Don’t Let the Election Results Threaten Liberty

[Ed Hudgins]

Don’t Let the Election Results Threaten Liberty

By Edward Hudgins

November 28, 2012 -- Americans face automatic tax hikes at the start of 2013 that would cripple a barely limping economy. But the federal government is running astronomical budget deficits, borrowing 40 cents for every dollar it spends. What to do?

Many Republicans have signed the “no tax hike” pledge produced by Americans for Tax Reform, headed by Grover Norquist. Hundreds have campaigned wearing that pledge as a badge of principle.

But President Obama is pressuring Republicans to deal with the fiscal crisis by making the “rich pay their fair share.” (Note to the President: the top 5% of income-earners together already pay around 59 percent of all the income tax the Federal Government receives; does that sound fair?) And Obama’s campaign consisted mainly of envy-driven attacks on the productive class. Since Obama won a second term, some Republicans might be tempted to cooperate with the Democrats on tax hikes since “the people have spoken.”

We already see a few Republicans—Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, House Majority Leader Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia—wavering on the “no tax” pledge.

Raising taxes would be absolutely wrong. Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss’s excuse for why he might vote for higher taxes is “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.” But it is just for the sake of the country that policymakers should stick to that pledge.

First, the fiscal problems this country faces are caused by runaway government spending. During his first term Obama pushed the federal debt from about $10 trillion to over $16 trillion. Higher taxes on the top producers and investors would simply mean less production and investment in the economy. Looting the “rich” would not deal with the deficit.

Second, the tax debate is a manifestation of a deep fracture in America’s moral foundation. We are becoming a country of takers versus makers, of expropriators versus producers. Paternalist politicians encourage Americans to demand that government provide all of their needs from cradle to grave, at their neighbors’ expense. Nearly half of Americans receive some form of state support. The top 50 percent of income-earners already pay around 98 percent of all income tax.

A recent Pew survey found that 47 percent of Americans aged 18-29 years old respond negatively to the word “capitalism” while only 46 percent respond positively. By contrast, 49 percent of young people respond positively to “socialism” while only 43 percent respond negatively.

The tax battle is a fight over America’s future: Will we prosper with an economy based on private property and free exchange, with government protecting our liberty? Or will we be impoverished as government uses its power to steal from makers to give to takers.

Third, when election results threaten to limit our freedom, policymakers and citizens who value their own lives and liberty should do whatever is legal and within their power to thwart the will of the majority. The value of the democratic process is to allow the governed to control government, to prevent it from becoming tyrannical. This is also the reason for federalism, separation of powers, and check and balances in the Constitution and for the Bill of Rights.

A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny and must be resisted. It is questionable whether the majority gave Obama has a mandate in any case. No doubt many Americans voted for him because Republicans seemed to threaten some civil liberties or perhaps just because they were more personally comfortable with Obama than with Mitt Romney.

But even if a majority of voters were not endorsing full-blown Obama socialism, the political battles today are assaults on America’s traditional philosophy of individualism by collectivists and statists.

Keeping taxes low means you side with the freedom and prosperity. Raising them means you side with collectivism and stagnation. That’s the choice signers of the “no tax hike” pledge face.

-------

Hudgins is director of regulatory studies at The Atlas Society.

For further reading:

*Edward Hudgins, “Fighting for Freedom Against Reelected Obama.” November 7, 2012.

*Edward Hudgins, “Producers vs. Expropriators: America’s Coming Civil War.” April 13, 2010.

*Edward Hudgins, “Obama’s Grab-Bag Socialism.” April 4, 2009.

[PDS]

If we don't cut government spending, we will go bankrupt or default on our obligations. Period.

Raising taxes on the "rich" appears to be the only practical way for R's to reach a deal to cut--however slightly--the rate of government spending, and thus the possibility of avoiding bankruptcy and/or default.

Does it not follow, then, that the R's should consider an agreement that includes raising taxes on the "the rich" in order to lessen the possibility of bankruptcy and/or default?

I don't think it will be much solace to the top wage earners that their taxes stayed ever the same if the country were to go into bankruptcy and/or default.

We are talking about the difference between "the rich" being taxed at 39% versus the current 36%, right? Is this block of 3% worth the risk I have outlined above?

[caroljane]

.. No doubt many Americans voted for him because Republicans seemed to threaten some civil liberties or perhaps just because they were more personally comfortable with Obama ...

-------

*Edward Hudgins, “Fighting for Freedom Against Reelected Obama.” November 7, 2012.

Psychologizing the voters in this way does not really support your argument.

[BaalChatzaf]

.. No doubt many Americans voted for him because Republicans seemed to threaten some civil liberties or perhaps just because they were more personally comfortable with Obama ...

-------

*Edward Hudgins, “Fighting for Freedom Against Reelected Obama.” November 7, 2012.

Psychologizing the voters in this way does not really support your argument.

Mind Reading is a dangerous habit and a delusion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ed Hudgins]

If we don't attempt to understand why folks vote the way they do or support certain policies, good or bad, then we're going to do a poor job of changing their minds. I've been looking at exit poll and posrt-election data to see what can be gleaned. As the Pew survey indicates, attitudes in some ways are changing for the worse. But surveys also suggest that many voters saw Obama as a moderate liberal rather than a socialist. And as I observed, many voters did not sign on to Obama's socialist ideology. So the situation is bad but but we're not yet doomed.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

If we don't cut government spending, we will go bankrupt or default on our obligations. Period.

Raising taxes on the "rich" appears to be the only practical way for R's to reach a deal to cut--however slightly--the rate of government spending, and thus the possibility of avoiding bankruptcy and/or default.

Does it not follow, then, that the R's should consider an agreement that includes raising taxes on the "the rich" in order to lessen the possibility of bankruptcy and/or default?

I don't think it will be much solace to the top wage earners that their taxes stayed ever the same if the country were to go into bankruptcy and/or default.

We are talking about the difference between "the rich" being taxed at 39% versus the current 36%, right? Is this block of 3% worth the risk I have outlined above?

I doubt the democrats intend to make any substantial cuts to spending. Furthermore, in the long run, tax hikes would lessen the amount of "revenue" the government receives.

Also, if taxes were raised, and spending was cut, what difference would that make? I doubt it would be nearly enough to turn the deficit into a surplus.

The country has been circling the drain pipe for a while now, and I'm not sure if a comeback is possible given the current political climate.

[caroljane]

If we don't attempt to understand why folks vote the way they do or support certain policies, good or bad, then we're going to do a poor job of changing their minds. I've been looking at exit poll and posrt-election data to see what can be gleaned. As the Pew survey indicates, attitudes in some ways are changing for the worse. But surveys also suggest that many voters saw Obama as a moderate liberal rather than a socialist. And as I observed, many voters did not sign on to Obama's socialist ideology. So the situation is bad but but we're not yet doomed.

I meant only, it doesn't help your argument, as an argument. Because it opens you up for the response: "No doubt some voters want taxes raised on the rich, but just couldn't bear to vote for a Hawaiian because of that terrible vacation on Maui", etc. (I paraphrase your argument as, "A majority doesn't provide a mandate, because the voters don't really want all the things the person they voted for promised, ..and we can prove it by exit polls etc about every issue.." all you are doing is stating the obvious (voters have mixed motives) and inviting the question, "Should a majority provide a mandate?" which you would probably not want to address. Of course it should, when I personally want it to. Of course it shouldn't, when the bonehead majority allows a mandate for evil, destructive actions. Democracy is a very bad system of government.

It's the worst, as Churchill(I think) famously said, except for all the others.

[GALTGULCH8]

Our Founders thought that a limited constitutional Republic was the best choice of self government not a democracy.

Jefferson pointed out that if you think that you can remain ignorant and free, you want something that never was and never will be, or words to that effect.

The government indoctrinates via the hordes of liberal/progressive educators. Unless we are successful in enlightening the upcoming generations, as is happening to some extent thanks to the efforts of the pro freedom movement, we will be toast.

At least we are not in the dark regarding the solution. We have available the thoughts of so many free market thinkers. The antidote is known just not yet to enough to outweigh the socialists, the mystics, the collectivists, the leftists, the moochers and the takers.

Keep plugging.

[caroljane]

One contribution to the Democrat win was that they held a better convention. The part that stands out most in my mind now was Eva Longoria. She spoke of her struggling-actor days slinging hash, and she said, "Eva the actress doesn't need a tax cut, but Eva the waitress did". Of course to the OL audience, the implication that an individual ought to get something just because they need it, is an atrocious abuse of free speech, it is evil nonsense. But to many viewers that night, not all of them achieving productively beneath the Golden Arches, it was common sense.

Many people (the entire population of Canada except Jerry Story, for instance) believe rightly or wrongly that the Bush cuts, still in place, and the Pledge helped cause the fiscal crisis and more of the same will not fix it. To those people, calls for continued obstructionism are merely self-serving on the part of the legislators. To those people, the reasons for the crisis no longer matter, and they are fed up with terrified long-term theoretical predictions. The Americans among those people are saying to their elected representatives, "You're a politician,we sent you to Congress. Now act like one. Horse-trade. Fix the damn thing."