By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large

It seems as though every time I find myself mellowing a bit in my feeling that liberalism is a major threat to freedom, some liberal curmudgeon says something so outlandish that my former passion is rekindled.

Enter the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and its freedom-hating opinion editor, Cynthia Tucker.

I was reading along and agreeing with much of what the editorial was saying. It was calling for fiscal responsibility, something I firmly believe in.

It was suggesting that some of the federal budget surplus (if we ever actually see any surplus) should go to reducing the federal debt, an idea I can also enthusiastically support.

But then the stinger. The danger we have to watch out for, this editorial writer breathlessly informed us, is that a bunch of radical elements will get their hands on that surplus and use it for an extreme “tax cut giveaway.”

Let's see if I can noodle through the implications of that language and figure out what this editorial writer was trying to say.

Most people work for 30 or 40 years, and most people work hard. During the time they are working, most people pay almost half of their income in taxes to federal, state and local governments. They pay more in taxes than they do for food, shelter and clothing... combined.

Most people, if they think it through, realize that this wouldn't be necessary if governments would use tax money more responsibly, doing the true business of government and no more.

That means not funding every ridiculous research project that comes along, not keeping generations of people dependent upon government and never once dealing with the root causes of poverty, not pouring billions into pork barrell projects that buy votes for politicians... simply providing for the defense of the republic, defending the rights of individuals and providing the framework in which we can all prosper.

But, as we know, our governments — especially the federal government — grow more bloated with each passing minute. Bureaucrats justify their continued existence and the continual growth in size and influence of their agencies by manufacturing crises, and politicians respond by putting billions of dollars into the hands of bureaucrats, creating more and more bureaucracies and generally spending at least twice as much tax money as they truly need to spend in order to fulfill the proper functions of government.

It's amazing that our economic system doesn't completely collapse under the weight of all this government, but somehow people manage to not just survive, but in most cases to prosper in spite of the enormous drain that the government places on their incomes.

A few years ago, we finally elected a Congress that made at least some effort to rein in the excesses of previous ones, and lo and behold the economy fairly exploded with vitality.

Now the government is finally admitting that it has more money than it needs, and naturally some of us who worked so hard to produce that income for our government are thinking that perhaps the government will give some of it back.

But we are obviously too greedy according to the AJC editorial. We thought it was our money, earned by the sweat of our brow, but we were wrong. The sweat of our brow belongs to the government. Giving it back to us would constitute an irresponsible “giveaway” on the part of the government.

If those who think like Ms. Tucker are placed in charge, we greedy types won't get our hands on any of that money. We will kiss the rings of those in power in gratitude because they allow us to keep a little more than half of our incomes to start with, not ask for even more, spoiled brats that we are.

I try hard to see the other side of any argument, I really do. And I look for reasons to be hopeful that freedom won't one day be a dim, distant memory.

But, liberals, when you reveal the attitude that people exist to serve the government and not the other way around, I'm sorry, but I can't see your side of the argument at all.

I'm afraid all I can see is red.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page