Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

Note: As I have done in the past on this blog, I will use masculine pronouns and nouns to refer to Chelsea Manning. Unlike chest-thumping militarists on the Right and woke SJWs on the Left, I believe that Chelsea Manning is 100% “man enough.” And if people can understand why Angela Davis thinks of Amistad every time she sees a black man in handcuffs, surely they can understand why I think of Lorena Bobbitt every time I hear a feminine pronoun used to refer to a man.

This post originated from the frustration that I feel over living in an ETJ. In case you didn’t know, “ETJ” stands for “extraterritorial jurisdiction.” You may have noticed that I mention in the “Welcome” box on this blog that I live in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Austin. An ETJ is basically an area outside the city limits of a municipality that is taxed by that municipality and subject to some of its regulations, particularly on zoning. I don’t have the full scoop on ETJs, and I’m sure the specifics vary from place to place, but the end result is that people who live in an ETJ pay taxes to a municipality where they have no representation.

For me, this means that I cannot vote for Austin mayor or city council. It also means that I cannot vote on municipal spending measures that have the potential to raise the taxes that I pay. If this setup sounds familiar to you, it is because the basic principle behind it (taxation without representation) is called out in the Declaration of Independence.

I did not realize that I lived in an ETJ until 2016, the year that Austin’s infamous Proposition 1 was passed. This was a “mobility bond package” that came with a price tag of $720 million. I remember being so glad that I had a suburban address and wouldn’t have to worry about my taxes going up. Because I KNEW that the measure would pass. In every (or pretty close to every) Austin election, there will be at least one big-ticket item on the ballot. All the local news networks will talk about how controversial it is and show clips of people railing against it. And pretty much EVERY TIME it will pass. You should not move to Austin if you can’t handle a liberal city that lives up to stereotypes. Because Austin voters never met a big-ticket item that they didn’t love.

Austin is a blue city not only because it is dominated by Democrats, but also because blue is how you feel when you open your tax bill. Unless of course you’re a liberal. In which case you will celebrate by going to your favorite craft brewery on your $1,000 bike. Where you will talk with all your friends about how great it is that privileged people like you are paying extra to help the downtrodden and marginalized. And then you’ll all be like “Can we just be socialist already?” Because socialist countries are known for their craft breweries and $1,000 bikes.

The way that I found out that I live in an ETJ was a closer examination of my voter registration card. A few days before Election Day 2016, I found out that there were numerous measures on the ballot in my city of residency. Then on Election Day, none of them were on my ballot. I didn’t raise a question about that at the polling place, but when I got home, I looked at my voter registration card to see if I could figure out what was going on. In the box marked “City,” it said “CAETJ.” I guessed that “CA” was “City of Austin,” but I didn’t know what “ETJ” was. So I Googled it. And boy, was that a “red pill” moment. (Not the communist red pill, although communists probably love ETJs.)

Not only did I find out more about annexation and ETJs, I also did a little digging on my county’s appraisal district website. And there I found out that my apartment complex had paid over $100,000 that year to the City of Austin in taxes.

Some of you might be thinking, “Wait, how is ‘taxation without representation’ still a thing? Haven’t people spoken up about this and fought back?” I wondered the same thing the night I found out about my disenfranchised status. And after just a little bit of Internet research, I found out that people have fought back, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

And in a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that ETJs are constitutional.

The case was Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa (1978), in case you are interested in looking it up.

Here’s what I don’t get. The due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment have been used to declare that states cannot place certain restrictions on abortions and that states cannot ban same-sex “marriages.” If the Supreme Court can find those “rights” in the 14th Amendment, is it too much to ask that they find “ETJs gotta go because they’re taxation without representation” in there?

So what is the rationale behind creating ETJs in the first place, and why do some support them? Dear readers, the answer to that will (hopefully) make you think, “Hmmm…I thought this was a free country.”

One of the primary motivations behind the creation of ETJs is to improve the tax base of municipalities. And you know that the bleeding heart crowd often makes this into a “racial justice” issue that is based on the “white flight” narrative. Because apparently there’s no such thing as a black person who doesn’t live in the ghetto. Oh, that’s right, the ones who don’t live in the ghetto are the “Uncle Toms” who have “sold out” to “whitey.”

And I’m sure I’m in big trouble with that crowd for daring to refer to myself as “disenfranchised,” because white privilege. And of course it is taboo to call their viewpoint racist. The irony here is that this crowd is often very good at recognizing that past oppression of the Jewish people doesn’t justify Jewish oppression of Palestinians. But yet, because slavery and because Jim Crow, it’s ok to disenfranchise people of any race who have been lucky or industrious enough to live in good neighborhoods.

If the property values in your neighborhood have fallen because it’s been overrun by crime and drugs, that is not the fault of the people in the next jurisdiction. Why should they pay extra because members of your community keep making destructive choices? And if you want them to share (or carry all by themselves) the load of your community, why shouldn’t they get a vote on who will lead and what policies will govern? Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Often the people who reside in ETJs are more likely to vote “the wrong way.”

This November there are a total of seven City of Austin spending propositions on the ballot. Combined price tag: $925 million. My personal favorite is “Proposition A, Affordable Housing,” which weighs in at $250 million. It is my favorite because in addition to low-income families and individuals, the funds are going toward housing for people referred to as “moderate income.” So not only are we being forced through taxation to “help the poor,” we’re also “helping” the “not-so-poor.” And it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in Oppression Studies to see what’s going on here.

This is one step on the road to universal basic income, i.e., the Marxist version of a participation trophy.

Even though he lost, I think that Chelsea Manning’s campaign platform provides an informative glimpse into the mind of universal basic income supporters. (And btw, don’t believe the hype about his defeat being a “landslide.” He finished with about 6% of the vote. That is definitely a landslide, but it’s definitely not a nothing burger for a candidate who was considered a “long shot” running against an incumbent.) Bold and centered in the “Universal Basic Income” section of his platform is the declaration: “With automation, our jobs are going away. We need to transition to a ‘post-work’ society.”

Translation: We need to get to a point where we don’t work, but the government pays for literally everything. (And as is typical for someone on the Marxist spectrum of doom, he doesn’t explain precisely how this will work.)

“But Megan, having universal basic income doesn’t mean that the government will be paying for literally everything.” Comrade Manning begs to differ. According to him, universal basic income, or U.B.I., “will only be a solution if it provides everyone with enough income to live a full, comfortable, and safe life.” (Now that’s what I call putting the sunshine back into “sunshine and rainbows.”) And this is only possible (emphasis is mine) “if U.B.I. is provided in addition to universal healthcare, and all of the other social safety nets.”

Now that’s what I call shattering the stereotype of the lazy looking-for-a-handout leftist.

And if there are any Catholics reading this who are offended by my negative view of universal basic income, I would suggest that you have been spending too much time in the tax-exempt la-la land that is the USCCB website. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is, in my opinion, one of the biggest promoters of class warfare in America today. And that is a real shame, considering that one of our canonized popes helped bring down Communism in Europe.

I sincerely believe that government welfare programs encourage envy and a sense of entitlement among the poor, and resentment and hardness of heart among the rich. If that’s not class warfare I don’t know what is. Thanks to USCCB rhetoric a lot of American Catholics (and not just the bleeding heart liberals either) take for granted that a welfare state is a necessary component of helping the poor. Here’s the problem with that: I don’t dispute that Scripture is full of admonitions to help the poor. But I do dispute that the welfare state is the best way of doing this and a justifiable way of doing this.

The USCCB also fails to recognize that a secular welfare state will always find ways to do sinister things in the name of “helping the poor.” I want to scream every time they say something like, “We’re fine with single-payer healthcare as long as it doesn’t lead to euthanasia!” or “We love the UN’s World Hunger Plan, except for the population control part!”

Earth to bishops: you cannot have single-payer healthcare without some version of “death panels.” And the UN is never going to budge on population control, because none of its programs work without it. Because Marxism is a lot easier to implement when you have a drastically-reduced-in-number population.

“But Megan, helping the poor is not Marxist!” If you’re “helping” them by taxing others, it is. It may be Marxism-lite, depending on the specifics, but it’s still Marxist. Because Marxism involves forcible redistribution of wealth. Too many Americans have forgotten that taxation is an exercise of force. This is easy to forget, because the IRS isn’t holding a gun to your head when you do your taxes.

But if your government can take your life, liberty, and/or property if you don’t do something, your doing that thing is based on force.

Does this mean that I think all forms of taxation are worth opposing? Am I committed to completely abolishing the welfare state? No and no. What I would like to see, though, is more Americans, particularly American Catholics, be more open to a paradigm shift, even a slight paradigm shift. I would like to see us be more willing to question all the ways that we are expected to pay (via taxation) for goods and services that we ourselves don’t use.

And even more than that, I would like to see us stop using the word “free” to refer to something that is paid for by taxpayers.

I have also been toying more and more with the idea that the Catholic Church in the U.S. should eventually relinquish its tax-exempt status and stop accepting government funds for Catholic schools. We often forget (or just ignore) that accepting government funds means accepting government control. If you accept their tax exemption offer, don’t be surprised if they put limits on what you can say about political candidates. If you accept their school funding, don’t be surprised if they want you to teach that there are 42 genders and that having sex whenever you want and with whomever you want is a fundamental human right.

There are many good-hearted, devout Catholics who disagree with me on economic issues. I do not think that I am morally or spiritually superior to them, nor do I think that my views are perfect. But I wish that they would take at least some of the energy that they currently spend lobbying for the welfare state and put it behind private endeavors that help the poor with no sinister strings attached. We cannot depend on a godless government to help us fulfill our duty to the poor. And yes, I do believe that we have a duty to the poor. And I think that ultimately we ourselves can do a better job of helping them than a government that thinks that everything would be ok if only they would stop having babies.

So even if you disagree with everything I said in these last paragraphs, I hope that we will be able to agree that we kinda want the same thing.

Verso l’alto,
Megan