Government should not redistribute income

EDITOR: I feel I have to air my concerns over all the recently proposed "millionaires" tax ideas. Our Gov. Brown wants to balance California's government with a "little millionaires tax,"  while President Obama has a plan to just tax millionaires some more to pay for government services deemed "crucial" to our country.

I have two problems with this.

First, this operates on the premise that it is alright for the majority to take away property from a minority. Make no mistake about it. That is precisely what this is. Mr. Hitler was delighted to target Jews as they had property and money that he and his followers could use. Typically, the governments of most despots target those citizens who have something of value as not deserving it for one reason or another and thereby get the "majority" to align with them by giving away the treasure taken from this minority.

When Gov. Grown or President Obama say they are targeting the "rich" what is the real difference between this and any other minority?

America is no saint in this department. Americans felt justified to take away the property and possessions of minority groups from the very beginning.

Was it justified to remove land and property of Native Americans by force because the majority wanted it? Even at the time there were Americans such as Congressman Crocket who pointed out this practice violated the very concepts upon which this country was supposed to be founded. For Crocket's stand on principle he was politically targeted as are many politicians today.

I mean what did Bill Cosby do to you that justifies you taking away his property? The rich are an easy target, but what happens when we run out of rich people? I point out it was easy to take the Indians' lands and property, but eventually America ran out of Indian lands and property to take, so we turned to another minority.

Do you think the rich will just hand over everything they have worked so hard for? Will the rich continue to work hard just so you can take it all away from them? What is the eventual outcome from this practice?

Second, I have a problem with the concept that "we need' all these government services. Take, for instance, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. This agency was created to pursue the illegal moonshiners of the Prohibition era of the 1920s. After their stellar response to the Branch Davidians they have been stripped of most of their duties. Today the Department of Homeland Security has taken away ATF's jurisdiction over firearms, unless you call "Operation Fast and Furious" a glowing example of government safety.

Then I was watching television the other evening and saw the program about today's moonshiners. Apparently ATF no longer has jurisdiction over illegal liquor either. So, what have they left? Tobacco? As vital as this is couldn't it be done by the local sheriff's department and highway patrol?

As another government service in need I hear how poorly our elementary school system is going, with three sons in elementary school myself, this is a concern. The given reason for the school's failures is invariably shortage of money. The shortage as depicted will cause the laying off of teachers, if the new tax, Lotto or gaming revenue, etc., isn't passed.

As I see the money for our schools goes to pay for the federal Department of Education, then the state Department of Education, then the county Office of Education before it gets to the various district offices of education and then to actual teachers of the classrooms. All of the above departments and offices have personnel and staff who are well paid and get benefits and retirements taken from this monetary fund.

Now this may be necessary, but they admit that with the children of farm laborers they simply cannot get children ready for high school, let alone college. I question this excuse. As an example, my grandfather came from the Osage Indian Reservation in Oklahoma. After the great bank collapses he lost everything. At times he, my father and grandmother attended our local one-room school where the teacher, Mrs. Kelly, taught kindergarten through the eighth grade. My father started school in the second grade and went on to high school and college, eventually becoming a mechanical engineer.

While I am not saying the old school system was perfect, I ask the questions, Do we need all these departments and offices and are the children of farm laborers that deficient?

You and I could go on with various government offices and agencies, but that is not the issue. The issue is Do you feel justified in stealing from your neighbor to pay for these "vital" government services?

Some of you may question my supporting those "evil rich fat cats." Let me in all honesty say that I am a college graduate who has been rather underemployed for the last year and a half. And while I am part Native American we don't all have casinos and government money coming in. Most Native Americans, myself included, work for a living the same as you do. When my family runs short of money we cut back or do without. We do not feel justified by our shortage of income to go steal it from our neighbors.

If we as citizens of the United States decide we need these vital government services, then we need to raise taxes on all of us. If we only go after the evil rich or some other minority we will eventually run out of Indians who have lands or property worth taking. Then who will we go after?

I believe we should question these proposed taxes on principle and we should ask the question, Do we need all these government departments and agencies to provide us with these vital services?

GUY NIXON

Garden Valley