To Each His Or Her Own

Have you ever noticed an article in the newspaper, or a story on the radio, about someone who is refusing to pay that part of his income tax which will go to support war. All you need to figure out the amount is the percentage of government spending that goes to the Department of Defense, and subtract the same percentage from your tax.ⁱ It's very simple, it's very principled and it's very interesting. But it's also very wrong. In fact, according to the Constitution, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States,”^ii,iii,iv meaning that the one thing that Congress can constitutionally use as the basis for taxation is defense and our physical protection.

Congress has, however, added to its functions and perceived responsibilities, and, of necessity , has also added taxes to pay for them. Indeed, we have gone into debt for a number of reasons, but an important one is that we have imposed many non-constitutional requirements on ourselves.^v Whether they are wrong or not, they are often expensive. The provision of food and housing for the hungry and homeless are certainly appealing policies, as is support of the arts, science, space travel, health care, and education, but it is not unreasonable to wonder who will pay the costs for these initiatives.

There are times, moreover, when laws are passed that conflict with constitutional principles. Usually these are voided by the courts, but that is not always the case. And there are times when the taxpayer is left with the responsibility of paying the costs of what, at least on the surface, appears to be a benefit resulting from such a conflict. Of course it's not always so. For example, although an argument may be made that taxation to pay the salaries of religious chaplains for the military, while seemingly in conflict with the First Amendment's clear statement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it is justified by the government's taking members of the armed forces away from their communities and their churches. But it is harder to understand why those same churches, when in their own communities, might be free of taxes. They are provided with the same governmental services as everyone else but don't pay for them.

Mandatory health care regulations, when required of Christian Scientists, also appear to present a problem. Indeed, the taxation of Christian Scientists to pay the medical costs of others would seem to be in contravention of their religious beliefs – the making of a “law respecting an establishment of religion” and violating their freedom to observe their teachings. In addition, requiring individuals to have health insurance in general – a function not mentioned in our founding document – is seen by many as an infringement on our liberty. And the congressional requirement that employers buy insurance services that are in violation of their religious tenets^vi is considered by many to be similarly in opposition to constitutional principles.

The same is true of state laws. The jailing of Amish in Kentucky for not having brightly colored triangles on their wagons (to indicate slow-moving) vehicles, which the Amish view as “garish displays” forbidden by their religion, is, at best, problematic. It might be argued that the law protects those who might be injured or killed in an accident involving such a vehicle. The ones most at risk, though, are those in the wagon – not the driver of the eighteen-wheeler which might hit it. Refusing to pay a fine and fees, Jacob Gingerich stated, “I don't have to pay them to prosecute me for my religion.”^vii Of course, he was violating a state regulation and may not be protected by the federal Constitution.

A Constitutional Convention, or even an amendment on the subject in the near future, is unlikely, but perhaps the tax-refuser had it right. The woman^viii who opposes abortion, might reject taxes which support it; the man^ix who considers government supported health care, and especially the requirement that he have health insurance, as illegal impositions, may decline to pay taxes for such programs; and the childless couple may feel it an imposition to have to pay school taxes.^x Even though these are not for “the Debts and ... the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States” all who might try to follow the Constitution would lose and be subject to fines or incarceration, because the courts seem to favor such efforts. They see entitlements as implied by the Constitution, even if they are not there. And they do not appear to recognize the right of an individual to demand exemption from what he views as an illegal governmentally assumed power. Rather, they favor the philosophy of what some call a “nanny state,” one in which the government takes care of every perceived need of society – whether philosophical or physical. And they're willing to have the members of that society pay any price for that.

So suck it up and pay the two dollars.

Next episode: “Where Seldom Is Heard” – You don't say!

i     Actually it's a lot more complicated than that since a lot of the resources that eventually go toward fighting a war begin in the Department of Energy, the Department of State, and other such arms of the national government.

ii     Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1.

iii     Over the course of time our government has also acquired a not inconsiderable debt, and, with the interest it generates, it is also a major drain on our economy. But the Constitution permits taxation to pay for it.

iv    The “general Welfare” being that of the country, not its citizens, and not referring to entitlements of individuals. In addition to the military that was covered by “the common Defence,” however, it might refer to police and fire services and other means for providing physical security.

v     Perhaps this is the way Congress has chosen to turn non-Constitutional acts into constitutionally sanctioned ones.

vi    Contraception and abortion come to mind immediately.

vii    Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2012, page A3. Amish Bridle at Buggy Rules.
viii   Or man.

ix    Or woman.

x     Indeed, if their condition of childlessness was unintended, it may be an emotional insult added to their “injury.”