Give and take, or take and take...
One of the points that was discussed at our monthly Libertarian meet-up the other night was the subject of compromise. Libertarians often get a bum rap on the subject.
I think most Libertarians that I know aren't diametrically opposed to compromise, although most would share a concern as to where the current system of political compromise has brought us.
Suppose one of the parties in power decides to push for a 20% increase in your taxes, while the other party favors a 10% increase, or maybe even a 0% increase. Any compromise between the two results in an increase. Or the compromise might result in a small reduction in some people's property taxes and a 16% increase in everybody's sales tax. Either way, you lose. How many compromises did it take to achieve the tax burden we have today? How many more compromises will it take to double that burden?
When Congress finishes hammering out some type of compromise on President Obama's health care bill, we are going to see more involvement by the government in health care. Maybe not as much as the Democrats wanted, and maybe a little more than the Republicans wanted, but definitely more.
That's how it works when both compromisers are compromising in the same direction.
It would help to have some people in office pulling for a compromise to actually reduce taxes and the size of government, not just slow the growth of both. Then maybe we could compromise on whether we were going to reduce taxes and government by 20% or 10%.
And then the next year we could compromise on the same thing again.
Now that's a compromise.
I think most Libertarians that I know aren't diametrically opposed to compromise, although most would share a concern as to where the current system of political compromise has brought us.
Suppose one of the parties in power decides to push for a 20% increase in your taxes, while the other party favors a 10% increase, or maybe even a 0% increase. Any compromise between the two results in an increase. Or the compromise might result in a small reduction in some people's property taxes and a 16% increase in everybody's sales tax. Either way, you lose. How many compromises did it take to achieve the tax burden we have today? How many more compromises will it take to double that burden?
When Congress finishes hammering out some type of compromise on President Obama's health care bill, we are going to see more involvement by the government in health care. Maybe not as much as the Democrats wanted, and maybe a little more than the Republicans wanted, but definitely more.
That's how it works when both compromisers are compromising in the same direction.
It would help to have some people in office pulling for a compromise to actually reduce taxes and the size of government, not just slow the growth of both. Then maybe we could compromise on whether we were going to reduce taxes and government by 20% or 10%.
And then the next year we could compromise on the same thing again.
Now that's a compromise.
Labels: Health care compromise
posted by Rex Bell at 1:22 PM
1 Comments:
You nailed it!
Note...
Obama: A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, 'Huh. It works. It makes sense.'
Jefferson: “I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.”
-- Kenn
Post a Comment
<< Home