Sunday, April 09, 2006

"Faith-Based" Nattering Nabobs


Messrs. Huebscher, Anderson, and Pittleman haul out the "moral imperative" argument in the vain hope that someone will think it applies:

The first lesson is that of our interdependence. Try as we might, we can't isolate ourselves from one another. No one goes it alone in life. Human life is social. And as social beings, we make moral claims on each other.

Government and politics is where we work out the scope and limits of many of these claims. Our laws help us encourage that which is good and limit or curb that which is harmful to the community.

Well, yes, there's no question of the brotherhood of mankind, gentlemen. And it is true that "government and politics" is where we "work out the scope and limit" of the claims of brotherhood.

You don't spend a LOT of time indicating what may actually be the "limits," though, before you jump into the old favorite of name-calling:

It is telling that backers of the amendment wrap it in the rhetoric of "protection." Such language represents yet another appeal to our fears and our discomfort with the uncertainties of life in society.

...Should this amendment be ratified, tomorrow's citizens will compare the rhetoric of protection, insulation and fear that underlie the Taxpayer Protection Amendment with the commitment to civic duty and shared responsibility of past leaders like Krueger. The comparison will not be flattering.

Yah. Wisconsin citizens will, on passage of The Amendment, become selfish pigs, dumping the helpless and hapless into a Large Ditch (or landfill) to prevent our discomfort.

They don't even understand the purpose of The Amendment:

Our discomfort with the Taxpayer Protection Amendment does not mean we are deaf to concerns about burdensome taxes. But we believe such concerns are best remedied by tax reform that achieves a more just allocation of tax burdens than a rigid constitutional amendment that inhibits rather than fosters responsive government.

It's not TAX REFORM, gentlemen. It's REVENUE LIMITATION. Since the predators-in-office over the last 30 years have seen fit to expand spending at a pace far beyond "reasonable," it is necessary to control their passions. Such control will be established through limitation of revenues.

See, gentlemen, our children have an interest here--passing on a $bazillion in State, County, Municipal and School District debts doesn't strike us as particularly "charitable." Maybe you have a different take on that question, though...

Believe it or not, boys, every Common Council, Town Board, County Board, School Board, and State Legislature will have the freedom to allocate moneys any way they want--AND the ability to increase their tax revenues, through referendum, any time they wish.

Finally, one yearns to see the term "subsidiarity" used by religious lobbyists. The State of Wisconsin is hardly the 'lowest unit of government,' which is by far the most efficacious in resolving problems. While it is true that all state subdivisions are affected by The Amendment, it is NOT true that the State should be given some sort of preference over the locals. Perhaps in their next attempt, these gentlemen could find a way to include the natural law of subsidiarity, which would militate for far LESS State-level taxing and spending, and far MORE local control.

Name-calling and conjuring up End of the World scenarios are inappropriate for the debate. You could read York's analysis for a much more insightful set of concerns.

More at The Provincial Emails

No comments: