Last week we reported on Tax Freedom Day. That’s the day when each of us has earned enough income to pay our tax liabilities to federal and state government. Many readers appreciated the comparative data and the insight gained about how they fared state-to-state. If you missed it, or want a copy for reference, go to this newspaper’s Web site archives — BaldwinCountyNow.com — or e-mail me to get your copy.

We closed that column with two notes sandwiching two questions. Noting the reality that some foundational “taxes are necessary,” we posed two fundamental questions: 1. How much tax is necessary for our federal government; and, 2. How much tax is necessary for your state government? Then concluded the piece, noting: These are questions for each citizen taxpayer to consider.

Those two questions are the core of our quandary: Given the special-interest group politics that increasingly permeates our society and the expansion of government transfer programs, it is not surprising that many think it impossible to stop the exploding growth of government spending.

That could be the case but I don’t buy it. Such thinking short-circuits corrective change. Worse, such thinking limits the public debate to a framework preferred by those same special interest groups and incumbents who, as the old saying goes, “Rob Peter, to pay (or is it pay off) Paul.”

What cuts through the ill-liberal rhetoric and manipulative emotional appeals is this question: Can I afford more taxes? Every taxpaying American citizen should ask themselves this question and answer only for themselves.

Whenever any individual (let’s call him Paul Smith) answers it with the intent or disregard for another individual (we’ll call him Peter Jones), then that is the time Paul Smith wants something for nothing. Smith’s need might be valid or his lifestyle goal is to “keep up with the Joneses.” When government inserts itself into the situation, it makes matters worse. Those officials, elected or otherwise, who carry out the takings become the willing perpetrators on behalf of Smith.

The something they give to Smith is taken from Jones. Of course, the cost to Jones — and society — is much more than nothing. Caring citizens must require individual responsibility from all other citizens in all appropriate instances and expel government from the social process. That means what Smith wants, thinks he needs, or may actually need is relevant to Jones only if Jones is willing to agree to a mutually beneficial transaction, which might even include Jones personally gifting to Smith whatever Smith says he wants or needs.

There was a time when we called the former a personal agreement or contract and the latter charity. We ought to refocus and restore that going forward. If government is permitted to remain in the process, then the Robin Hoods in government will continue to roam through the private forest of citizen assets and earnings in order to continue to Rob Peter, to pay/pay off Paul. How might responsible citizens flush out incumbent and wanna-be Robin Hoods?

Ask yourself again if you can afford more taxes. If your answer is “No,” there is a second question to be asked of every candidate for federal and state office: “Do you pledge now that you will not vote to raise any tax rates or add new taxes; and instead, do you pledge that you will vote to eliminate taxes, reduce rates and eliminate programs not directly specified in the U.S. Constitution or state constitution.”

Richard Olivastro is president of Olivastro Communications. He can be reached at RichOlivastro@gmail.com or by phone at 877.RichSpeaks.