From: Joe Meyer
In President Obama’s first weekly address after being re-elected he stated: “The American people have spoken that we need to raise taxes on the wealthiest.” What kind of country have we become where it is considered moral for the majority to vote a man’s money out of his pocket simply because he has earned more than you? Would it be considered moral if the majority votes to only take from the middle or lower class next? A man’s money has been earned through the sweat of his brow, which makes it his life. When you vote to take one man’s money because he has earned more than you, you give the majority a right to his life.
What if the majority decides that two plus two equals five? Does that make it right? I’ve heard many explanations of why people voted for Obama, most are somewhere in the neighborhood of “he is going to help me and/or the poor.” Ask yourselves, how is he going to do that? Is he teaming up with a bunch of his pals to donate their own money? No, he is taking someone’s money to give to someone else in exchange for their vote. That is immoral. If a man robs me at gunpoint but gives the money to a charity, is it not still a crime? The constitution protects “the people” from the government, but it’s also supposed to protect the minority from the majority.
The government can pass a law that everyone must go to bed with a full stomach, but that doesn’t mean he will be fed. The government must first take from someone who has earned it before it can give to someone else, no doubt while taking credit for feeding the under privileged. We have reached the point where the producers must ask permission from the non producers to produce for the non producers.
This may sound like a tirade against the poor but it is not, the government doesn’t help the poor, it makes them dependent. If you do have a part-time job as well as assistance from the government, you will lose more in assistance than the wages you would receive if you wish to increase your hours. That gives a person not only no incentive to work more, but it gives them incentive to work less. The best thing the government can do for a single mother is quit disabling the economy so that there may be a thriving economy for her to work hard and succeed in. A bureaucrat knows that a voter is theirs as long as the voter must come to him for security. I do believe in a safety net because people do fall on hard times and some cannot take care of themselves, which is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about those who find more incentive to do the wrong things. Incentives drive almost every action we make, so let’s look at the incentives we have right now. It is easier to apply for welfare than it is to apply for a job. Why is it that so many can’t seem to find a job until the last week before unemployment benefits run out? The single mother who has several kids with multiple fathers has no incentive to do otherwise. At some point we have all been in line at Wal-Mart and the person in front of you has three carts full of expensive food, soda, and candy and pays with an EBT card, while you, (who work for a living) are counting dollars to make sure you have enough to pay for the necessities. Individual responsibility is ceasing to exist.
Part two will be published in the Wed., November 28 issue