Compassionate Conservatism

So, I took a little flak from the left for my last post. Not because I said anything untrue but because of an inferred lack of compassion with my thinking.

My left-leaning friend Larry said I still have "tunnel vision and lack of compassion towards anyone that isn’t exactly like you or fits within the definition of how things should be to benefit you.  I’m sorry that the concept of helping people is so against your beliefs."

This seemed a little harsh at first glance but I soon recognized it as a regurgitation of the standard liberal fallacy; those who contend that they should be at liberty to do as they please with their own resources (beyond constitutional requirements) are labeled as lacking compassion, being mean-spirited, blah, blah, blah. No facts, no logical argument. I read the NY Times every day and this nonsense is always there but I overlook it in favor of the top notch reporting. Liberals use emotion and passion where conservatives employ fact and reason.

I feel sorry that Larry has fallen victim to the fallacy but it is hard to deny the appeal.

In my own defense and the defense of other fiscal conservatives I must say this; my lack of willingness to pay taxes under the threat of imprisonment for other than what I consider to be constitutional purposes (Article 1, Section 8) should not be misconstrued as a lack of compassion nor of a belief deficit in the concept of helping people.

In addition, none of what I have proposed will benefit me since I expect to be dead long before my proposals, even if enacted tomorrow, could be carried out; I'm 55 and my plan rolls out gradually over 40 years to make sure that it always does more good than harm, especially for those who are most vulnerable.

I have found that conservatives are quite generous in funding relief for children's diseases or for their parents at the end. My wife is a fundraiser for the ALS Association and the level of giving is heartwarming, even from  those of limited means.

Few are enthusiastic about donating blindly; they prefer to be more discriminating with their resources and feel that blind giving strips them of their right to freedom of choice. Here's the rub; government must be blind in the allocations or face the inevitable charge of, well, discrimination. This is a basic problem with forced wealth redistribution.

As for my willingness to help others, the point is that that's my business.

I will admit to a bit of tunnel vision. My Grand Bargain proposal has many facets that all have to mesh together at all three levels of government to benefit all Americans; especially those most in need. My tunnel vision sees a future with zero government debt and a set of three flat taxes, one for each governmental level. The sum of the three taxes is 9.3% instead of the 40% being spent by government every year. After saving the same 7.65% for retirement that we do now, discretionary income rises by 23.05%.

If my proposals come to pass, anyone (including Larry) can walk up to any poor person, sick person or criminal he chooses and hand over his cash directly and tax-free since I would also repeal the gift tax.

For those less inclined to seek out the needy, the IRS is already set to pay the money out by Social Security number and they know who's eligible except for those who don't accurately report their incomes. The liberals can just sign the money over willingly on tax day and the poor folks can just step up and claim it.

The advantageous aspect of this method is that it cuts out the middleman.

In Connecticut, we pay about $2.5 billion to distribute $7.5 billion in welfare and Medicaid benefits. This represents an overhead of 33%.

About half of the country leans left, that means there are about 70 million liberals in the workforce. Given 23.05% in new discretionary income on the average wage of $62,000/year from 70 million liberals, this yields a fund of about $1 trillion/year to relieve poverty; 10% better than with the current funding of $1.35 trillion (given the 33% overhead) even if conservatives don't chip in blindly.

Add private charity (with the same 33% overhead) and divide this up between the 47 million poor, uninsured people and poverty ends in one shot with about $28,000 each. The poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050 (total yearly income) for a family of four. This gives that family $112,000; crazy but true.

Of course, it doesn't really end. Blindly throwing money at a problem, as liberals would have it, fixes nothing. This simple fact is borne out by the steady poverty rate of 13% after more than 50 years of social engineering failure.

My solution is far more compassionate than the current if only because it's more cost effective. The good news for liberals is that nobody will throw their asses in jail for choosing to be more discriminating in their giving.