The Immorality Of Liberalism
Yesterday, Vice President Biden came out to set the record straight on how he and President Obama feel about the tax cuts for the wealthy that were part of the President's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts. He said that they feel it was "morally troubling" to extend the tax cuts for the rich. We have heard many others on the left call it "unfair" for the wealthy to receive a tax cut. We know that the word fair means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice", so how do those on the left feel it is free from bias to give something to one group but not another based on their inclinations? Is it not dishonest to take from the rewards of one man's efforts to increase the rewards of another? Isn't the withholding of a tax cut from only one group by it's very definition an inequity? A couple of days ago, Barney Frank left Steve Gobie Male Escort Services World Headquarters (aka his apartment) for an interview with Maria Bartiromo of CNBC where he said the following.
No they haven't done it on their own. In the case of the estate tax, it's a gift for being lucky enough to have a wealthy parent or be friends with someone who was wealthy. You're directly contradicting your earlier rationale that they shouldn't have to pay more in taxes because they've done it on their own.
First of all, let me overlook the blatant greed and immorality of this statement and deal with the inaccuracy of it. Unless we know who we are discussing, we certainly cannot state this to be a fact. Let's just assume for a second that someone spends years at the end of an elderly parent's life giving in home end of life care to that parent, are we going to say that service is worth nothing? Perhaps they could have earned quite a bit of money over that stretch of time, but the felt that their family was more important. I would say that person was far more than just "lucky enough to have a wealthy parent". In some cases, people opt out of potentially high paying careers to work in a family business, feeling that the gain from inheriting the business and keeping it going after the parent's death is worth more to them than the salary that they could pull elsewhere. Once again, far more than a gift for a lucky person.
Now, we move on to the greed. Let's assume for a second that it is indeed an inheritance given to a child or a friend who has put little or no effort into the accumulation of the wealth. What standard says that Barney Frank has any more right to distribute that money than the heir does? What did Barney Frank do for that money? The exact same thing that the child or friend did. Nothing. So why does Barney feel that he, as a part of the government, has the right to a larger percent of the money than any other party gets?
Now for the immorality. Is it not an established principle that after paying taxes, my wealth is mine to keep and distribute as I see fit within the confines of the law? Indeed, we have laws to protect this right. As a society, we punish those who forcibly take money or property from another. In the case of an inheritance, a person who has worked hard and pays their taxes is entitled to keep or spend the rest as they so desire. If it is immoral for Barney Frank to sneak into their house and steal the money the day before they die, how does it become moral for him to do so the day after?
The very notion of an Estate Tax is, by it's very definition, immoral. If I am flying to Las Vegas for a vacation where I will spend my life savings of $10 million on gambling, prostitution, and alcohol, one might say that is immoral, yet I am legally entitled to do so. If I die in a plane crash on the way back, I have only my Higher Power to answer to. Yet if I have a will stating that I wish to give the entire $10 million to my heir who is a missionary in Africa taking care of AIDS victims and I die in a plane crash on the way there, Barney Frank feels that it is immoral for me to spend the whole sum on this worthy cause.
I am sure that many of you will be quick to point out the fact that it is far more likely that one would spend the money on the former than the latter, and true or not, I will not debate that with you. Why not? Because there is one tenant of Liberalism with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is neither right nor the place of Government to legislate morality. Yes, dear liberal, that applies to more than abortion. My money is mine to spend as I see fit. If my child is lazy and will use the money to fund a lavish lifestyle with no thought of another, than so be it. If my child will use it to help care for others, all the better. You are free to suggest, but you are not free to impose.
Furthermore, I take issue with the notion that the Government is a better arbiter of our money than we are. I've seen a drunk take a minute to help an old lady cross the road and a politician take $3.4 million to accomplish the same task for a turtle.
At the end of the day, you can lead a leftists to thoughts, but you can't make him think. So frankly, I'm not asking him too. I would just kindly ask of President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Congressman Barney Frank that they practice what they preach and quit trying to legislate their morality. It is equally wrong for a citizen to steal from a corpse as it is to elect a politician to do it for you. It is disgusting and an insult to the logic of free thinking people everywhere to pretend that there is some type of moral mandate to do so.
