Taxes and the American Backbone

Taxes are bad. Unfortunately, most Americans really don't comprehend how bad taxes are. Let me try to rectify this by examining the old colloquialism "money is power." The more money you have, the more power you have. You can buy a home, donate to a worthy charity, send your children to good schools, and even buy that Audi A4 you've been eyeing. So what does it say about a politician who wants to increase your taxes? Easy, that politician wants to take power away from you and keep it for themselves.

Now this slick politician will say it's for the good of the country, but I'm sure you've seen enough John Stossel on 20/20 to know the government is not very good at spending your money. After all, this is the same government that spent over $980,000 of your tax money to ship two cent washers to Iraq. No kidding. This is the same government that used a Bill to fund the Iraq Conflict to build a multi-million dollar peanut storage facility. Again, no kidding.

Go ahead and take a look at your paycheck and imagine what you could do if income taxes weren't taken out of your check. Have you received a pay raise recently? Chances are you barely noticed the difference in your paycheck because of the taxes. On top of that you have to pay sales tax. Oh, and don't think it's safe to jack up taxes on corporations either. A 1% increase in corporate taxes means a 0.8% increase in prices to you and me.

Nothing illustrates this point better than the story of Matt Murphy. Murphy was fortunate enough to catch Barry Bonds' record breaking home run ball. Unfortunately, Murphy cannot keep the ball because he cannot afford to pay the taxes. That's right, he can't use it as collateral to open a business, he can't use it as a down payment on a home, and he can't keep it with the hopes that it will appreciate in value.

Does that sound American? Does that sound like giving power to the people? What happened to the spirit of the Boston Tea Party? Think of this the next time you demand government services. All you're doing is giving control of your own life to someone else. You're much better off doing for yourself.

Journalists Are Not Inherently Altruistic

Congratulations to Barry Bonds on breaking Major League Baseball's career home run record. Bonds recently hit his 756th home run, but for some the new record is tainted because of Bonds' alleged steroid use. I say alleged because Bonds' grand jury testimony has not been made public but was leaked by a criminal, alcoholic, and drug-addicted lawyer name Troy Ellerman. Ellerman allowed a San Franscisco Chronicle reporter to view transcripts of grand jury testimony. Of course, this was highly illegal but was of no consequence to the reporters who reaped great personal benefit from Ellerman's criminal act.

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, authors of the book Game of Shadows, are recipients of the George Polk Award for their investigative reporting on steroid use in sports. In addition, the two have won praise from their peers and even President George Bush. I wouldn't doubt if they also received pay raises.

Williams and Fainaru-Wada claim that they published the leaked testimony because the "people" deserved to know the truth. They claim that the country is better, because parents can talk to their kids about the dangers of steroid abuse as a result of the increased awareness surrounding the issue. Williams also asserts his First Amendment right to free speech.

Sorry guys, I don't think you're that altruistic. The bottom line is both Williams and Fainaru-Wada gained wide-spread notoriety and financial benifits for their work with their drug addict accomplice Ellerman. I highly doubt the pair would have been interested in the leaked testimony if they weren't going to receive any personal benefit. So is it alright for the pair to claim they are exempt from jail time for contempt of court for not revealing their source?

Absolutely not. The pair knew the possible consequences of their actions before they published their story and went ahead with it anyway. I suspect it was because the benefits of doing so outweighed the disadvantages. Furthermore, they had direct contact with the criminal. It may be a different story if they were talking to a witness of a crime and not the criminal himself.

Williams and Fainaru-Wada can continue exercise their right to free speech. They don't and didn't have to name their source. The consequence of this action is jail time. Its that simple. In journalism, as in life, you have to take the good with the bad.