Are Progressives socialists, Deficits do not matter to Obama, Democrats View on Taxes, Is Obama a socialist, Liberal aristocracy, Obama does not believe in debt reduction, Obama does not plan on reducing deficit, Obama's Tax goal, Progressive Aristocrats, Tea Party and Obama, The 2011 debt deal, The Reason for Gridlock, Why socialism is bad
The rage in Washington today can be summed up in three words: cuts, taxes and guns. The first two revolve around the budget battle taking place between the parties. The last is shaping up to be a sprint to initiate gun control while the memories of the Sandy Hook tragedy are still fresh in people’s minds.
Both the fiscal and gun control battles have philosophical underpinnings but just as importantly they have moral ones as well. The choices of what path supporters of one policy or the other make are reflections of the values one holds and how one sees society.
For President Obama and his comrades the fiscal crisis is a mere side show to the real issues of fairness, as they define it. This is not mere supposition but based on their own statements. Obama said famously in the debates that revenue was not as important in his formulation of tax policy as fairness. Nancy Pelosi in her appearance on Face the Nation last Sunday also made a similar argument. Call it socialist, liberal or progressive; the idea that mankind should exist in near economic parity is at the heart of President Obama’s economic policy. The method by which such parity is to be accomplished is government; a government ran by a liberal and benevolent aristocracy. Of course they would not call their new order aristocratic but the fact remains they seek the control of people’s economic and personal lives by an elite few.
The opponents of this philosophy see the leveling force by an artificial aristocracy of government elites as immoral, an infringement on individual and natural rights for which there can be no justification. To them the fact that people have differing amounts of talent, ability and ambition make it only natural that some will excel more than others. To try to create equality where none exist is akin to tying weights to the fastest runners or denying excellent grades to the smartest students. Such an attitude not only reduces all of society to its lowest common denominator, it is an act of theft.
It is little wonder that with such opposing views that the two parties cannot find common ground. Economically, as one seeks to limit personal wealth the other seeks to create an atmosphere that allows all to reach their maximum potential. Fiscally also the two could not be further apart. One seeks to control the “nation’s” wealth through taxation and redistribution as government’s primary function while the other sees taxation as a necessary evil to be minimized as much as possible. When President Obama says 620 billion in new taxes, 330 billion in new spending and 25 billion in spending cuts is a balanced approach towards fiscally responsible government he means it*. That he now seems to think the U.S. should impose another one trillion in new taxes on the wealthy as part of a balanced approach toward addressing the debt it must be realized this comes from his heart. Just as understandable is the fact that Republicans see this as ludicrous. Similarly, they see the newest claim by the Democrats that since a theoretical cut to the budget of 1.5 trillion over 10 years passed in 2011 they now have Carte Blanche to do whatever they want on taxes is also crazy. Especially since the 1.5 trillion in non-binding** spending cuts are likely never to happen but the proposed new taxes will start almost immediately.
Of the two opposing viewpoints the judgment of history is clear. Freedom and economic parity cannot co-exist, one must yield. If the natural divisions that appear among men are to be erased iron fisted power is required. At its heart the President and the Democrat’s philosophy of “fairness” is a philosophy of violence and control. The society they seek can only exist by the unflinching use of force. Force to impose their vision on others, to take from one to give to another and to compel all to bend to their will. The fact is using the hammer of government to mold and shape society is wholly incompatible with freedom.
As the U.S. and much of Europe sees the specter of economic desolation taking shape the present course of the U.S. and even much of Europe is one of seeming denial. As fresh proposals for taxation and redistribution are being implemented real cuts in government expenditures are mirages and policies to spur economic growth wholly missing. Instead the government is creating an atmosphere of economic stagnation through unending issuance of new taxes and regulations. It would seem half a century later the words of Churchill still ring true, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance , and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
If you like this Pass this on
* Obama press secretary said for the administration debt reduction is not a worthy goal (video can be found here)
** The caps of the debt deal that came on the heals of the Tea Party revolution in 2010 are as changeable as congress. The poison pill of sequestration that came about due to the inevitable failure of the so-called Super Committee gives a case in point. January 2nd has come and gone and nothing happened because congress voted to change the rules. The fact is congress can change the rules anytime it wants, the idea that any cuts voted in by one congress will survive 5 more congresses and 10 budget deals is beyond fantasy. One would have a better chance finding Big Foot.