11/25/2002

Bush returns Budget to Red
One of the main irritants by hannity is his constant recital of old, erroneous or annoying quotes. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall", or about the bush awarding the projected, but since disappeared budget surplus to the richest of the rich.

Hannity insists that 6 percent (or thereabouts) pay more than 50 percent of the taxes, and are therefore entitled to get all the money back. No need to even debate this.

Did it ever occur to the extreme arch-conservative hannity that into every government there is some socialism built in? If that were not the case, thousands of people would die annually of starvation.

The government, years ago, decided that its citizens will be taxed according to their ability. Doesn't matter what party was in power when that was done. It was the civil and humane thing to do. Besides, don't the religious freaks believe that they are their brothers' keepers? You certainly wouldn't watch little children starve to death,or would you? Sometimes I wonder.

Once these taxes are collected they are put into this pot to be expended for the good of society. Here again there are some vestiges of socialism, because some of the poor need help, even though they may not have contributed into the pot.

But once the money is in the pot, it loses its identity as to where it came from, and the nation as a whole lives off it. Schools are built and staffed. Roads are built. Assistance is given to the poor.
I agree that there may be lots of corruption, ineptitude, abuse and stupidity in managing these large sums of money, but that is a different subject.

So does this mean that the rich who have contributed more, are entitled to withdraw from, or benefit from the pot more than anyone else? Nowhere in the tax code is there that provision.
Is the rich bastard entitled to more food stamps than the down-trodden. Will the poor who have paid no taxes have to stay off the freeways that money-bags has paid for?

"Of course not", should be your reply. If it isn't, you need to do some soul searching.

So why do the rich think that the money collected in taxes which resulted in a surplus should be returned to the rich in the proportion it was deemed that they should contribute by their representative government? The money in the pot belongs to the people - in equal amounts for each citizen, or according to need.

So to conclude, the best and only correct way to have distributed the money would have been in equal shares to all. Better yet, the most benefit would have resulted had it been used to reduce the national debt. But richie wants to be richer.

How many of the rich took their refunds to the thriftshop to buy some needed shoes for their child, or to the grocery store for some food? How many of the rich were finally able to buy medication for the sick?
How much have the rich contributed in an attempt to resurrect the economy?

What about the persistently growing deficit? Will the rich return the money to help reduce the deficit? By the same margin that they received rebates? I think not.