Posted on 11/21/2011 10:24:34 AM PST by Kaslin
I want to do a specific thing. So does my brother. You want to do the same thing. Our friend doesn’t agree. Nor does your brother. What’s our solution? We can petition the federal government to compel their compliance!
Seriously, we can do that.
Two weeks ago, America witnessed the absurdity of a relatively obscure law when the Obama administration announced a 15-cent tax on Christmas trees. After the diligent research of The Heritage Foundation prompted a public outcry, the administration quickly postponed (but not eliminated) the tax.
Perhaps more interesting is how the tax came about. The National Christmas Tree Association tried and failed three separate times to set up their own voluntary promotion fund. Some tree growers wanted it. Some tree growers didn’t. Their solution, though not novel, was to have the federal government impose the tax on all the growers.
Commodity promotions boards exist for a whole host of products. According to a 2008 Congressional Research Service report, Congress now authorizes 18 of these so-called check-off programs; including, beef, blueberries, cotton, dairy products, eggs, fluid milk, Hass avocados, honey, lamb, mangos, mushrooms, peanuts, popcorn, pork, potatoes, sorghum, soybeans, and watermelons. For the most recent year data was collected, the combined cost of these programs was more than $780 million. If you consumed one of those products, that money basically came from you.
Some of the promotion boards’ advertisements are familiar: Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner and Pork: The Other White Meat. And more of them could be on the way! Canola and rapeseed, wheat, flowers, kiwifruit, limes, and pecans have all been authorized for their own check-off programs.
This absurd logic – we’ll force you to pay for something you do not want to do – extends beyond silly commodity check-off programs, though.
Last week, 21 millionaires arrived on Capitol Hill to lobby Congress to raise their taxes. Dubbed the “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,” the group is seeking a new tax bracket for households earning more than $1 million per year. Their preferred rate would be 39.6%.
These millionaires believe, as Vice President Joe Biden does, that paying higher taxes is “patriotic.” They believe it is their obligation and duty; the right thing to do. Fortunately, for them, the federal government has empowered them to be patriotic. The Bureau of the Public Debt is allowed to accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public.
Perfect! These 21 millionaires, and all those who agree, have a perfectly legal outlet to contribute their unwanted money to pay down our massive debt. And believe it or not, this actually happens. During the past decade, Americans have gifted the federal government nearly $20 million.
Granted, it’s not a lot of money, but it is more than these so-called “patriotic” millionaires are willing to do. One of the millionaires responded that individual donations to the federal government “are not going to help anybody.” Another said, “this is not charity, we’re not doing charity here, taxes are not charity.” A third said, “any one individual is just for show.”
The funny thing is that considering our problem is massive overspending, raising taxes is just for show. Think about it this way. In 2007, well after the so-called “Bush Tax Cuts”, the federal government collected $2.567 billion in revenue. In 2005, the federal government spent $2.471 billion. If we could have frozen spending in 2005, we would have had a $96 billion surplus in 2008. By contrast, next year’s deficit is expected (again) to surpass $1 trillion, as spending remains well above $3.5 trillion.
Rather than leading by example and convincing their fellow millionaires to unite and pay down the debt, they are lobbying Congress to compel them to pay more. It doesn’t matter whether their millionaire friends intend to use the money to create jobs, expand their business, buy a new work truck or donate it to charity – these 21 millionaires think they know how to distribute everyone’s hard earned money better.
It’s the same mentality as the National Christmas Tree Association: not everyone agrees with us, and we won’t act on our own, so we’ll have the government ride to the rescue. That’s not the proud history of America, nor is it the recipe to future success.
From Zero Hedge:
The European Investment Bank (EIB) Ski Slope Goes Black Diamond!
http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com
There is no restraint on politicians in the US or Europe. They will GROW, not cut, spending. Look at Europe!!!
There ought to be a religious discrimination argument in here somewhere, in that the 15 cent tax applies only to Christmas trees, an item related to Christian religious celebrations (yeah, I know, never mind the Christmas tree’s pagan origins).
Sooooo, let's get this straight. My neighbor owns a tree company, and so do I.
I decide that I want to do a special advertising campaign for generic Christmas trees grown in our state.
I knock on his door, ask him to split the bill for ad creation with me by contributing 15% of the cost. He refuses, thinking it's not a great idea.
I keep going back, and he continues to reject my proposal.
Knowing it would be illegal for me to enter his place and "take" the $15 of every hundred I've spent, because I might go to jail for stealing, I have another idea.
I go to my Congressman, tell him about my idea, persuade him that more trees would be sold in our area if my stubborn neighbor would just cooperate.
He introduces and gets passed a Bill which allows the government to coercively "take" from my neighbor just the amount of money I've wanted for the ad campaign.
Does this sound like something the Framers of America's Constitution would believe to be consistent with individual liberty and the rule of law?
No, America's Founders never envisioned a system which would make "legal" that which, if done by an individual, would be illegal and morally wrong.
I have to admit, I'd be curious about what kinds of slogans they would come up with for rapeseed. Of course, there's a reason their oil is called "canola".
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.