Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sure, but as a means, not an end.
|
I didn't argue "liberals" saw govt as an end. I agree with you that they see it as a means. The problem is they - and in fairness, their opponents who are exactly like them but call themselves conservatives - don't like to look at the other side of the ledger - the costs.
When I say "No tax increases," I'm not saying I disagree with progressive taxation. I'm trying, perhaps inarticulately, to say that we should look first to finding ways to increase the efficiency of our govt, and cut non-essential services, and entitlements. If we cut all the fat we can and still can't balance things, then and only then should we raise taxes.
The liberal comeback to me is always the same tired saw: "We can't cut taxes!" How many times do I have to say I'm not asking for a cut in my taxes? It isn't about me decreasing my taxes. It's about capping mine, and everyone else's taxes. What bugs me about liberals is their kneejerk response is never to cut, but always to increase revenue. They seem to come to every debate with an assumption - form where I've no idea - that govt's natural state is to grow. Where is that an infallible law of economics or statehood?*
If a person wants to call himself "Liberal" or "Progressive," I think it's time those people think beyond the orthodoxies of those groups. Both terms, classically defined, describe people willing to embrace all options given - not married to tribal ideologies. A real, true liberal would embrace efforts to cut government. He'd embrace any solution that worked.
* I understand the Stimulus was needed, but even that was wastefully and ineffectively allocated.
