Authored by William Robert Barber
The political opinion landscape of America is divided almost equally between two ideological camps: One believes that government is the better choice to achieve a solution to civil issues and problems (better than private or community action) and the other that believes that government intrusion and largess create the greater part of the problem. One encourages the growth of governmental incursion into the affairs of person and business, and the other believes (withstanding the effect) that the rightful role of government in person and business — less a narrow definition of societal protection — is limited.
The possibility of persuading a citizen of either camp to change their political belief for the other is remote. Therefore, the next national election (or so the experts suggest) will be decided by those who are not ideologically driven. These voters are classified as independents; those not swayed by ideals as much as finding satisfaction with the answer to the independents’ mainstay question: “Yes, that sounds good, but specifically, what’s in it for me?”
The ones of faithful allegiance to the thesis of a largess government such as: The academically enlightened wonks, the genius aptitude exceptional, sometimes referred to as media celebrities, the liberal progressive political class, known today as the modern noblesse oblige, the societal of kind hearts and coronets, the contrarians of good sense and deductive inquiry, and the fanciful equalitarian whose intellectual curiosity never wanders beyond the boundaries of contentment. They have identified the problem, noted the theoretical basis of the cause, and defined the solution.
For the ideologically inclined progressives the problem is this: There are federal fiscal deficits and income disparities; both are the causation for the predominance of social, economic, and educational injustices that define Americans’ concern.
The theoretical basis of these disparities: The fiscal deficits are not caused by excessive government spending. But instead by not taxing the rich a morally fair, and reciprocally equitable percentage of their personal income; the progressives also point out that unfair taxation is cause by corporations advantaging the current taxation system with gimmicky tax loop holes and the constant prodding by their well financed lobbyist for special interest concessions.
The solution as displayed within Obama’s recent budgetary offering is to take more from those that have so to give to those that do not. In function, the meaningfulness of the Obama offering is to utilize the government as the trusted intermediary, the utility, to inject coercive legalities. Which is the practice or rule of a progressive tax policy; Obama’s intent is to disproportionately take from the one and have the government decides who should be the recipient of such funds. Their Robin Hood spread the wealth methodology is founded on the precepts of liberal progressive ideology and are synonymous with their ideal of fairness.
Of course as experienced over the last hundred years, what actually occurs is the government acting as the intermediary or dispenser/operator siphoning original dedicated funds. These siphoned funds are always above pre-operational budgetary estimates wherein the program therefore requires either deficit funding, loans, or extra-accounting supplements. Additionally, as exampled with social security, amendments to initial legislation increase governmental obligations, a quagmire of regulatory minefields stymie well meaning intent, and as a result each year more tax monies are required. Unlike the managing of the congressional budget I am not just making this up as I go.
But then, so say the politicians, why get all tied down with facts and evidence… they know they are never elected on the facts of the matter. Politicians are elected on the perception of the facts of the matter.