No free ride

I had a brief debate about taxes, a couple of weeks ago, over at Words Matter with a guy named "Keepmo'money". Keepmo' was commenting in response to Jim's post about a speech made by Warren Buffet. In the speech, Buffet (one of the world's wealthiest men, and the man who brought you Geico) advocated against the type of tax structure favored by George W. Bush.

In response, Keepmo'money stated that taxes are "stealing," and even went so far as to compare the government's self-imposed power to tax with decisions made by the Nazis. He also succinctly stated that "Liberals justify this system of stealing by giving all the good things that are done with the money. It still is stealing."

Now, obviously this guy is an idiot and doesn't really justify your or my attention. However, he does express a mindset that I've heard from others: "why should I give my money to the government?" I've earned it, it's rightfully mine, and the government is stealing from me.

The simple answer is that it's not your money. By this I mean that you are paying the government to provide you with services. Just as you would consider failing to pay someone who landscaped your yard "theft of services", failure to pay taxes can be considered theft of services. Let's think of some examples.

Here's one: as soon as Keepmo' puts the wheels of his SUV onto the pavement of a public way, he owes the government some money. The government built the road and maintains the road. If it were a private road (i.e. not supported by tax money), he would most likely have to pay a toll. Tolls are another form of taxes. The less tax money that goes toward road construction and maintenance, the more toll money gets charged. So far, we're not saving any money. In addition, to be truly "fair," every road would have a toll, so that just those using each particular road are paying for it. Would this be a better system?

Here's another: education. Currently a whole lot of our tax dollars go to support public education. What would happen if we didn't pay taxes? Well, we already know the answer to this one, because we already have private schools that don't receive tax support. These private schools charge tuition. In a "tax-free" world, tuition is another form of tax.

So far, we're not keeping any mo' money.

How about safety: police and fire? These services are paid for by tax dollars. Are we supposed to pay for our own police and fire protection, like we do insurance? If we don't pay, we don't get coverage?

"I'm sorry that your uncle got shot, but he discontinued police coverage last year, so we're not going after the killer."

"Wait, what's the address of the fire? 32 Main? No coverage, let 'er burn!"

Or maybe they send you a bill. "OK, we sent over two tankers and a ladder. You got your hourly charge for the trucks, plus mileage to and from the station. We had ten men on the scene, and since it was a Sunday they get double-time . . . . ."

And just think of the fines for speeding!

This is obviously absurd, but it illustrates a point. Government provides services that benefit the public good. Education, safety, infrastructure. And in most cases, they provide them much more efficiently than a fragmented, privatized provider system would. How about national security and defense? Most conservatives consider these worthwhile endeavors. How do you suppose we would pay for these without taxes? We live in a capatilist society, people aren't going to volunteer to put their lives on the line, and defense contractors aren't going to build bombers and simply hand them over to the military, free of charge.

Maybe we could all just pay some of our own money into a pool, and we'll use that pool of money to pay for the bombers. Oops! That's a tax, just like the government does.

Unfortunately, Keepmo'money doesn't leave any contact information, so we just have to hope that he comes back to continue the debate. I suspect that what Keepmo' and most of the other "anti-tax" people really mean is that they don't want their tax money to go to social services, which they usually define as "lazy poor people on welfare." However, I think that it's well documented that government handouts to the well-to-do easily exceed those provided to the poor of this country. Furthermore, I suspect that we get favorable returns from money spent on social services (e.g. productivity gains as a result of adequate health insurance for the workforce), especially as compared to tax breaks to industry that end up in the pockets of the shareholders.

Hopefully I'll have enough time in the coming weeks to further explore some of these concepts. For now, however, I hope that I've demonstrated that there is no such thing as a free ride, and a reduction of taxes doesn't necessarily allow us to "keep more money."

A Resounding "No"

In the most definitive vote yet on the issue, Mainers rejected discrimination against homosexuals by a 55% - 45% margin on Tuesday night. The vote culminates years of work by Maine Won't Discriminate, which has fought this battle twice in the past. Apparently Mainers are more convinced that homosexuals do, in fact, face discrimination in their daily lives. As Wisdom Weasel pointed out, the Christian Civic League may have also mis-stepped in running a campaign based on irrational fear ("Protect our Children!" "Save Marriage!") rather than making the focus on "special rights" as they have done in the fact. Indeed, I read just one reference to special rights, in a letter to the editor of the Times Record, in following the debate this year. As I wrote the other day, the campaign of Michael Heath and his minions was based on desperate non-truths, and Mainers were savvy enough to see through them. For that, I am proud of my neighbors.

And, in another resounding "no" that caught my eye, voters in Dover, PA ousted an entire school board. Enraged by the board's plans to teach "Intelligent Design" (a religious construct appropriate for Sunday School, not Public School), several residents ran a concerted campaign to take control of the board and reverse this decision. They were hoping for a simple majority but came out with 8 of the 9 seats. Score some big points for freedom of thought in this country!

Good Night, and Good Luck

See it now.

The latest in a long line of terrific movies offered at The Eveningstar, Good Night, and Good Luck documents CBS Newsman, Edward R. Murrow, and his co-producer, Fred Friendly, as they challenge the methods of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy during the 1950's Anti-American hearings.

Directed and co-written by co-star George Clooney, Good Night takes us inside the production rooms of CBS' See it Now, the first television newsmagazine. Murrow and Friendly run a series of programs that questions the crusade to locate and out communists. The themes of this film have parallels in today's US, where Constitutional rights are routinely cast aside in the name of "national security". Murrow and crew soldier on, knowing that they will themselves come under scrutiny and attack from Senator McCarthy. They are also aware that they are risking the very existence of their show, as neither the network nor the show's sponsor (Alcoa) is all that keen on a series of programming that takes on the Federal government. Still, Murrow's unquestioned integrity, and the decision to primarily tell the story with footage of McCarthy himself, swiftens the turning tide against McCarthy that results in his ultimate censure by the Senate. The members of the CBS news staff are not without tragedies of their own, and the show itself loses it's prime-time viability when Alcoa pulls out.

The film captures the stress of this endeavor. Filmed in black and white and featuring a lush jazz soundtrack, the movie sports the feel of the 1950's. However, rather than the white-bread Happy Days America that we have come to define the decade, we see that not all is well in the US. Isolated to the tight confines of the newsroom, the board room and the barroom (all of which are filled with the smoke from infinite cigarettes), the tension is palpable. David Strathairn gives a magnificent turn as Murrow, capturing the newsman's resolve but also revealing the underlying nerves that are plying at his insides. Clooney also gives a solid performance as Friendly, however it is his work behind the camera, particularly his choice to use actual McCarthy archival footage, that gives the film its oompf. The entire cast, which also includes the always-terrific Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey, Jr., give first rate performances.

Good Night, and Good Luck will likely stay in theaters longer than most so-called Independent films (the film is a production of Warner Independent Films, as in AOL Time Warner, so I'm not sure that I would classify this as a true "independent" endeavor). I encourage all to see it for the rich production, gripping performances, and timely history lesson.

Vote No on 1

Tuesday, Mainers will have the opportunity to reject hatred and uphold the law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law states that no Mainer can be denied employment, housing or public accomodation based upon their sexual orientation. While proponents of the "people's veto" play on fear, ignorance and hatred, reasonable Mainers will see that homosexuals do face oppression in this state and vote to do the right thing. Please Vote No on question 1.

The vote will likely be very close, so I encourage all Mainers to head to the polls on Tuesday and reject hatred. Most of the arguments by Christian Civic League and others supporting the referendum fall short on fact, leaving bigotry as the only rational motivation for their actions.

"Preserve Marriage": This is the biggy. For some reason, Christians are real threatened by the thought of gays getting married. I don't understand why "the sanctity of marriage" is damaged by homosexuals getting married, but many people believe it so. I even read a letter to the editor that suggested that the "next step" will be "three people getting married". This incredible leap of logic is symbolic of the fear-mongering preferred by the "Yes on 1" camp. No matter, however, as the law on the books specifically states that it is not to be interpreted as to permit gay marriage.

"Protect Maine": This is the other part of the slogan on the signs. I have no idea how Maine is threatened by gays. I did read an ad in the paper that said that, if allowed to stand, this law (which is supported by the Maine Education Association) will lead to gay-friendly curriculums and the celebration of gay pride week. I thought that the curriculum was set by the school boards and administration. Another leap of logic, I guess.

"Mainers have already rejected protection of gays twice before." So what? Mainers are wrong to promote hatred, and it is an embarrassment to the state that we have done so. I believe that there is greater understanding of the hardships that gays face in their daily lives, and that it is more and more apparent that protection is needed. And if the law is rejected a third time, I hope that the legislature brings it back a fourth time, simply because it's the right thing to do.

"Why protect a choice?" While I know a lot of gay people and have no doubt that homosexuality is not a choice, this line of argument also holds no water. Is religion not a choice? Is it illegal to discriminate based on religious affiliation? Why not take religious protection off the books, just to be equitable.

(Actually, scratch that. Too many Christians in this country would likely take advantage of the ability to discriminate against people of other faiths.)

"Isn't discrimination illegal anyway? Why do we need another law?" That's right, folks. Freedom from discrimination is protected in the constitution. So, in addition to religion, let's drop protection based on gender, race and nationality off the books, too.

No, we won't do that, because we know that, despite the redundancy, these laws provide an avenue to prosecute those who would discriminate agains their fellow people. As does the new law in Maine protecting those of all sexual orientations (please note that heterosexuals are also protected under this law).

If you believe that it's wrong to discriminate against other humans, you should not vote to approve this referundum. If you don't think that it's OK to discriminate, but you oppose the law presently on the books, then it's obvious that you have a problem with homosexuality and don't want to treat gays as equal human beings. Everybody is entitled to their feelings on the issue.

Just don't pretend that a Yes vote is based on anything other than hatred.