I don’t want my taxes paying for….
A common scream (and yes, there is no other word for it) among reform opponents is that they don’t want their taxes to pay for someone’s healthcare. I heard it at Castle’s town hall last week from an older “gentleman” holding up a sign saying “Obamacare is Eldercide” (which is ironic in and of itself, since if he doesn’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare, then why should he care one way or the other about who dies or lives under any plan, since he seems to only care about himself). Indeed, the implication in not wanting your taxes to go to pay for something is that you disagree with what your taxes are paying for.
Alright. Touche. Two can play this game.
I don’t want my taxes paying for social security checks going to guys like him. Why should I my money support his welfare when he cares not for mine?
I don’t want my taxes paying for his medicare.
I don’t want my taxes paying for the upkeep and maintenance of the roads leading to his house. Fuck him. He can fix the potholes himself.
I don’t want my taxes educating his children and grandchildren. If he is so smart, he can pay for private education or teach them himself.
I don’t want my taxes to pay for the firetruck he may need when his house is burning down. Fuck him. He’s got a water hose, let him do it himself.
For that matter, he better never call the cops or 911. My taxes pay for that and I don’t want to save his miserable ass from whatever trouble he is in. And he better never use the court system, or the Post Office. My taxes pay for those things too. And only people who I agree with can use the services provided for by my hard earned dollars.
That is what this is about.
Yes, there are some libertarians and conservatives that just do not agree with the government imposing taxes to pay for social services. They have their own utopian view of a Darwinian society where everyone is out for themselves, and what they earn and make stays with them. Where the government should only exist to provide for the national defense and to enforce the Bill of Rights. I respect that view. In some ways I share it, for I want the government to provide for the national defense and to protect our rights. But I want the government to do more to promote the general welfare of its people. Like providing a social safety net in the forms of social security, unemployment insurance, and healthcare. But I digress.
Often times opposition to what the government proposes to do with the tax revenues it collects is rooted in an unprincipled opposition. They are perfectly fine accepting the government services they like, but don’t want to provide the same opportunity to others. They don’t want to pay for the unemployment insurance for the incompetent lazy other people who lose their jobs, but it better be there for them. They want their medicare, but no healthcare for you!
There is no other word for it but selfish. They don’t care for the common good, just their good. They don’t realize we live in a society in which they are one in 300 million.
And if I could have my druthers, I wouldn’t want my money going to selfish fucks. But I have the intelligence and the compassion to realize that we are all in this together.
One of our commenters here has listed on Facebook a couple of government funded projects that we all benefit from.
– Internet
– Interstate Highways
– Satellite Communication
I read an SF story once (and it was not very good because I have forgotten everything in it except for a single plot element) which had an interesting take on taxation. You filed your Federal taxes just like now, but down at the bottom the possible uses for those taxes was divided into five or six major categories like “national defense,” “paying off the debt,” “social services,” “public education” and so on. There was also an option for “no preference.” You then indicated the percentage of your taxes you wanted allocated to each major category, and the government had to build its budget around the money that taxpayers had so allocated for each category, with the ability only to use the “no preference” money freely. Because it was a short story it did not get into the real practicalities (or, I should say, impracticalities) of actually administering such a system.
But it did make me think: is there some room in our system for allowing people to have some say in what taxes should and should not be used for, aside from electing representatives?
Should conscientious objectors, as Quakers and Mennonites have repeatedly argued, be able to tell the government not to use their taxes for military spending? You can make the argument both ways.
Should I be able to tell the government that I don’t want my tax dollars being used to provide farm subsidies to tobacco farmers at the same time the State is trying to convince everybody to quit smoking? Probably not feasible, but I do wonder.
On balance, however, I agree with Delawaredem’s point here, which is that when people say, “I don’t want my tax dollars being used for X” you are dealing with people who are quite happy with having your tax dollars used to support them. What we should be doing is actually have a conversation about the proper role of government in providing for the common defense and the general welfare, and where the extent and limits of that are as a society.
There is a “common good” in society, but the term has been cheapened over the years by a lot of people who define “what’s good for me” and “what my party wants” as being synonymous with that common good.
Aside to nemski: what’s interesting about the three examples you cite is that all three–at least to some extent–owed their origination to perceived military needs and not to social engineering. The weakest case for that would be interstate highways, in which population dispersion in a nuclear war was only one factor, but there is also a case to be made that we ALL have not benefitted from interstate highways, which effectively killed some forms of mass transit and hollowed out our cities by making “white flight” into the suburbs more feasible and dramatically increasing our dependence on foreign oil.
We have a representative government to decide how our tax money is being spent. If we don’t like how it’s being spent, then we elect new representation. Wingnuts are trying to undo the election, it’s that simple.
Here’s a link to the post with the picture of the guy holding the eldercide sign. Does anyone else think he tried to make the elder in the shape of a swastika?
A thoughtful comment, Steve, and you are right, the debate between our parties should be, and when you get right down to it, is about how we define what the common good is. It is a debate, and that debate does not cheapen the notion of common good.
Conservatives, when they are not lying about healthcare or Iraq or Obama’s citizenship, do believe that the common good is better served by having a small government that lets the people take care of themselves and make their own choices, except of course when it comes to sex, because the people cannot handle their own reproductive lives themselves. Liberals on the other hand believe the common good is better served by having the government provide a social safety net and promote the general welfare through educational programs, student financial aid, universal healthcare, social security, welfare, regulation against fraud and malfeasance, and unemployment insurance.
DD
Since I am neither a conservative nor a liberal in the sense you mean, I will take your word (at least tonight) on the differences between the two–although you do kind of gloss over the dynamic about how we decide to pay for all that and the restrictions that some liberals would place on me “for my own good.” You are, however, absolutely correct about conservatives and our sex lives.
In at least a theoretical sense my issue is exactly that discussion of what is and what is not the government’s role. For example: I regularly piss off my conservative readers and even a lot of libertarians by arguing that big corporations represent just as much of a threat to human freedom as our government, in that they are functionally immortal, protected by the 14th amendment in ways that the legislators who wrote it never intended, and completely protect their owners and directors from any real consequences of their own actions even when such actions are negligent or malfeasant. Instead of arguing about health insurance companies, per se, I’d really like to find a government or a leader with the cojones to take on reforming basic corporate laws and structure to make them and their owners more answerable for their actions….
But that, I am afraid, will never happen.
Dear DD,
The batteries in The Shining Beacon seem to be running down. We can hardly hold ourselves up as an example to humankind when we have no human kindness.
This past month has revealed a level of greed and mendacity in the American people that has been nothing short of shocking. The callousness we have witnessed is heartbreaking.
Compounding this has been breathtaking ignorance. And, the reek of fear that accompanies such ignorance.
I am dismayed. I have always believed that, as a people, we were better than our leaders. We aren’t.
No time to extensively comment now, but a uick note on this. The difference between “I don’t want my taxes funding PROGRAM X which I consider to be an improper use of government funds” and “I don’t want my taxes funding the portion of PROGRAM Y (which I consider legitimate) that helps this given person” should be quite obvious — and as such you should see you are comparing apples and oranges.
Take heart ye downcast posters! The history of mankind is one of endless debacle and heartbreak. If your surprised by the recent outpouring of stupidity we call the Town Hall Meetings then you don’t remember Viet Nam, Watergate or the Reagan years.Truth is people are the same fickle mindless garbage they ever were or will be.Take hope that some dare to want things changed and will never give up the fight, be one of those and be proud of it. Sure I’d love to slug a “rage geezer”, but it would do no good. Instead go after the filth that has provoked the stupidity we witness daily, they are the enemies of truth, dignity and honesty.
I heard in a documentary recently that, during the Boston “riots” over desegregation in the school system, Ted Kennedy told a friend that the white folks in Boston weren’t fighting about Black kids; they were fighting to protect their tiny slice of the American pie so that it didn’t get divided any further.
That’s exactly the argument that most keep-gov’t-out-of-Medicare shouters are expressing: the slice that goes to the average American is very, very finite; it doesn’t grow but only shrinks; and the shouters want to protect their tiny piece of the health care action.
It’s a fear that Republicans have exploited.
Republicans would be against roads, bridges, etc. if they could privately fund them. In my backyard, they are against funding to fire departments and libraries, because fire departments should be “voluntary” and Republicans can afford to buy their own books.
They are against a government sponsored health option because they CAN fund their own insurances. If YOU can’t, well, you die. Free market.
They are against a government sponsored health option because they CAN fund their own insurances. If YOU can’t, well, you die. Free market.
Darwinism at its finest. So much for the moral majority argument. That’s always been a cover to hide an immoral ideological platform.
those who can’t afford to purchase health insurance currently are not as likely to be Republican voters.
In this light, “let’em die” is simply good Republican politics 😉
The GOP is merely promoting a current version of Scrooge’s “decrease the surplus population” theme.
Democrats from moderate districts who vote for draconian healthcare ‘reform’ are dead in ’10, and they know it; they can read polls. If they don’t, then Obama’s ‘irresistable force’ facade is dead. Quite a quandary. I suspect some miniscule bill will be produced, just to save face.
They are against a government sponsored health option because they CAN fund their own insurances. If YOU can’t, well, you die. Free market.
Darwinism at its finest.
That’s the curious thing. Progressives have always believed in a mythology of progress and change generally rooted in Darwinian evolution. This is the view promoted by the State in museums, public schools and by state supported broadcasting to this day despite a lack of actual empirical evidence for it and much against it. Eugenics rooted in Darwinism has been dropped from the sort of “healthcare” promoted by progressives now but they are still generally ignorant and stupid enough to believe that the pseudo-science typical to Darwinism is true. But if Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the majority of evolutionary progress in the past then what’s wrong with “Darwinism at its finest” now?
Progressives believe in Darwinian creation myths thanks to their fetish for “change”/evolution and gullibility with respect to pseudo-science, yet they also pretend that altruism and caring about other people’s health is generally supported by their worldview. It isn’t. Perhaps instead “That’s always been a cover to hide an immoral ideological platform.” in which totalitarian control is sought.
They are against a government sponsored health option because they CAN fund their own insurances. If YOU can’t, well, you die. Free market.
If the people at Townhalls are just poor ignorant people who don’t know what’s best for them then they are not necessarily the sort of people who can fund their own insurance. Why do you think that you know what is best for them? Why do you think that you’re more compassionate than them or that you care more about other people’s health than they do? I doubt that progressives are half as compassionate and concerned as they say they are. In fact, I would trust a person who says that they care about my health because they want to make money by caring for me more than I would a person who supposedly shows their compassion and care through politicians and the government.
You say that you are a progressive and studies show that progressives give less to charity than conservatives and poor people often given more to charity as a percentage of their income and show more concern and “care” for other people’s health than elitists.
Actually, I didn’t say any of those things.
What are you talking about? “poor” “ignorant” “know what is best for them” ?
I think you’re projecting.
Caller Rick — What is the definition of “draconian” health care reform?
Seriously. I’m curious.
Great. Now we’re being lectured by someone who thinks paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, and about a dozen other things are “pseudo-science”, while mythology is “The Answer”. And doesn’t know the difference between Social Darwinism and Evolution. Rich.
What bugs me the most about how the “debate” has unfolded is how reactive, assholery behavior has prevailed over actually listening, understanding, and rationally talking things over. There are completely legitimate, rational arguments against public option, as there are legitimate, rational argument for why we should. But neither side really gets heard. It surprises me how accepting people are of the misinformation they get – you’d think such paranoid people would want to get as many sides of the story as possible, to get at the truth. But noooooo. And as you so plainly and awesomely stated, so many people don’t realize this country already operates on a hybrid of capitalist and socialist principles. And yes, I believe that taking care of all of us IS taking care of oneself. We are in this together. Otherwise what’s the point of being a part of any community – and that’s what a country essentially is, a community. When a system of social services is absent in a community, the picture is pretty bleak.
Problem with the whole ‘Oh, you’re sick and poor? Too bad for you’ mentality and ‘Hey, don’t look at me, it’s the free market’ as a backup – a true free market would create competition and respond to the needs of the consumer, driving down cost while maintaining best quality of services it can bear at that cost. It would create choices and ACCESS to different levels of service at the most affordable cost. If this were actually the case, perhaps we wouldn’t need any nationalized anything. But that ain’t happenin’ in commercial healthcare/private insurance last time I checked. The market does not have any innate sense of upholding social responsibility or noble intent, people that have to introduce those factors and protect the balance of fairness and compassion. It’s also people who game the system to keep costs high, and shut out so many. It baffles me that opportunities for wellness and health would not be considered part of the common good. Makes no sense at all.
Scott — social Darwinism is, essentially, based upon the evolutionary notion that the fit adapt to the conditions in which they find themselves so that they do better and prosper while the unfit fail to adapt to those situations so that they do less well and die out.
it is an ugly, irrational application of Darwinian Evolution as a concept — but nonetheless based in Darwinism.
It has become a vicious cycle … this is oversimplified but consider this: people can’t pay their bills b/c healthcare has become so expensive … and good healthcare has become so expensive because people can’t pay their bills (among other things, but it’s part of it). How to stop this cycle? A public option. See? It’s good for you and me. Thank you, thank you.
That big long response of mine is written and posted over at my website, explaining why DD is simply wrong in the entire premise of this post. I won’t post it here, because the response itself would run longer than DD’s original post. Please feel free to come by and offer comments, which will be turned on for the post.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/291816.php
Keep them talkin’ points acoming: no kidding. Healthcare reform is oppressing me!! Raar!! Immunizations and wellness checks for my baby if I don’t have private insurance?? Tyrannical! Affordable diabetes supplies when I’m old? Cruelty of the utmost! Another option for me other than what my employer decides to offer?? I don’t want that choice! You mean I get healthcare even if I’m not employed! Grrr! I don’t want it!! What the **scratching head, rolling eyes, shaking head ‘no’ all at the same time**
You clearly didn’t read the post in question.