Taxation with representation: It's working

Many of us are real pinheads when it comes to taxes. The "anti-tax" movement in America has a lot of enthusiastic support from people who are the direct beneficiaries of a tax structure that pays their personal salary, their personal retirement income, the income of someone in their household, or the income that gives their customers the wherewithal to walk through the door of their private business and buy something. Would you pay fifty dollars to make a hundred dollars? By the logic of some people the answer is a hearty, "No!"

Good grief. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Take 40 seconds out of your day to grasp something. Our founding fathers were FOR taxation. Do you need to hear that again? Especially for the tea party fanatics and "anti-government" politicians (an oxymoron if I ever heard one), the framers were PRO TAXATION. Of course they were also FOR REPRESENTATION. Such bright boys, they were.

But here in Idaho we actually have representatives in the Idaho legislature who actively seek to undermine the amount of representation the people have in our representative form of government. They want to REDUCE YOUR VOICE in our Democratic Republic. That's what the repeal of the 17th Amendment is all about - "improving" representative government by attacking representation. I swear. These people must have been the smartest kids in the dumb row. They are sawing off the limb they are sitting on. The problem is you are sitting on it, too.

The role of taxation in an integrated democracy is complex, but understandable. The key concept is that taxation is a mechanism we use to provide for the general welfare of the nation as a whole. Providing for the general welfare is right there in the Preamble. It's an integral part of the development of "a more perfect union."

That's what subsidies are all about. We created farm and ranch subsidies to smooth out the peaks and valleys of industries dependent on things like the weather. Farmers and ranchers in Idaho are the direct beneficiaries of these subsidies. So are we, because it ensures a reliable food supply.

We subsidize the elderly because many people spend their whole lives doing some necessary thing that has real value, but doesn't pay well enough for them to retire on what they were able to save from doing it. They should not be punished for that. They should be rewarded for it. We did that as a nation. It's called Social Security.

Even the billionaires are the direct beneficiaries of a tax structure that bails them out when they screw up, and subsidizes trillion dollar businesses like banking and big oil. We subsidize the oil industry because we need a reliable supply of oil.

We tax ourselves as a nation, to accomplish things as a nation, that benefit us as a nation. The problem arises when a benefit intended to be generally helpful starts helping only a handful of very wealthy people at the top of the organizations we subsidize. That's where the tax structure comes into play ... or should.

When our richest citizens fight to protect the subsidies that make them rich, while simultaneously fighting to opt out of making commensurate contributions to the structures that make them rich, we the people have to change it. We change it by taxing these higher incomes at a higher rate, to promote the GENERAL WELFARE.

That's not Socialism. That's American genius.

Stephen D. Bruno is a Hayden resident.