A recent letter in this forum referred to a presumed difference between Republicans and Democrats as "voluntary charity versus forced charity" ("What is extreme?", March 28). Forced charity is a conservative code word for taxation. But taxes are not charity. They are how we fund necessary government functions, such as defense, infrastructure, air and water quality, the judicial system and some sort of safety net for the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged. Because we have been unwilling to tax at a sufficient level to pay for what both parties agree are necessary expenditures, we have growing debt.
If Republicans were able to leave all these government functions to voluntary charity, we would soon have a vulnerable, crumbling, polluted, crime-ridden and destitute society, because those who reap the greatest rewards from our economic system are unfortunately the least charitable.
If Republicans truly want to bridge the gap in their party philosophy between reality and rhetoric, they need to stop using irresponsible terms like "forced charity" and start recognizing that government is not evil. It may be inefficient in some ways, but it is necessary, and they should stop refusing to fund what they have already agreed are necessary expenses.
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Reconnecting with Cuba is a good move —...
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- My view: Doing away with cursive is bad idea...
- My view: In the name of God?
- Letter: No prison deficit
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 63
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 43
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 35
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30