copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
There are conventions, customs, and words, thought to be complementary. Consider; Fat and jolly. Short and sweet. Tax-and-spend-liberal. These words, while often far from tantamount, are in the minds of many, inexorably tied.
I was fat. However, I did not feel jolly during those days, months, and years. I am short. Sweet? I am not especially so; nor am I sour. Balanced might better describe me, which takes me to the next paired, or triad of adjectives. I like my taxes progressive, my spending minimal, and I am a liberal.
However, I do not support the oft-titled tax-and-spend-liberal Democratic President's appointment, Timothy F. Geithner. Perhaps, some would say, I do not appreciate the need for an economic expert. This duo of descriptive qualifiers, I believe, can be an oxymoron, just as the others might be. It seems those farthest "Left" on the political aisle may concur.
Russell Feingold [Wisconsin Democrat], Thomas Harkin [Iowa Democrat,] and Democratic Socialist, Bernard Sanders [Vermont Independent] voted nay when asked to approve Timothy Geithner for Secretary of Treasury.
|The case of Timothy F. Geithner and his confirmation may enlighten Americans and alter conventions associated with language. |
The new Treasury Secretary, his history, and who approved his appointment might help Americans understand that conjoined words provide a contrary perspective.
Timothy F. Geithner has a troublesome history of unpaid taxes. While he apologetically addressed this serious concern in Senate hearings, he could not negate the fact that he, an "economic expert" made more than a slight error. A man who works with ledgers, looked past his own numbers. For four years, he left levees unpaid. Only an Internal Revenue audit, supposedly, helped him to realize his records were wrong.
The most Progressive Senators thought this tale difficult to swallow. Legislators frequently labeled as the more extreme liberals, Feingold, Harkin, and Sanders pondered economic ethics. For these few an awareness for dollars due is required if one is to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. Hence, these Democrats decided the President's selection for the Cabinet position was not a suitable choice.
From their vote, it might be assumed, the three thought morals must be considered in the definition of monetary expert. Perchance the Senators mused; if a fiscal guru is not immediately responsive to his or her own legal responsibilities, liabilities, how could that person be put in charge of the nation's currency.
As one who is frequently characterized as a tax-and-spend-liberal, I know that moral values, and a code of consciousness concern me, especially when I consider Timothy Geithner as an economic expert.
I am exceedingly conservative, especially with money. I may not be an expert; nevertheless, I believe legal liabilities must be paid. Currency cannot be spent frivolously. Coins, I believe are meant to be saved. These pieces of eight add up.
This tax-and-spend-liberal, me, thinks people, no matter their rank or royalties paid to them must be responsible for what they owe society. The radical rationale I embrace dictates that as a part of the populace I must pay my fair share.
I think it vital that I, as a citizen, contribute to the greater good. Unlike Timothy F. Geithner, President and Chief Executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since November 2003, and as of moments ago, Secretary of the Treasury., I would never withhold my taxes. The idea of it troubles me as it does my fellow so-called tax-and-spend-liberals, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, and Bernie Sanders.
An economic expert, I will never be. Yet, I trust a levee, thoughtfully used, can strengthen the community. Admittedly, I observe that in America, much money is spent with reckless disregard. Witness, the credit crisis, and how a financial sage such as Timothy F. Geithner, does not sparingly dole out dollars.
That said, I remain secure in the knowledge that when we, the people, pool our resources, we can ensure that adequate educational facilities exist for all. Fire and police protection can be provided for everyone. When we pay the levees, libraries can be constructed, a supply of clean and fresh water flows, and waste is managed. A cultured and civilized community can thrive.
Tariffs afford us safety, sanity, and a sanitary environment. With the help of fellow citizens, the good life that taxes allow for is possible, even for Mister Geithner, who pays his duties selectively.
The monetary expert who played a prominent role in the management of the financial crisis that has engulfed Wall Street, failed to pay federal taxes for Social Security and Medicare from 2001 through 2004.
The fiscal sage had the funds. The current Secretary Geithner was a gainfully employed Senior Official at the International Monetary Fund,
In 2006, after the Internal Revenue Service audited the esteemed economic guru, Timothy F. Geithner paid his taxes for 2003. He presented a partial compensation for 2004. Secretary Geithner was able to avoid recompense for 2001 and 2002. The statute of limitations for these liabilities, fortuitously for the fiscal wizard, had expired. Hence, he was able to retain the gains that might have helped pay for schools, streets, libraries, water and waste management.
Likely, this respected representative of the people spent the money on personal pleasures. Now, with the authority vested in freeloader Timothy F. Geithner, he will have the ability to spend more of the tax dollars. Money, the most liberal among us, do not wish to squander.
The three tax-and-spend-liberal Senators, in practice, honored the adage, a book cannot be defined by its cover. People must peruse the pages carefully if we are to comprehend the content. The Democrats who did not approve of the appointment extrapolated and said, before we determine who is an economic expert, we must consider the ethical way in which that individual spends cash. A Treasury Secretary must, at least, consistently attend to accounts payable.
Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Bernie Sanders, and I would say, perchance, it is time to examine conventions, customs, and words, thought to be complementary. Perhaps, Americans could better define tax-and-spend-liberals and economic experts. It would seem countless of those whose politics are more progressive pay taxes and do not wish to spend. Those who think it fine to avoid the fees that contribute to the greater good of society, fritter the funds. They are not more liberal, just more liable.
Sources for spending . . .