The race for the Arkansas governor’s open seat has produced some interesting questions that boil down not to what is right or wrong but more a question of opposing philosophies and beliefs about the role of government. The questions for me have become even more interesting in light of my enrollment in a political science program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and being exposed to political processes I had never before considered.
In the 2000 presidential debates, I recall President Bush making a statement that his views and Vice President Al Gore’s views were nothing more than a conflict in personal and political philosophy about government’s proper role in daily life.
In one of my texts for a policy processes class, the author makes the statement that never in the history of the United States has the government been more active in the lives of ordinary Americans and I could not help but to wonder if it is because Americans are demanding more from the government or if politicians are offering more to Americans for the sake of political campaigns. For my way of thinking, it has become a vicious cycle that will only expand unless or until Americans tighten their belts and government officials stop pandering to the whims of particular segments of the population.
In Arkansas there is a growing demand that the sales tax on groceries be eliminated. For those who oppose this tax, the argument is primarily that it is a regressive tax that hurts the poor who are forced to pay more for their food, a necessity of life, on an extremely limited budget. In light of Arkansas’ current projected budget surplus in excess of $700 million dollars, it would appear that the time is right to seriously consider ending this unfair tax.
One gubernatorial candidate insists that as governor, he will work to end the tax on food. Arkansas can afford it according to budget estimates, and Arkansas cannot afford NOT to end this “immoral” tax. The other candidate insists that it would be “irresponsible” to end the tax without careful consideration of what budget forecasts might suggest a few years down the road. He maintains that there are somehow greater needs for the state which would require expanded state spending and MAYBE a gradual repeal.
Like Mr. Bush said six years ago, it boils down to a difference in philosophy and our belief about government’s proper role in society. Even beyond the tax on food, there is another tax which I consider being extremely unfair and downright immoral and that is the “personal property tax”. Consider that the purchases we make require money left over after taxes have already been withheld from our pay. Then we pay a sales tax on the purchase itself. Then we pay a tax for the privilege of owning said property, be it our homes (another necessity) or cars or boats or other items. In addition to these taxes, we pay fees to license some of this property. We then pay taxes on subsequent purchases we make to maintain and operate this property.
The philosophical difference in how each tax is viewed depends on what the government promises in return and our own expectations. Have we, as a society, become so dependent on government services and campaign promises that that we are taxing ourselves into oblivion? It would seem so.
What do we expect from our government? Do we as a society believe government exists to help us when we fail? Do we expect government to provide for us when we cannot or will not provide for ourselves? Is it moral to expect the government to take care of social situations where the Church might be better equipped? Is it moral to pass off to the government what should be the more proper role of the Church not to proselytize but to offer Christ’s hand to those who have “fallen but can’t get up”?
Those who suggest "evil" at the thought of government tax cuts which might jeopardize certain social programs are also the ones most vocal about the so-called "separation of church and state". I ask: what church in favor of what "church"?
No comments:
Post a Comment