By the 1890s, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Frick, Harriman, and many others amassed spectacular fortunes. To progressives and other redistributionists, their wealth, and the income inequality it implied, was unacceptable. An income tax, its advocates argued, was the fix.
More than two centuries before our federal budget sped past the $2 trillion mark, those known as anti-federalists warned us that the price we would have to pay for government would rise. So as you struggle to understand the latest IRS forms, and particularly as you write that big check to the United States Treasury, it is worth remembering what they said.
It is ironic that America is often derided by some critics for its rough-and-tumble capitalism--hence, these critics maintain, the need for government interventions of every kind. Reality, however, is quite different; America’s brand of capitalism seems to enjoy freshening the wells of failure. In America, if you’re big enough and rich enough, or if you have a world-class lobbying team, you can get the American taxpayer to underwrite your failures.
The idea of the steel tariff is to help one inefficient, bloated, and pampered industry at the expense of all U.S. consumers of steel, including U.S. businesses, and all producers in Europe, Asia, Brazil, and Australia. This brazen protectionism is deeply harmful all around, not to mention morally repugnant.
A heritage of honesty and hard work are marvelous tools for papering over the failures of welfarism and subtle servitude. With the right attitude, a prison population can settle into a comfortable and egalitarian existence, one that might even impress Queen Catherine passing by on a boat. Such is the case in Denmark today.
Is it any wonder that under the leadership of a supposed conservative administration, the alleged nemesis of the tax-and-spend liberal democrats in government, we are now seeing increases in all varieties of bureaucratic budgets and the creation of new federal projects and even of federal agencies? If there is money to be gotten for cheap, public officials will go for it, never mind their alleged commitment to public service or their oath of office or what have you!
Given the support unions have provided for so many politicians, their support for PLA "sweetheart deals" for unions on public construction contracts is hardly surprising, particularly since very few Americans know about them. But they are doing no favors for taxpayers or for the vast majority of workers who are not union members.
In most cases, it is difficult to rein in a government's spending and taxing. It is the nature of government to expand its functions and imposts, even if there is no mandate to do it. This is the nature of democracy today, tomorrow, and yesterday. Any tax or office--no matter how ridiculous or cumbersome--will always find pals in Congress.
After laboring mightily and giving birth to the 2001-2002 federal budget, politicians returned home for the holidays, where they spent much of their time emphasizing their role in bringing home the bacon to those local interests who benefit. But as Congress returns to "the work of the people" in a midterm election year, it is worth remembering that not one cent of the funding came from anyone except taxpayers.
