Axiomatic Path

I bought a ticket to the world
But now I've come back again
--Spandau Ballet

A recent piece by Judge Nap reiterates what was said here. Like the Judge, I have been critical of Mitt Romney and his record, but that does not blur the truth in Mitt Romney's recent remarks. Let's review the axiomatic path:

Federal income tax represents forceful confiscation of economic resources generated by productive effort of some individuals for redistribution to others.

This forceful confiscation occurs on a progressive scale, meaning that those with high incomes surrender a larger fraction of their incomes than those with lower incomes.

The progressive scale has 'progressed' to the point where just below half of all adults pay no federal income tax which means, of course, that the other half contributes all of the economic resources to this federal revenue stream. Individual income taxes constitute nearly half of all economic resources confiscated by the federal government.

About half of US households receive some of those economic resources confiscated by the federal government. This percentage has also been growing.

By definition, people who receive economic resources from the federal government are dependent on the productive effort of others.

Because people generally prefer less work over more work, and leisure over work, then it is likely that many people will become comfortable with conditions of dependency on the federal government.

Recognizing this, politicians are likely to expand conditions of dependency in order to win votes.

Dependency, measured in terms of the size of federal government entitlement programs, is likely to increase. Empirical evidence is confirmatory.

Conversely, politicians who threaten the economic resource stream of entitlements are likely to receive less electoral support dependents.

The fundamental problem that Romney's remarks capture is this. When the federal government has the authority to redistribute wealth using a progressive tax mechanism, how is it possible to limit government size and scope when elections are determined by majority vote, and when increasingly more voters act as principals depending on strong armed government agents to confiscate economic resources from others on the principals' behalf?