Ashley Pierce is a political science freshman and Mustang Daily conservative columnist.
President Obama had the misfortune of the entire nation seeing his face become more and more pinched and constipated-looking during Dr. Benjamin Carson’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast this past week.
Carson, a neurosurgeon at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, took the stage Thursday morning with a speech that critiqued the tax system, Obamacare and political correctness — all while referencing Jesus. It was beautiful and it made me wish C-SPAN was a more watched channel.
While Carson’s speech began innocent enough, quoting verses from the Bible such as “‘With his mouth the Godless destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous escapes,’” the rest of the speech drifted far from anything Obama expected.
Carson first ripped apart the entire idea of political correctness (thank the Lord — wait am I allowed to say that, or will too many people be offended?). He condemned it as something that “muffles” American citizens. Needless to say, his speech certainly was not deterred by any such muzzle — though I’m sure Obama would have appreciated that.
On the subject of taxes, Carson made not only his case plain and simple but also plan plain and simple.
“When I pick up my Bible” he said, “I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and He’s given us a system. It’s called tithe.”
For non-religious folk out there, tithing is the act of giving God 10 percent of your income through the means of the church. Wealthy Christians don’t give more than poor Christians. It’s always 10 percent.
Basically what Carson suggests is all Americans, no matter their income, give the same percentage of their income in taxes, just as all Christians give 10 percent to the church. Honestly, if it’s good enough for God, surely it should be good enough for the government.
Now I — nor Carson I’m sure — am not implying that everyone’s Christian or everyone in the government should do it this way because the Bible says so. That would be silly and infringe upon separation of church and state. The government should do it the way Carson describes because it just bloody makes more sense for all Americans to have to give the same percentage.
Carson then went on to mention Obamacare, despite being two seats away from Obama himself. I don’t pretend to understand all the mechanics of the healthcare policy he suggested, but the word “efficient” was used: a word that is disturbingly lacking from the vocabulary of our policymakers.
Carson suggested that a citizen should have a “health savings account to which money can be attributed pre-tax from the time you’re born until the time you die. When you die you can pass it on to your family members so that when you’re 85 years old and you’ve got six diseases, you’re not trying to spend up everything, you’re happy to pass it on and there’s nobody talking about death panels.”
After that statement, Obama switched his attention to the ground.
The idea of being able to pass on your healthcare to loved ones especially makes Carson’s plan stand out. Especially in a world in which little is legally allowed to pass on from parent to child — our own iTunes libraries don’t even actually belong to us (sorry future daughter, I guess my hardy collecting of Taylor Swift songs has been in vain). If I can give whatever amount of healthcare money I failed to use to my children, that will almost make up for them missing out on hours upon hours of Taylor Swift enjoyment.
Although it was obvious how uncomfortable Obama was throughout the speech, Carson still managed to be one of the few to stand up and speak out about the government’s inefficiency — an action other citizens would do well to follow.
Carson embodies everything that’s needed in a leader. Not only did he point out problems with the government, but he also offered common sense solutions, the latter of which many politicians seem to be lacking lately. Maybe we need a change from politicians in the White House. Maybe it’s time for just an average Joe, or even a neurosurgeon to lead our country in the right direction (no pun intended).
I’d like to hope that before the country’s next presidential election, our current president would learn from Carson. I’d like to hope Obama will take all the wonderful points from Carson’s speech and try to incorporate a few into his own plans, or even for Vice President Joe Biden to have taken something to heart.
Then again, I’m also hopeful that reporters will start being fair and balanced — so I shouldn’t hold my breath.
You are an embarrassment to the Political Science department. You use no evidence for your claims aside from your own personal agreement with Dr. Carson. You should be ashamed of this article. I learned nothing except that you are a biased individual who fails abysmally in your attempt to present any logical reasons as to why a sane individual should listen to you. Where is the analysis of health care policy? Where is evidence that illustrates how this 10% policy could function in America? Where is any information on the impact this could have on Americans? You yourself state that you do not know or understand Obamacare yet you critique as if you do. This man is a SCIENTIST, not an economist. Just because he is a man of science who believes in the teachings of Jesus does NOT make him an authority figure on economic and health care policies. As a Political Science major myself, I know that you should know better.
P.S.
Have you considered the fact that Obama was not embarrassed by Dr. Carson’s speech but was in fact tired of hearing bullshit from people who have no business commenting on such matters? Kind of like your article.
Ashley,
Tax code is not written–and should not be written–according to how much the government can squeeze out of an individual. Rather, it is written in such a way as to mitigate the amount a person’s financial life gets damaged. In other words, someone, let’s call them “Mitt,” who makes a substantial amount of money in a year, over 250k, is impacted less by a higher tax than someone, Joe, who makes the national average, in the 40k’s. Mitt will lose the money to be able to buy a second vacation home, whereas Joe will lose the money to pay off his house loan. Yes, the rich may feel like they’re getting screwed by a graduated tax rate, but not as much as the poor will get screwed by a flat tax rate. Seeing as how the poor make up a larger portion of our population than the rich, democracy would entail a graduated tax rate.
As to a “health savings account,” it seems like a good idea at first glance, but it doesn’t account for extraneous(and very common) circumstances; i.e., does debt transfer to the next generation, what about people who can’t afford to put money into it, what kinds of spending can and can’t it be used on? Overall, it seems like Mr. Carson simply tosses a theory into the political sphere without thinking it through. By the way you’ve described it, it is just a savings account!
Also, that last sentence severely bugged me. If you’re referring to a liberal bias to news(MSNBC), you surely cannot forget the conservative bias to news(FOX). Fair and balanced reporting is not as easy as it sounds, just like fair and balanced history, or fair and balanced science. We SHOULD strive for it, but many reporters have agendas to push, so it is our job, as consumers, to ignore such people.
I usually can’t get past your first paragraph because you’re such a horrible writer. this is garbage
I usually can’t get past your first paragraph because you’re such a horrible writer. this is garbage.
A flat tax is fair enough. It may be easier for some to pay it than others, but the tax system as it is punishes people for making more money.