Congresswoman Jan Schakowksy(D-IL) was asked that question on WLS radio is Chicago this week. Here is the transcript.
Host: So Jan Schakowsky, out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think I deserve to keep?
Schakowsky: What is really your question here? Do you think you should not contribute to firefighters?
Host: No, no, it’s a very simple question. Out of every dollar I earn, how much do you, Jan Schakowsky, think I deserve to keep?
Schakowsky: No, it’s not a simple question. No, it is not a simple question. I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it.
Host: Why?
Schakowsky: It’s not a question of deserving. What government is, is those things we decide to do together.”
“I think you need to pay your fair share for things we’ve decided are our national priorities,” Schakowsky added.
Host: So who decides what a fair share is?The host never got an answer other than taxes should be increased.
So how do we determine what a fair share is? How do we determine our national priorities? To Schakowksy and other liberals everything is a national priority if you listen to them.
I suggest that we look at the U.S Constitution for starters.
The preamble to the Constitution lists five significant priorities in order "to from a more perfect Union". Our founders specifically stated that they wanted to "establish Justice", "insure domestic Tranquility", "provide for the common defense", "promote the general Welfare" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
Of these five priorities note that four of them have strong words attached. They want to establish justice. They want to insure that there is domestic tranquility. They want to provide for the common defense. They want to secure the Blessings of Liberty. There seems to be no doubt that they see all of these as important national priorities.
However, when it comes to the general welfare, they only want to promote it. There is no mention of establishing it, or insuring it, providing for it and securing it. They also do not say anything about individual welfare. They refer only to the general welfare. This seems to suggest that when they referred to general welfare they were considering those things that would be generally available to all. They were not considering items that would make some people winners and other losers at the hand of the federal government. What are items of general welfare? Roads, post offices, the coining of money, standard weights and measures and the regulation of international and interstate commerce are specifically mentioned in Article 8 as is the erection of forts, dockyards and other needful buildings.
You could probably also consider the national park system, public health programs, public transportation and other broad-based programs available to the public at large to clearly be within the spirit of promoting general welfare.
How much of the federal budget is spent on defense, justice, police and internal security and other programs that benefit the population at large? Only about 1/3 of the budget is spent on what the Constitution established as the big priorities. In 1945, we spent 97.6% of the budget on these items. In 1970, we spent about 70% on these priorities.
Direct payments to individuals now account for 66.2% of all federal expenditures in the federal budget.
This chart from the White House's 2012 Budget shows the trend.
Our principal national priorities have become taking money from one person and giving it to someone else. The federal government's primary purpose seems to have evolved into picking winners and losers and transferring money around between citizens as it sees fit. We seem to have forgotten about promoting the general welfare of our citizens and are more concerned with individual welfare.
If we want to determine what a "fair share"is I suggest we begin by looking to the U.S. Constitution to determine what are supposed to be our true priorities. We need a fair system of justice. We need to be safe in our homes and on our streets. We need to be safe from attack. We need protection of our individual rights. These are the most important priorities. It was true over 200 years ago and it is still true today. If Ms. Schakowsky needs help in answering the question of what is a "fair share" I suggest she should start by reading the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment