Eliminate Poverty & Punish Success?
The Inconsistency of the Edwardsian Liberal Movement

So, Liberals, which is it? Do we need to eliminate poverty, or do we need to tax the rich? As it stands, whenever a poor person rises above his circumstances and becomes successful in life, he goes from being the object of Liberal compassion to bearing the brunt of Liberal scorn.

John Edwards is running around the country talking about two Americas and claiming that he is able, if elected, to finally address the poverty issue. Never mind that over 6 trillion (with a "t") dollars has been spent in the War on Poverty over the past 60 years with little perceptible improvement if not more poverty. This has been nothing less than wealth redistribution. And while Edwards and his camp are "empathizing" with the poor, his party-mates are advocating the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts; the same tax cuts that reduced the Federal Income Tax bracket to 25% on income between $32,000 and $64,000. Consider a single school teacher's $35,000 annual salary . . . this would be subject to $5,174 in Federal taxes, effectively reducing the teacher's disposable income to $29,826 with the state and local government waiting in line with their hands out, not to mention all of the hidden taxes in cell phone bills, gas bills, car tank fill-ups, etc.

A way to pay for the compassion was needed.

This school teacher isn't "rich" . . . why is his salary cut below $30,000? What makes Congress believe that they are entitled to his money? The class-warfare game has gone on long enough, and the little guys are getting squeezed as much as the big-shots. What's depressing is that in this society, a twisted logic has emerged as evidenced by the little guys deriving pleasure thinking that the rich are paying "more" in taxes instead of being angered that they themselves have to pay such an exorbitant amount.

There are Constitutional methods and uses for taxes. There are also un-Constitutional methods and uses for taxes. Pork, by any definition, is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Neither is farm aid, nor Medicare, nor public education, to name a few. But over the course of history, politicians have demonstrated their compassion for their constituents by proposing legislation to benefit them ("them" being the politician or the constituent, you get to choose), and a way to pay for the compassion was needed, so taxes were levied, and an IRS was formed to intimidate us into paying taxes.

Ultimately I'm fed up with the inconsistency. Liberals either need to work toward the elimination of poverty (impossible according to the Lord Jesus, Himself, Mark 14:7) and honor success by leaving the rich alone, or we need tax the heck out of the rich, punish success, and understand that if we take money from those who earn it, they will be less inclined to want to work hard to earn it in the future (poverty). I ask you, which society would produce the greatest number of successful individuals?

Personally, I'd like to encourage a system and a society that encourages improvement and advancement without punishing those who have advanced. I'd even take it a step further by getting government out of the way to allow those who have advanced a relative little to advance even further. By removing the obstructions that government places in front of potentially successful individuals, those who have a desire to rise up will be able to do so. Those who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances beyond their control can turn to a compassionate society with resources to help, resources that have not previously been taxed away. And those who lack the desire for success can wallow in the poverty that they have chosen for themselves.

8/2/2007