It is not possible for any thinking person to live in such a society as our own without wanting to change it.
House Democrats introduced their so-called Equality Act in March. If it became law, it would strike down religious freedom protections for private citizens if they ran their own businesses on the basis of their beliefs. In post titled Mayor Pete Will Make You Bake the Cake over at The Washington Free Beacon, Bill Morris discusses Pete Buttigieg’s support for the proposed legislation.
Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg’s public calls for pluralism do not apply to religious small business owners.
South Bend Mayor Buttigieg has made his Episcopalian faith and tolerance a centerpiece of his campaign, but the policies he champions would force religious small business owners to participate in ceremonies they find objectionable under penalty of law. Buttigieg, who is married to a man, will keynote the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner. The nation’s largest LGBT lobbying group credited his support for the Equality Act for the invitation.
So let me get this straight (pun intended). Because this guy has been petitioning for redress of what he sees as grievance based on his personal religious beliefs, he’s been invited to peaceably assemble with likeminded individuals. Uh, huh. I suppose that’s fine to a certain extent, but would he do if the law he advocates passes—and a Muslim demanded he bake (or pay for) a cake advocating the firm application of Sharia to homosexuals?
I’ll bet he’d expect that his beliefs should prevail and be protected by the First Amendment because protected class.
Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
—George Orwell, Nineteen Eight-Four
Or lying by euphemism. Stacy McCain calls out the President and his flacks in the press for the use of the term “new revenues.”
A business can generate “new revenues” by expanding sales. A government doesn’t have that opportunity, and it won’t find “new revenues” some magical, super-secret hiding place. They’re taxed out of our wallets.
In his essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell wrote that
one ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.
He wrote that in 1946, but it’s also true today. Indeed, the time has come when we need to stop allowing the use of nonsense terms in our government’s financial planning. Not collecting a tax is not an “expenditure.” Spending more this year than last is not a cut just because you were planning an even larger increase. Etc.
Actually, there is a way that government can get new revenues. Over the long haul since WWII, the federal government has been able to take in about 19% of GDP as taxes. That’s been true regardless of how high or low the tax rates have been. When government gets out of the way of the economy so that it can grow, that 19% share grows with increasing GDP.