Friday, July 17, 2009

By Jacob M. Jordan

Confiscating the property of one’s income—through taxation—is inherently evil. Unfortunately, taxation is necessary if we desire the use of our interstate system, assurance of basic national defense, and a functional representative body to actuate the sovereignty of the People. The means to acquiring these comforts and security however—seizing the reward of one’s labor—nonetheless remains fundamentally opposed to the complete exercise and enjoyment of one’ s property. Americans must never allow the character of taxation to become diluted by the alleged or real necessity of the luxuries or services that said taxation bestows. Taxation, per se, does not become transmuted into a good thing.

Therefore, if we can all agree to the anti-liberty nature of taxation alone, we will arrive at the next question. What is the best way to apply this wealth? I would argue the best use would be that which calls for the least wealth, and maximizes the comfort and individual liberty of the most number of people. In other words, taxed income should be spent on whatever appeals to the sense of necessity to the largest number of people, at the cheapest expense to the individuals concerned. Everyone should benefit as much as possible in real and visible terms. A contrived labyrinth of explanation and “eventual” benefit should not be required. In the case of the current univseral healthcare agenda, President Obama addresses the disconnect of cost and necessity by fabricating the counter-intuitive idea that universalizing healthcare will actually save money. The reality of such benefit should be close to self-evident to the general population. Few, for example, would dispute that benefit is derived from having a national military. It is with these two standards in mind—maximization of benefit and an ostensible necessity that the emerging healthcare bill is to be judged as a bad thing.

If there is anything credible about the number of “46 million uninsured”, cited by President Obama in his speech to the AMA, the central beneficiaries of universal healthcare would not represent anything near a majority. “46 million” happens to be 14% of the United States population. In that case, the condition of the 14% must be so severely intolerable as to allow us to override the part about a benefit to the majority. Dr. June O’Neill, a finance professor at the City Univesity of New York, claims the “46 million” figure is disingenuous. O’Neill says that the number includes all sorts of people who elect not to have neither government insurance nor commercial insurance. Economist Keith Hennessey, who worked on balancing the U.S. budget in 1997 and also served as an advisor to President George W. Bush, confirms that the number does not represent 46 million who are without options, but actually includes those who are financially independent, noncitizens, and individuals who are transitioning jobs. So in actuality, the number is far less than even a paltry 14%. How does providing insurance to such a small part of the population justify the severity of taxation and employee benefit penalization being imposed on the rest of the population? My assumption is that wholesale amnesty for illegal immigrants comes next. It is much easier for the Obama Administration to lie about the numbers now, and take heat for it, than to take care of those who actually uninsured now, and then grant amnesty and expand the taxation measures. In my opinion, the funding infrastructure is being laid right now. The numbers provided by President Obama simply are not commensurate with the depth of tax and employer burdens currently being bandied about in Congress. An abrupt expansion of coverage is anticipated by the Democrats.

A mass plundering of income–particularly the income of those who pay for their own benefits–in order to pay for the healthcare of others is wrong. It will work for a very brief moment. When the inevitable rationing and impersonal bureacratic controls become more apparent, however, the starry-eyed Americans who lauded the “reform” will quickly become attuned to the reality of the transaction—male parta, male dilabuntur.