Memorial Day: Honoring Those Who Died for Freedom While Rejecting Those Who Fight for Anti-Freedom -- A Revisit

Sometimes I decide that what I have written doesn't need to be modified. So it is with what I wrote on Memorial Day last year. The cicumstances that influenced what I wrote have continued. If anything, they have become worse and more alarming. What did I write a year ago? This:

Freedom, it seems to me, is an oft-misunderstood concept. In 2023, in Indeed, Freedom Is Not Free, I explained why freedom is not the same thing as unregulated behavior. Last year, in Freedom To Do or Freedom From or Both?, I concluded that there are two sides to freedom, "freedom to do"and "freedom from."These concepts are mutual, because "freedom to do" is simply "freedom from" regulation, authority, and social constraint, and "freedom from" is simply "freedom to do" whatever is being escaped.

So many of the articles, commentaries, broadcasts, social media postings, cartoons, and memes that address Memorial Day proclaim respect, appreciation, and gratitude for those who fought and died to protect "our freedoms." In other words, they fought FOR freedom. They fought to DEFEND freedom. But against whom or what have they fought? Freedom needs protection and defense only if there is something that opposes freedom. There are all sorts of names for what opposes freedom, ranging from repression through authoritarianism to totalitarianism, and many hours and words have been devoted to debates over which of these words properly describe what stands in the way of freedom. But does it matter? All of these movements, ideologies, and worldviews can be lumped together under the term "anti-freedom." Memorial Day is a day to honor those who fought against and died fighting anti-freedom.

Does it not make sense that the best way to honor those who fought and died defending freedom against anti-freedom is to follow a path that does not lead to, and does not wander through, the anti-freedom desert? Does it not make sense that following a freedom path requires those who are alive and benefitting from freedom do their part in standing up to anti-freedom when its ugly head reappears, as it has over the millennia during which humans have lived? Does it make sense to behave in the same manner as those against whom the defenders of freedom fought and sacrificed their lives in doing so? Of course not. It makes no sense to throw away all that was saved, protected, and cherished by those who fought and died, because to do so means that their lives were sacrificed in vain. Do we want them observing this nation and asking themselves, and asking us, "Why did we bother?"

Yet there are those who claim to be "freedom lovers," many of whom join in Memorial Day tributes of one sort of another to our fallen heroes, whose behavior is frighteningly similar to that of those who posed the threats against freedom that sparked the battles and wars in which the heroes fell. How does one explain this incongruity? The answer rests in that tension between "freedom to do" and "freedom from" that I described in Freedom To Do or Freedom From or Both?. A simple example of this tension is the conflict between "freedom to do" 90 miles per hour on the highway and another person's "freedom from" injury and death while driving. As I wrote in that post,

What makes the analysis particularly difficult on Memorial Day is a troubling tension between "freedom from" and "freedom to do." On Memorial Day we remember and honor those who died to give this nation "freedom from" authoritarianism, dictatorship, repression, and ethnocentrism. Yet we also seem increasingly complacent when those who benefitted from the sacrifice of those we honor claim to have the "freedom to do" the very same behaviors the suppression of which was the purpose for which those we honor fought and died. It is particularly disturbing when people who profess a deep admiration for those who gave their lives to protect the nation from those enumerated evils are at the same time supporting people and policies that nurture and enlarge those same evils in this nation. What was the point of so many sacrifices to eliminate authoritarianism, dictatorship, repression, and ethnocentrism when there are people who want those same attributes to become the linchpin of this nation's existence?

And now, a year later, it isn't just a matter of those who are "increasingly complacent" but those who are "supportive" of those whose behavior, policies, and decisions are less aligned with the freedom for which many died and more aligned with the ideologies and goals of those who wear the hat of "anti-freedom."

I've written several times that freedom has its limitations, and that it comes at a price. The price is not only the sacrifice of those who fought and died protecting it, but the recognition of those who benefit from freedom that there are limits to what freedom permits someone to do. Freedom does not provide permission to be, or support, anti-freedom. By definition, freedom cannot be, cannot support, and cannot abide, anti-freedom.

Yet though I did not change those words, I will add a sequel. In college I took a course called "American Civilization" by the late, esteemed Professor Anthony N. B. Garvan. At the end of a semester in which he took that class on a journey through the many phases of American culture as manifested in behavior, belief, art, and other expressions, he closed on the last day of class, back in the 1970s, by predicting that America's culture was changing yet again, shifting into what he called the "me generation." And yes, that came to pass. A shift from valuing the benefits of living in an interconnected, mutually supportive society to an emphasis on the rights and privileges of individuals that weakened the emphasis on the responsibilities of individuals. Empathy lost space to selfishness. Accountability and transparency were surmounted by lies and cover-ups. Generosity became disfavored as greed took center stage. "How can I help" was heard less often than "What's in it for me?" The delicate balance between rights and responsibility, between empathy and self-care, between generosity and greed toppled. Those heroes who sacrificed their lives to protect freedom were able to do so, not because they were consumed by greed, by selfishness, by "what's in it for me?" but because they understood the value of empathy, of resposibility, of accountability. Those heroes were part of a military that could not have succeeded, let alone survived as a cohesive force, had it been lacking in resposibility, cooperation, and empathy. And that military was supported by a civilian population that shared those same values, and there were heroes among them, also. They shared the same values.

What remains is to understand how and why the culture shifted to too many afflicted by self-centeredness, greed, and prevarication. What remains is to figure out what, if anything, can be done to rebalance the culture. I leave that to others who are learned and expertised in sociology and political science. But I leave those questions to those who read this short essay, to ponder, to reflect, to observe, to think.

May it be that those heroes we honor did not die in vain. May they never need to ask "Why did we bother?"

What Solves the Affordability Challenge? Eliminating Taxes or Raising Wages?

According to this report from yesterday, Jeff Bezos, one of the world's wealthiest individuals, has proposed eliminating federal income taxes for low-income individuals. My guess is that his reasoning ultimately rests on the notion that if federal income taxes are eliminated for low-income individuals it will reduce the number of people interested in and supporting the movement to "tax the rich." Of course, Bezos framed his proposal by suggesting that eliminating federal income taxes on low-income individuals will increase the chances of "bringing themselves up" during "hard times."

Bezos gave an example of what he claims to be federal income taxes getting in the way of people improving their financial situation. "A nurse in Queens who makes $75,000 a year pays more than $12,000 a year in taxes. Does that really make sense? How about we start by having the nurse in Queens not pay taxes? That's $1,000 a month that could help with rent or groceries or anything." It is not clear where Bezos gets the $12,000 figure. In 2026, a single individual with $75,000 in wages and no other income, who claims the standard deduction and is not entitled to any credits, has a federal income tax liability of $7,670. What is the other $4,330? State and local income tax? Sales tax? Gasoline tax? Is Bezos advocating that anyone with $75,000 or less in gross income pay no taxes and not simply no federal income tax?

If Bezos is focusing on the federal income tax, he appears to be ignoring the fact that roughly 76 million households paid no federal income tax in 2025. Thirty percent of these households had income exceeding $75,000. Unlike the person earning $75,000 with no deductions or credits, many households paying no federal income tax take advantage of deductions and credits, including, for example, the earned income credit. Though it makes sense for the truly impoverished to be spared paying federal income tax, it enhances the sense of civic duty and societal responsibility to require individuals who are not truly impoverished to contribute something to the cost of belonging to a civilization. Perhaps the challenge for the nurse in Queens is the inadequate salary, which if raised, even though generating more tax liability, would also generate more take-home pay.

Bezos explained that, " The bottom half of income earners in this country pay only 3% of the taxes." His percentage is close. It's actually 3.3 percent. He continued, " It's only 3%. We can find 3%." So let's guess where that 3 percent would be found. Would it be an increase in the taxes paid by the top one percent? I doubt it. The top 2 through 10 percent? Perhaps. The top 11 through 30 percent? Possibly. But the best bet would be it comes in the form of more cuts in federal spending. More cuts to Medicaid. More cuts to Affordability Care Act financing. More cuts to other programs that help the truly impoverished who, even after taking home 100 percent of their pay spared from federal income taxes, do not have enough financial resources to afford the necessities of life.

The issue isn't so much taxation as it is the failure of wages to keep pace with inflation and productivity. The federal minimum wage has stagnated for many years. The economic benefit of productivity increases, generated as much by labor as by capital investment in machinery and technology, has flowed to the owners of capital and not to the workers. A tax rate of zero means nothing when the income is zero or extremely low.

The Federal Fuel Tax Suspension Reverse Lottery

Everyone knows how a lottery works. A bunch of people each pay a small amount of money for a chance to be one of the few winners of much larger amount of money.

Considering the low chances of winning, many people pass on the chance to win a lottery. Other people jump at the chance, convinced they have some sort of edge especially when it involves picking numbers.

What's a reverse lottery. A bunch of people each receive a small amount of money (in escrow to make it work) for a chance to be one of the few losers of a much larger amount of money.

Considering the low chances of losing, some people would readily accept the small amount of money. Others would refrain from participating, unwilling to incur even that small risk of being required to pay back much more than they were given.

How is all of this relevant to a federal fuel tax suspension?

First, a federal fuel tax suspension is a reverse lottery. By not paying the federal fuel tax, purchasers of gasoline and diesel are in effect being given a small amount of money each time they fill their tank. How much? It depends on the amount of fuel a person uses. Someone who uses 30 gallons of gasoline a month would be given, in effect, $5.52 per month.

Second, a federal fuel tax suspension would decrease federal fuel tax revenues by roughly $3.5 billion each month. This means the Highway Trust Fund would stop receiving income. This means the Highway Trust Fund would be required to stop making payments for highway construction and maintenance and for public transit.

Third, when the Highway Trust Fund stops making payments for highway construction and maintenance, the number of unrepaired potholes will increase and other deterioration will go unfixed. Construction will come to a halt. Some workers will lose jobs. Some drivers will hit potholes, incurring significant expenses. Not all workers will lose their jobs. Not all drivers will hit potholes. Those who do lose jobs or hit potholes have "won" the reverse lottery. They received $5.52 per month. They lose their income. They pay for expensive repairs to their vehicles.

But there also is a big difference between a reverse lottery and a federal fuel tax suspension. A reverse lottery, like a typical lottery, is voluntary. Participate if you wish, step away if you're not interested. But a federal fuel tax suspension is a mandatory, involuntary reverse lottery. Every driver, every worker participates. There's no opt out, permitting someone to pay the federal fuel tax in exchange for retention of a job, immunity from hitting a pothole, or reimbursement for the cost of repairing the damage to a vehicle caused by a pothole.

A similar analysis applies to suspension of state fuel taxes. About two months ago I addressed a similar fuel tax suspension proposal in Pennsylvania, in Does a Temporary Tax Suspension Solve the Underlying Problem?, pointing out other adverse consequences of a fuel tax suspension and explaining that the suspension does not solve the underlying problem. I concluded with this advice:

Yes, increased gasoline and diesel prices are frustrating, harmful to most drivers' wallets, and detrimental to the economy. [The proponent of the fuel tax suspension] is trying to solve a problem caused by someone else. Perhaps it would be better if we insisted that those who cause a problem or break something be the ones who fix the problem or make the repairs. If someone else solves the problem, those afflicted by the problem are less likely to identify those who caused the problems and less likely to take steps to ensure that those same people don't cause yet another problem.

Hopefully people are not conned into thinking, "Oh, you politicians suspended the fuel tax and lowered what I'm paying and that is wonderful so I will continue supporting all of you" but rather realize, "Oh, this is a short-term benefit and in the long run it's going to cost me more, perhaps much, much more, so let's stop with the band-aids, fix what all of you broke, and stop all of you from breaking anything else."

What Sort of Tax or Fee Should Fund Local Street and Sidewalk Maintenance?

Portland, Oregon, has a problem. Its streets, sidewalks, street lights, and related infrastructure is deteriorating at a rapid rate. The reason is insufficient revenue from the local gasoline tax an decreases in federal and state funding. So, according to this story, shared with me by reader Morris, the town council is proposing a fee that would be imposed on property owners. The monthly fee would be $12 for a home, $8.40 for an apartment unit, and $61 for commercial properties. A similar proposal failed ten years ago. Other cities in Oregon have imposed similar fees.

The city estimates it needs $6 billion to bring its street and sidewalk infrastructure to fair condition. The proposed fee would raise about $47 million annually. It takes many years of $47 million to raise $6 billion. More than 127 years.

The town explains that "The fee is meant to charge people based on their street usage," and that the lower rate for apartment units is because, "according to the city, apartment residents take fewer trips." That conclusion is highly questionable.

Several of the people who oppose the proposal claim that it is a tax that needs voter approval to be put into place. It is structured as a fee, though the greater the disconnect between the person paying the fee and the person's use of the roads and sidewalks, the more the charge resembles a tax. Landlords explain that the fee would force an increase in rents, an outcome not wanted by landlords or tenants. Business owners in Portland, already facing high taxes, see the fee as yet another hurdle for them to keep operating. Others want the local gasoline tax to be allowed to expire before any other fees or taxes are enacted.

So who should pay for maintaining streets and sidewalks? Though I support the mileage-based road fee, it is difficult to implement at the local level. One reason is that annual or semi-annual odometer readings are recorded by states and not localities. Another is that odometer readings are much more correlated with in-state driving than they are with in-town driving.

So who should pay? Maintenance of streets should be financed by those who use the streets. Someone who lives in a home or apartment in a city does not necessarily own a vehicle and thus does not use the streets. It is true that they receive services, such as postal and other deliveries, from individuals and businesses that use the street, though those service providers can take their street use costs into account when charging for deliveries. What's the best way to measure the street use by those who use the street, especially if a mileage-based road fee cannot be implemented locally? A gasoline tax is flawed, because city residents can purchase gasoline outside the city limits. Would toll gantrys work? They are expensive to install and would be needed everywhere. What about making use of the many traffic and traffic light cameras that read license plates? That's certain to raise all sorts of objections. Perhaps the answer is to consider that Portland streets are used not only by Portland residents but also by non-residents, and that the state should assume responsibility for the maintenance and repair. And the state can fund the costs through, no surprise, the mileage-based road fee.

Sidewalks (or as some call them, pavements) are a different matter. They are not used, or at least are not supposed to be used, by vehicles. They are used by pedestrians, who may or may not even own a vehicle. In the places where I have lived that have sidewalks, it was the responsibility of the property owner to keep the sidewalks in proper maintenance. Ordinances require that the sidewalk be cleared of snow and ice within a specified number of hours after the storm ends. Surely there is no reason that this approach cannot be adopted by Portland.

The challenge facing Portland demonstrates the difficulty of deciding who bears the burden of funding things that benefit society generally when trying to measure each individual's or business's benefit is difficult if not impossible. Balancing what is fair with what is necessary surely requires some degree of compromise. Compromise, though, has been increasingly difficult to attain in current social, political, and economic climates.