By Frank Hill
How 'self-evident' is that? We are surprised that was not put in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution.
Many conservatives won't go to Ben & Jerry's any longer because of their liberal views and donations to liberal causes.
Except when they give away free ice cream cones all day long in April each year, that is. Then they line up like every other person who wants what? A great ice cream cone that tastes even better when it is given away for 'free'.
So why don't conservative small government advocates use the same logic when it comes to trying to reduce the size of government they say they want to do so badly?
'If you want more government, we are going to support raising taxes on everyone, not just a select few such as the rich or the importers or the consumers of carbon, etc. etc. etc.'
The converse would be true as well: 'If you want less government, we will tax everyone less by a proportionate amount.
Right? Isn't that what is supposed to be done in a society where everyone has an equal vote in the matter? Shouldn't everyone also have an equal amount of 'skin in the game' in terms of exposure to paying for all the services government provides, including when these programs are increased in cost?
We think that over the past 50 years in America, the inherent tension between paying for the government we all seem to want has been completely decoupled and broken. The more that politicians such as President Obama seek to play the 'class warfare' card in this high-stakes game of poker, the more dissolved we become as a nation in terms of having a collective stake in the game, i.e. paying taxes for our collective good.
As a result, we seem to believe as a society that all we have to do is pass new laws which increase the cost of our government and 'someone else will pay for it'.
Who the hell is that supposed to be?