Most us are unaware of all the taxes we pay since many taxes are hidden in the
products we buy and the services we use. Nevertheless, a recent Rasmussen poll found
that 49 percent of Americans think they “pay more than they should in taxes and question
the fairness of the current tax system.”

When you ask people about taxes, they usually think of federal income tax. They
might also think of any state and local taxes. But we pay more in taxes than we might
think.

Payroll taxes are a significant tax at 7.65%. That is double (15.3%) if you are self-
employed. Sales taxes levied by state and local authorities are another significant tax. All
but five states levy sales taxes that range from 2.9% to 8.25%, which is the rate for
California. Many cities also have a local sales tax.

If you drive a vehicle, then don’t forget gasoline taxes. When you pull up to the
pump and see rising prices, some of that increase is due to the gasoline tax rate. The
federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and up to 24.4 cents for diesel. State gas taxes
range from 8 cents to 46.6 cents in California.

If you own a home, you also pay property taxes. But even if you rent, some of the
rent you pay goes to cover the property taxes. While we are talking about your home,
remember that you are paying hidden taxes on utilities like your gas, water, electric,
cable, and home phone. Add to that the taxes you pay for your cell phone plan.

Finally, we should mention the so-called “sin taxes.” The cigarette tax ranges
from 17 cents per pack to a high of 46 cents per pack in California. Taxes on beer range
from 6 centers to over one dollar. Add to this the taxes that are levied on wine and liquor.

Nearly half of all Americans think they pay more in taxes than they should.
Imagine if they considered all the taxes they paid. I think a large majority of Americans
would conclude that they pay too much in taxes.

Today is Valentine’s Day. Traditionally in this country, it has been a day for
cards, candy, and flowers. I think it would surprise most people to know that Valentine’s
Day is rooted in church history and not an invention of greeting card companies.

Pope Gelasius designated February 14 as a day to celebrate the life of St.
Valentine. Actually there were at least three men who were named Valentine that have
been tied to this day.

One tradition goes back to the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius. Valentine
was imprisoned for performing weddings for soldiers, who were forbidden from
marrying because Claudius believed that unmarried men made better soldiers. One
tradition says that he healed the daughter of his jailer. Before his execution, he wrote her
a note that said “from your Valentine.”

On February 14, there was a Roman festival based on the Roman goddess of
marriage, childbirth, and sexuality. Some claim that the church may have decided to
place the St. Valentine’s feast day in the middle of February to “Christianize” the pagan
festival. That is likely how St. Valentine’s life came to be associated with love and
romance.

During the Middle Ages, Geoffrey Chaucer and others emphasized the idea of
courtly love. By the 15th century, the idea of Valentine’s Day changed into an occasion in
which lovers would express their love for one another by giving the cards, candy, and
flowers we give to each other today. Those cards came to be known as “valentines.”

The oldest known valentine still exists. It was a poem written in 1415 by Charles,
Duke of Orleans, to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Other
“valentines” were sent in the following centuries.

Sending and giving valentines today is big business. More cards are sent on
Valentine’s Day than any other holiday except Christmas. I hope that now that you know
some of the history, you won’t forget that this day was named for a Christian saint
centuries ago.

Witches are back in the news, at least as representations of evil in some of the
current movies. So let’s look at a classic example of false facts about history. I am
talking about witches and witch hunts.

Rodney Stark in his new book, The Triumph of Christianity, says: “no historical
statistics have been so outrageously inflated as the numbers of those executed as witches
during the craze that took place in Europe from about 1450 to 1700.” He points out that
some writers have placed the final death toll at nine million, drawing comparisons with
the Holocaust in the 20th century. Others have claimed that the witch-hunts only ended
when the so-called “Dark Ages” of religious extremism were replaced by the
Enlightenment.

The cover picture of Rodney Stark’s earlier book, For the Glory of God, is a
painting of a woman being burned to death for practicing witchcraft. This has been an
iconic image and potent symbol of Christian intolerance and medieval irrationality.

What are the true facts? First the number of killed was probably closer to 60,000,
which is less than one percent of the oft-cited figure. And we should add that perhaps a
third of those executed were men, not women.

Second, the accusers weren’t religious fanatics trying to suppress heresy or rid the
world of people they believed were witches. Rodney Stark explains that often it was
church officials who intervened in witchcraft trials in order to protect the innocent.

Third, the period of “frantic” witch-hunting actually took place during the late
Renaissance and the Enlightenment. In his celebrated book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
writes that: “as for witches . . . they are justly punished.” Another leading figure of the
Enlightenment, Jean Bodin, “served as a judge at several witchcraft trials and advocated
burning witches in the slowest possible fires.”

This is but one more example of where the historical record has been distorted in
order to smear Christianity.

Regularly we hear stories in the news about people who have won the lottery.
Sometimes there are follow-up stories about what happened to them years later. Most of
the stories are discouraging. A famous study of major lottery winners in the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology found that happiness was elusive for most of the
winners. Most were less happy than before they won.

Does this mean that money will make us unhappy? No, but it does show the value
of earned success. This is something that Arthur Brooks has been studying for some time.
Put simply, people are more likely to be happier and more satisfied if they earn their
success rather than have it given to them. Arthur Brooks concludes that “earned success
facilitates the pursuit of happiness, unearned success generally impedes it.”

Let’s apply this to the entitlement culture that has developed over the last few
decades. One study found that “going on the welfare rolls increases by 16% the
likelihood of a person saying he or she has felt inconsolably sad over the past month.”
Another study found “that single mothers who were required by the 1990s welfare reform
to work for their benefits—and therefore lost leisure time, had to find child care and the
like—were still significantly happier about their lives after the reforms than before.”

These, and other studies, suggest that Americans will be less happy in the future
as the government continues to expand the welfare state. Fewer and fewer people earn
their way in America while more and more become dependent upon a government
subsidy. A record number of Americans are on food stamps. Entitlements as a percentage
of the federal budget have doubled since 1960. The Tax Foundation estimates that nearly
70 percent of Americans now take more out of the tax system than they pay into it.

We are heading to a future where there will be less earned success and less
happiness.

When we send representatives to Washington, we expect them to represent us. It
is hard, however, to represent the American people when they are sending mixed signals
about what to do with the economy and government spending.

One poll by Fox News found 83 percent of voters believe overspending by the
federal government is a big economic problem. A Rasmussen poll found that nearly two-
thirds (62%) favor across-the-board spending cuts.

On the other hand, are polls that indicate that voters do not want to cut spending.
For example, a Republican poll by members of Congress only found a third (37%) who
believe that cutting government spending will create jobs. Perhaps the most significant
poll was the November election. Voters seemed to be telling politicians they weren’t too
concerned about spending and the national debt.

Let me suggest that these mixed signals result from poor messaging. Stephen
Moore was on my radio program recently to talk about his book, Who’s the Fairest of
Them All? In a recent editorial, he mentions Larry Kudlow (CNBC host) who
recommends that members of Congress emphasize that “cutting spending is a tax cut.”
Deficit spending creates the illusion that government spending is less than it is. It also
creates a demand for tax increases. In the last few weeks, we heard the president and
certain members of his administration and Congress say we need to “pay our bills.”

Members of Congress should explain that cutting spending will be a tax cut for
taxpayers. They should also start emphasizing growth in the economy rather than
shrinking government. This model worked very well for Representative Jack Kemp and
others in the 1980s. Emphasize growth initiatives like tax reform, energy drilling, and
suspending onerous bureaucratic regulations.

The American people may not be sending mixed signals. They would be more
willing to reduce government spending if they can see how it would result in a tax cut for
them and grow the economy for everyone.

Have you ever heard of the verb “nestoring? I had never heard about it until Jonah
Goldberg wrote a column about it. The word comes from Dr. John Nestor, who even has
an entry in Wikipedia about him and the reason someone coined the term to describe him.

Back in the 1980s, transit officials in Washington tried to figure out why they
were having traffic problems on the Beltway. It turns out that Dr. Nestor would get in the
left lane and set his cruise control to 55 mph. This forced cars behind him to merge right
and create a bottleneck. He would not move to the right for drivers behind him. He
asked: “Why should I inconvenience myself for someone who wants to speed?”

He became a somewhat of a celebrity when he wrote a letter to the Washington
Post explaining what he was doing on the highway and why. The newspaper received
lots of angry letters to the editor in response and led to the coining of the term
“nestoring.”

Dr. Nestor was also a regulator for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. While
he was in the cardio-renal-pulmonary unit, he approved no new drugs. None, he
reasoned, were worth the risk. That was his philosophy. If you don’t approve of any
drugs, then you are guaranteed that no harmful drugs will go out on the market. Of
course, you also will be keeping back drugs that could be beneficial, even life-saving, to
the general public.

This was the philosophy of John Nestor, which came to be known by the verb
“nestoring.” Don’t take any risks. Keep a firm conformity to laws, standards, and
regulations regardless of the larger consequences.

We see so many examples of “nestoring” today in government regulations that
strive to make the world 100 percent safe. That is impossible in a fallen world. There will
always be risk and we will have to weigh them against the benefits. Unfortunately,
people who believe in “nestoring” seem to be missing what we used to call common
sense.

When I use the term “tax evasion” what comes to mind? I would assume you
would immediately think of an individual or perhaps a corporation that used illegal
means to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Lately, however, the term has been
redefined.

Take last month’s story about PGA golfer Phil Mickelson. After playing in a
tournament in California, he hinted that his new tax burdens might drive him out of the
state or perhaps out of professional golf. He was suffering from sticker shock because
new federal and state levies increased his tax rate to 62 percent.

The harsh reaction from pundits and politicians was predictable. After getting
pounded all week, he decided to take a rhetorical mulligan and apologized “to those I
have upset or insulted.” That was too bad. This left-handed golfer could have warned
some of the lefties in the Golden State about the impact high taxes will have on their
future.

Shortly after Mickelson’s apology, Tiger Woods said he sympathized with his
golf rival. He acknowledged his moved out of California many years ago because of high
taxes. He now enjoys living in Florida, for many reasons. One of those reasons is the
absence of a state income tax.

People who are leaving high tax states for states with lower state taxes or no state
taxes are the new “tax evaders.” What they are doing isn’t illegal, but they are being
treated with criticism and becoming publicly shamed for their desire to leave.

What if public shaming doesn’t work? That is why pundits and politicians are
talking about implementing an exit tax. After all, we don’t let people move away from
their credit card debts. Why should we allow these “economic deserters” leave the state
without paying their “fair share” of the state’s debts and obligations? Shouldn’t they have
to pay for their “tax evasion”?

At the moment, all of this is just talk. But if more and more wealthy people
publicly talk of leaving a state because of taxes, expect politicians to get serious about
passing an exit tax.

Since 1910, the Boy Scouts of America have been dedicated “to prepare young
people to make ethical choices.” The Scout oath required boys and their leaders to be
morally straight.

That is why it was so jarring to hear recently that the Boy Scouts of America was
“discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual
orientation.” Local chartered organizations would essentially make their own decisions
so that scouts and their families could “choose a local unit which best meets the needs of
their families.”

The pressure on the Boy Scouts to change their policy is understandable. One
hundred years ago, they were one of the most admired organizations in America. Today
they are one of the most vilified organizations in the country. Perhaps the leadership
thought this policy change might help them to survive and fend off some of the criticism
they have received.

Implementing this policy will not stop the criticism. Homosexual activists will
not be appeased until there is a national policy eliminating any standard of morality. In
the mean time, local chapters will feel lots of pressure to fall in line with Boy Scout
headquarters.

The larger question is whether it will be good for the boys and the local chapters
of the Boy Scouts. More than two-thirds (69%) of Boy Scout troops are charted by faith-
based organizations. Many will leave the Boy Scout organization to start their own or
simply stop providing a venue for the boys.

More than 2,000 cases of child molestation have surfaced in the Boy Scouts over
the years. This is what has occurred with the current policy of the Boy Scouts. What
would be the impact of this new policy? I asked my radio audience if they thought this
proposed policy would increase or decrease the number of those cases. I think we all
know that would increase the rate of child sexual abuse.

I am certain the Boy Scouts were tired of the criticism, lost sponsors, and
evictions. That still does not justify a policy proposal that was a really, bad idea.