Should the rich pay more in taxes, or not? This is always the question.

Notice how the question is never: Should the government spend less? Or: Should the government do less? Or, better yet: Should the government have less power?

Here's another question you never hear asked: If a rich person earns his money honestly, doesn't it belong to him?

Or: Can't the private sector do just about anything better than the government? If so, then why is government doing more and more? Why does government spend billions on public education, and when education gets worse, spends more?

The problem with government, and the politicians who fund it, is that it's not accountable. Government cannot go out of business. Of course, it's not that we need anarchy. It's just that we need a private sector to be handling everything other than what only government can do, which is protect us from violent or fraudulent criminals. Isn't that enough?

As we speak, Republicans and Democrats are struggling in Congress over the latest budget fiasco. As usual, liberals and socialists set the terms of the debate.

The proposed Republican plan is “unacceptable,” said Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Not requiring more taxes from high earners would be “unconscionable,” Kerry said.

But again: Why is government spending so much in the first place? How good a job is government doing with the money of mostly rich people? Even most Democrats you talk to would say, "Not very." So why is government spending so much in the first place?

“Where the divide is right now is on taxes, whether or not the wealthiest Americans should share in the sacrifice,” Democratic Senator Patty Murray, the co-chairwoman of the panel said going into a meeting yesterday.

Sacrifice? What sacrifice? Government freebies are without limit. Only the collapse of the entire currency, of the whole private economy itself, would spell the end of government benefits. Of course, that is where we're presently headed.

It's so easy to be a liberal socialist. Nobody ever questions you. Nobody ever challenges you on your basic premise. A liberal socialist politician is kind of like a nineteenth century schoolmarm who tries to make you feel guilty. In truth, you cannot feel guilty without anyone's consent. But the Patty Murrays of the world are good at getting people to feel guilty by capitalizing on the cowardice of the guilt-ridden. The guilt-ridden are the bozos in Congress -- primarily Republicans -- who will never challenge her with the right questions.

People say the problem in Washington DC is fighting between the parties. Fighting? What fighting? The terms of the debate are set by one side. They always have been, at least in all of our lifetimes. Democratic majorities come and go, but the tune is always the same. "The rich shouldn't be so rich. They should give it away." What they don't tell you is that the rich are giving it away to politicians, who feed off the power and make their constituents dependent on their legalized theft and coercion. And don't counter what I'm saying by screaming, "Social Security" and "Medicare." These programs don't deliver anywhere near what the private market could, recessions and all.

Government is a taker, economically speaking. But somehow Big Government still holds the moral high ground. How can this be? Something is deeply wrong somewhere. Either the economic numbers are wrong, and the economy is actually thriving and growing under all this government spending; or, something is wrong with the way we approach morality. It's not free markets, private property, wealth production and capitalism that should be on the moral defensive. It's the looters and the socialists, like Kerry and Murray -- and the Republicans who enable them.