It seems as

though every time I find myself mellowing a bit in my

feeling that liberalism is a major threat to freedom,

some liberal curmudgeon says something so outlandish that

my former passion is rekindled.

Enter the

Atlanta Journal-Constitution and its freedom-hating

opinion editor, Cynthia Tucker.

I was

reading along and agreeing with much of what the

editorial was saying. It was calling for fiscal

responsibility, something I firmly believe in.

It was

suggesting that some of the federal budget surplus (if we

ever actually see any surplus) should go to reducing the

federal debt, an idea I can also enthusiastically

support.

But then

the stinger. The danger we have to watch out for, this

editorial writer breathlessly informed us, is that a

bunch of radical elements will get their hands on that

surplus and use it for an extreme "tax cut

giveaway."

Let's see

if I can noodle through the implications of that language

and figure out what this editorial writer was trying to

say.

Most people

work for 30 or 40 years, and most people work hard.

During the time they are working, most people pay almost

half of their income in taxes to federal, state and local

governments. They pay more in taxes than they do for

food, shelter and clothing... combined.

Most

people, if they think it through, realize that this

wouldn't be necessary if governments would use tax money

more responsibly, doing the true business of government

and no more.

That means

not funding every ridiculous research project that comes

along, not keeping generations of people dependent upon

government and never once dealing with the root causes of

poverty, not pouring billions into pork barrell projects

that buy votes for politicians... simply providing for

the defense of the republic, defending the rights of

individuals and providing the framework in which we can

all prosper.

But, as we

know, our governments - especially the federal

government - grow more bloated with each passing

minute. Bureaucrats justify their continued existence and

the continual growth in size and influence of their

agencies by manufacturing crises, and politicians respond

bureaucrats, creating more and more bureaucracies and

generally spending at least twice as much tax money as

they truly need to spend in order to fulfill the proper

functions of government.

It's

amazing that our economic system doesn't completely

collapse under the weight of all this government, but

somehow people manage to not just survive, but in most

cases to prosper in spite of the enormous drain that the

government places on their incomes.

A few years

ago, we finally elected a Congress that made at least

some effort to rein in the excesses of previous ones, and

lo and behold the economy fairly exploded with vitality.

Now the

government is finally admitting that it has more money

than it needs, and naturally some of us who worked so

hard to produce that income for our government are

thinking that perhaps the government will give some of it

back.

But we are

obviously too greedy according to the AJC editorial. We

thought it was our money, earned by the sweat of our

brow, but we were wrong. The sweat of our brow belongs to

the government. Giving it back to us would constitute an

irresponsible "giveaway" on the part of the

government.

If those

who think like Ms. Tucker are placed in charge, we greedy

types won't get our hands on any of that money. We will

kiss the rings of those in power in gratitude because

they allow us to keep a little more than half of our

incomes to start with, not ask for even more, spoiled

brats that we are.

I try hard

to see the other side of any argument, I really do. And I

look for reasons to be hopeful that freedom won't one day

be a dim, distant memory.

But,

liberals, when you reveal the attitude that people exist

to serve the government and not the other way around, I'm

sorry, but I can't see your side of the argument at all.

I'm afraid

all I can see is red.