Big Government Boondoggle

Why can’t the American public decide for itself if it wants the government to supervise retirement money? I’m talking about social security. Why does the government force its citizenry to con tribute to a government bureaucracy to administer monies to retirees and dependents of contributors. Most personal monetary expenditures are determined by the free will of the purchaser, but not social security Why does the government feel it has to intervene in a citizen’s life and extort a percentage of their income every week to contribute to a Ponzi scheme? The social security administration was originally instituted to offer seniors a monthly dollar amount to augment their retirement needs. However, like most government mandated programs, it has been grossly mismanaged and will soon go broke. The system, when it was originally pitched to the American public by the original big government mismanager, FDR, was supposed to provide financial relief for seniors and the cost was actually designed to go down. However, this proved to be another government lie. The cost has only gone up, and, now, their appears to be a whole new generation that will have to contribute much, much, more, or see no benefit at all.

This speaks to a larger point. Almost without exception, when government decides to “help” its people, it fails miserably. Why should the social security system be on the verge of bankruptcy? If a private bank or insurance company, mismanaged itself in the same fashion, heads would roll and individuals would go to jail.

The health care law is another big government disaster looming over our heads. Conveniently. the major impact of this new government scheme won’t go into effect until after the election of 2012. A side comment should be made here. If this new health care mandate was such a “gift to the American public, why wouldn’t Obama be running on that point as a major accomplishment in his first term? Woe be unto us when this government debacle is fully implemented.

“That government is best that governs least” was stated way back in 1849 by “Civil Disobedience” author Henry David Thoreau. A sentiment that has the founding fathers intent so brilliantly statesd in just a few words. This viewpoint of government has sadly been abandoned by the United States government. Give people the free will to chose what is right for themselves. Remember, self interest has benefited people a hell of a lot more than government programs ever has.

Rhode Island Sin Tax on Beverages

Sin taxes are typically added to liquor, cigarettes and other non-luxury items. State governments favor sin taxes because they generate an enormous amount of revenue and are usually easily accepted by the general public because they are indirect taxes that only affect those who use the products. When individual states run deficits, the sin tax is typically one of the first taxes recommended by lawmakers to help fill the budget gap.

(This is according to Investopedia).

Is drinking soda, flavored water, or iced tea a sin? Apparently, if Governor Chaffee of Rhode Island has his way, it certainly is. What may, on the surface, seem like a great way to raise state revenue to help make up for shortfalls in taxes, can actually lead to collection of less taxes. People generally cut back on items they have to pay more for. If you have been to a supermarket lately, you already know that your food costs have risen dramatically since Obama’s administration, and Governor Chaffee’s folly will only add dollars to a family’s food bill. Arguments against establishing this tax are many. An obvious one is the reduction of sales of these products and, therefore, negating any tax advantage at all. Soft drink distributors will deliver less of these products to their in-state stores. This will, in turn, put truck drivers, shelf stockers, loading dock workers, cashiers, out of work. The ripple effect of this proposed legislation will actually lead to unemployment, and, therefore, payroll taxes will decrease and state revenue will get even lower. So, this proposal will have the direct opposite intended.

A perfect example of how a higher tax rate can actually lower revenue for a state can be illustrated by various state’s attempts at raising taxes on the millionaires living there, When these taxes were implemented targeting these millionaires, they reacted by moving out of the state. These people didn’t become millionaires because they are stupid. These people are rich enough to be mobile and they can move their homes and businesses to more tax friendly states. This left the states that instituted this misguided policy even poorer. Now they aren’t collecting any taxes from these individuals. The burden, necessarily reverts to the middle class.

Another valid argument is, that this is just another example government’s attempt to intrude on an individual’s right to choose how to live one’s life. Many people believe that is a line that should not be crossed. This is nanny-state micro-management at its worse. The government has a say in mostly everything that we do, but what a person chooses to buy as a beverage should be immune from government scrutiny. What’s next! Will the government try to tell us what color socks to wear! This is simply social engineering via the tax code. That is UN-American, but it appears, especially in a democratic administration, that social engineering is what they do best.

The bottom line here readers, is to contact your state representative and complain. Enough is enough! At some point, common sense has to prevail; even in Rhode Island!