.

If congress introduced a law asking for direct public support by means of specifically funding such programs, the bill would never make it to a floor vote, and any member of congress who supported the bill would likely have a very short political career.

So instead, these funding modifications are done by means of tax deductions, hidden in mountains of tax code that even tax preparers don’t fully understand. The American taxpayers only see a growing federal budget, and a shrinking paycheck, having no real idea where all that money is going.

For every deduction in the tax code, there is a politician who is responding to the demand of a constituent somewhere. There are thousands of them today and not even those who make their living as tax preparers know them all.

When the Bush administration talks about simplifying the tax code, many taxpayers jump for joy. But many others dependent on public financial support, even those seeking public financial assistance with their abortion or sex change, cringe at the thought of anyone opening the tax code for scrutiny.

The 2004 election was decided largely on the basis of restoring traditional American moral values. But we can’t just stop at the voting booth once every four years, returning to our couch and TV remote as though our work here is done.

As we have seen over and over, even alleged conservatives in Washington often find themselves on the wrong side of these issues, pressured by Hollywood, a media with an "everything goes" left-wing agenda, and the very squeaky wheel of secular special interest activists.

It will take years to unravel and reverse all the damage done to our society as we slept peacefully assuming our elected officials were standing watch. True conservatives must now finish what we started in the 2000 and 2004 elections. We must remain engaged and involved for the duration, taking personal responsibility for returning America to its heritage of traditional moral values.

It isn’t enough to simply block repeated attacks on our entire value system, leaving a vacuum of non-values in our wake. We have to be pro-active, replacing immoral and inhumane values with virtues that protect Life and promote a healthy society.

Getting behind this effort to stop public funding of Sex Change Operations is as good a place to start as any. We can’t afford to shrink from our personal responsibility to act every time an opportunity arises; we have to be in this for the long haul.

We also can’t afford to worry about what names we will be called as a result of our efforts! We are "conservatives", and in most cases "Christians". There’s not much worse one can be called these days anyway…other than maybe "rich" too, a lethal combination that makes you everyone’s target!

The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time

"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.

The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."^{Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).}

"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." ^{The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...}

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.