While my car was getting an oil change, I
buried my face in a magazine article. I was
trying earnestly, albeit unsuccessfully, to
drown the constant rattling of a young
newscaster's pedantic discourse streaming
via the flat-screen TV the
shop's owner had installed to oblige
customers not driven to cultivate the rare
skill of introspection.
I was suddenly perked to study the substance
of the oft-repeated sound bite blaring in my
ear, despite the fact that the frame from
which it emanated betrayed the shallowness
of a wet piece of toast.
"Who should get the Bush era tax cuts?"
inquired the commentator in a pretentiously
rhetorical
fashion.
Should? In one
mere auxiliary verb, the sprightly news head
had succinctly encapsulated the essence of
liberal orthodoxy, particularly in the
context of what its fiercest advocates
believe is the collective moral duty of the
most prosperous beneficiaries of a
capitalist system.
My main objection was that the handsomely
robed anchor implied that the government
errs on the side of charity when it puts a
temporary halt on the mandatory annual
plundering of its citizens' wealth.
Presumably, when the government demands less
money, this should be viewed as a
kindness on its part for which the workers
owe an incalculable debt.
Admittedly, the constant blabber spouted
hourly by saucy automatons posing as
reporters may not be enough reason for
concern over Caesar's growing encroachment
in our lives. But the mindset that posits
such questions in the first place is one
which casts the ignorant masses as
hopelessly dependent upon the edicts of an
all-wise and
powerful government, which is divinely
endowed with the authority to arbitrate who
should and should not be granted the "privilege"
of keeping a portion of their own
hard-earned wages.
I wrestled with a similar sense of
bewilderment when I heard our illustrious
president warmly
reassure
the people that in light of the government's
undeserved magnanimity toward its citizens,
manifested in its willingness to recommend
that the Bush era tax cuts be extended,
citizens' payroll checks at the beginning of
the year would yield a significant bonus.
Hence, we are also to thank the president
for persuading our elected officials to let
us retain some of our own money.
Not the least of the reasons for this
gratitude from victims of the government's
splurging is the way in which the latter
treats wealthier citizens, towards whom it
feels no moral obligation to extend such
leniency. In fact, these well-off citizens
deserve to be taxed more than others, mainly
because the government, now posing as the
supreme moral arbiter of justice, estimates
that this coveted segment of society
produces and accumulates more profits than
they are reasonably expected to spend. One
eminent senator from Vermont even
argued
this very point recently.
This logic is born of a peculiar resentment
toward the rich, an ancestral grudge
harbored by many on the left who like to
romanticize about the age of cruel and
indifferent landlords accumulating wealth on
the backs of poor laborers. Once this
grudge is awakened, which happens whenever
liberals regain ascendancy, the fact that
today the doors of opportunity and
success are available to virtually
anyone willing to put in the effort becomes
a wholly indiscernible reality.
And so have most citizens now
long-conditioned to view taxes as the first
fruits of the harvest awaiting proper
designation by the government. It is the
government which decides what portion of our
profits we are allowed to keep for our own
sustenance and what portion constitutes a
fundamentally unmerited excess that we are
morally obligated to equally distribute
amongst our less affluent peers. A tithe,
if you will, that is rightfully demanded by
this supreme entity, without whom we would
presumably lack the means and the necessary
conditions to generate wealth in the first
place.
The government has, in essence, taken on the
role of such a deity. As in the scriptures,
not to present the tithe offering at God's
altar is the same as robbing God of his due,
so in Caesar's domain, it is the duty of
every citizen to present his or her tithe
before the altar of Government.
But unlike God's, this is not a free will
offering. To refuse to pay this tithe is,
as we well know, a criminal offense of the
highest degree.
Thus has Caesar become a God of sorts -- and
not a terribly merciful one at that -- to
whom citizens should resign their fate.
Moreover, we are to be eternally grateful
that this infinitely wise, coldly equitable
master has, for a season, decided to leave
the ration paid for its unique services
temporarily unaltered. Yet it does not
cease to abrogate the prerogative to resume
this purging whenever it sees fit. Citizens
have no choice but to acquiesce to its
ever-increasing pecuniary demands. And why
shouldn't they, since the government is a
much better administrator of their capital
than they could ever be? Even Orwell
himself could not have foreseen a more
divinely inspired arrangement.
This is what the long-debunked pipe dream of
wealth redistribution has wrought. But most
ironic is the fact that the very people who
want to stoke the embers of class hatred,
such as the Obama, the Harry Reid, and the
Nancy Pelosi clans, are all people of
extraordinary wealth. One thing they also
have in common is that they like to spend
extravagantly when it comes to other
people's money.