They ARE Eating Cake

April 14, 2005 

With tax time upon us, it got me to thinking about where all those tax dollars go.  We know where they come from.  The top 50% of all income taxpayers supply over 96% of the income tax know, those RICH people!  I wish the Democrats up on Capital Hill would someday define RICH for the American public.  According to the I.R.S., you enter the top 50% of taxpayers with an adjusted gross annual income of about $29,000.  Didn’t know you were RICH, did you? 

With almost a Trillion dollars pouring into the Treasury’s coffers from the income tax and a total of over 2 Trillion dollars filling the pork barrels when other federal taxes are included, somebody must be doing something with all of this money.  Of course the liberals will have you believe that it is going for the war in Iraq and/or Tom DeLay’s support of  “right-wing Christians”, but that just isn’t so.  Over 60% of government expenditures are transfer payments to individuals.  You understand this...the political spenders buy votes when they redistribute the 96% paid by the top 50% to the bottom 50%. 

And just for Ha Ha's, the Democrats also use your money to garner mostly illegal campaign contributions and resources from organized labor (anyone ever hear of the teachers’ and government employees’ unions?).  The National Right to Work Foundation filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) handed over tens of millions of dollars of workers’ forced union dues to America Coming Together (ACT).  ACT’s response was to start shredding its records. 

On another union front, the Landmark Legal Foundation clarifies that, “Those of us who have long dismissed the National Education Association as a tool of the Democratic Party have been badly mistaken. Apparently it's just the opposite. As documents now sealed under a judge's order indicate, it's the Democratic Party that is the tool of the NEA.”  

Of course, we haven’t even broached the subject of state and local taxes yet.   

All of this is teasing the question of where our seemingly unlimited tax dollars are spent.  As stated previously, the majority of tax dollars are spent on transfer payments to individuals and individuals get their start as children.  And...children are the ammunition used to load the breaches of bloated bureaucracies and runaway government spending. 

God save the heartless beast who might whisper that children are not the center of the universe around which all else orbits.  And, God save the poor soul who, after a thorough read of the Constitution, concludes that there is no “right” to limitless breeding on society’s dime.  After all...without unfunded children, how would bloated teachers’ unions and government bureaucracies keep growing their size, wealth and influence?  Can you imagine what would happen to taxes if parents had to assume the financial responsibility of their progeny form the State? 

At its most elemental, consider this:  Assume that an average family has two children.  Assume that that the educational expense to the State for each child is $10,000 annually.  Assume that the average property tax bill is $10,000. 

For educational purposes alone, this average family is costing the State $20,000 annually and paying only half that much towards the educational budget while still receiving the rest of local taxpayer funded services. You can do the math for a single mother of six children with: no property; no job and a vibrant appetite to procreate.  

Additionally, many parents are of the opinion that their children are entitled to other taxpayer benefits such as “free” laptop computers, “free” sports’ fields worthy of major league teams, “free” health insurance, “free” breakfast, “free” lunch, “free” clothing and the freedom to grow into irresponsible State-funded baby-makers.  Apparently, the only entitlement not bestowed on children is the responsibility for parents to provide for their own creations. 

Or, as the Hartford Courant recently reported, “When Susan Sedor's 6-year-old son, Shayne, couldn't get his anti-psychotic medication changed earlier this year because of problems with his state health insurance, a meltdown was imminent.”  Immediately assuming the financial role of parent, Connecticut politicians jumped in with “A bill before the legislature's appropriations committee (that) would ensure that kids like Shayne get temporary supplies of critical drugs....”   

Of course, “The bill has 40 co-sponsors and is supported by 56 statewide health care providers and advocacy groups, including Child Advocate Jeanne Milstein, the Connecticut Coalition on Aging, the Connecticut HIV Consumer Council and the state chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.”  Are you noticing that the “co-sponsors” of this bill are all entities that suck off of the already over-burdened Connecticut taxpayer? 

With Connecticut facing huge deficits, “More than 300,000 low-income children and their parents enrolled in Medicaid managed care are affected by limitations written into the HMO's preferred drug lists. Those lists encourage the use of cheaper generic drugs instead of more costly name-brand medicines....”  I am paying close to $600 per month for my private health insurance and, happily, my insurer “encourage(s) the use of cheaper generic drugs instead of more costly name-brand medicines.”  But, then again, dollars mean something to those who actually pay. 

Those who profit from blight, like Sheldon Taubman, a lawyer with the New Haven Legal Assistance Association, believe that "Since the Department of Social Services has been unwilling to take any action to ensure that these low-income families are not left with nothing at the pharmacy counter, then there is no question that the legislature has to step in.”  Maybe the parents should step in! 

Is it too much to ask that those who enjoy the irresponsibility of pregnancies they know they can’t afford take on the responsibility of parenthood?   

Exactly where is it written that responsible parents, empty-nesters and people who chose not to have children must become the financial providers for the infinite needs of an infinite number of children created by members of society possessed of infinite irresponsibility? 

Some people may prefer applying their resources to the care of aging parents or even for the nurturing of their own children.  But that would put a damper on the ability of the NEA and government bureaucracies to have unquestionable access to your pocketbook.  And could they afford to own the Democratic Party!


return to column archives

home - columns - images - bio - contact - links is proudly listed as a RightPage

All content copyright 2000 - 2025