A Taxing Question
One of the methods of the left is to question who funds which advocacy group. The assumption is that if it’s a business or someone of fiscally conservative politics, then they are automatically suspect and shouldn’t be allowed to speak or write. This is a broad assumption based on many anecdotes of stories where some right wing speaker is shouted down at a college, or not even allowed the podium. Then there are the ‘whispering’ campaigns against some group, perhaps a tea party association, which gets money from somewhere. This preface has to do with wondering where Mr. Chris Fitzsimon of N.C. Policy Watch, a part of N.C. Justice Center in Raleigh, gets his money. Really, who’s paying him to advocate for higher taxes?
In an article published elsewhere, Mr. Fitzsimon refers to the North Carolina budget shortfall. Predicted to be around 15% of a $21,000,000,000 budget, he argues for higher taxes in addition to budget cuts. His rationale is expected. He takes us back a few years, picking a point where it suits his purpose and explains how, after accounting for inflation, spending now is at the same level as it was way back when.
Wonderful. I shall do the same. Going back to 1910, spending has grown, after accounting for inflation, a lot. (No, I’m not going to look it up.) We should take spending back to that level. This is the same logic as Mr. Fitzsimon uses and the same logic as any of a host of other bigger government types use. Pick a year that suits them and pretend that, since spending was at a certain level then, we shouldn’t go less than that, but higher. Such a moral argument; kind of like the child who says, “Jimmy’s mother let’s him drive her Jag, so you should get one and let me drive it too.” The argument is always the same. It has no credence.
Then there is the argument for compromise. According to the left, compromise means someone has to pay higher taxes. That is not compromise; that is an argument for more confiscation.
But attend the current situation. Since the Republicans have control of the NC legislature for the first time in 100 years and have campaigned for smaller government and less taxes, perhaps we should go back to the tax levels of 100 years ago. The left should have to compromise with how much lower taxes should be. The left wing media, in concert with their politicians, would have conniptions. After abusing gerrymandering laws for years, abusing taxing authority for years, abusing our constitution for years, the left is going to cry out for compromise. The answer should be no. There are consequences to elections, and the right should learn from the left in their governing decisions.
While I am sad to say the people do not want a return to the tax days of 100 years ago in one fell swoop, they do want efficient and limited government. And it is this that those of the left seem to oppose. The question could be why. But why is immaterial. The results are not. Higher taxes and waste equates to people who need jobs not having them and people who do have jobs being taxed to pay those who don’t work.
The way to reverse this situation is to look at every program and ask: Should we use the force of law to confiscate the earnings of someone, that is to tax someone, who is working to feed his family, in order to fund this program? Sometimes the answer is yes. We need roads and police and a few things along those lines. Quite often, the answer should be no. We do not need many of the wasteful programs that have been started and maintained under the left’s watch. Government takes too much to start with to pay for waste. There are many things which could be done to cut the budget while lowering our tax rate and still provide the government services that are actually necessary.
So I ask again, who is paying the salary of Mr. Chris Fitzsimon? Why would they want higher taxes?
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=4310
