Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:


....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as
little as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the
publics mandate for desired services or functions.


I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the
public desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the
government responsible to tax and spend enough to make that possible?


While I'd consider that a mistake and it would lead to either runaway
pricing(taxes) and /or rationing(competition is required to keep prices in
check, albiet under the staus quo it rarely raises it head). But if the
public so chooses then it behooves the Gov. to fullfil their biding. A Gov.
that ignores the wishes of the public either rules with force or doesn't
rule long.



What if the public desires universal free ivy league quality higher
education, or universal housing, or universal sirloin steaks at
hamburger prices?


Is there a theme hereG? Lets assume that the public indeed (foolish or
otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to pay the tax to make it
happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored the will and desire of the
populous? Rod


That's one reasony why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights to the
Constitution. Unrestrained majority rule is a swift and certain path to
tyrannical suppression of minorities. Where do you suppose, for example, that
the taxes to make those things happen would come from? The tax fairy? The ones
who want the benefit, or the ones who have enough money not to need the benefit
in the first place? What you actually advocate is replacing capitalism with
socialism.