We’ve heard it for years, but Obama and his administration have taken class warfare to new heights. Flip through the cable news stations and you will see Warren Buffet’s secretary or hear the phrase “not paying their fair share.” Obama used his recent State of the Union Address to call out those obscenely wealthy Americans that highlight our economic inequality. He stated:

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

So Obama has proposed a resolution: the “Buffett Rule.” Millionaires and billionaires, as he says, should have a 30% effective income tax rate. Millionaires should not pay less in taxes than their secretaries (insert image of a white-haired elderly man wearing thick glasses on his perfectly rounded head).

But is a higher tax rate a resolution? A resolution, after all, solves a problem. Will economic disparity cease to exist if the wealthy pay a larger portion of their income to the government? Hardly. This is why the “Buffett Rule” is a perfect example of liberalistic communication: avoid the truth at all costs by deflecting the argument.

Here we are, all of us, in our homes, at our jobs, on the local news, over a beer, debating whether the 1% really do need that much money. They can afford to pay a little more, say some. But half of Americans pay nothing, others say. Romney only paid 15% tax rate in 2010, some complain. But his tax rate reflects capital gains, not income taxes, others reply.

And so on. Meanwhile, Obama continues, traveling swing state by swing state, rousing the crowd with tales of fat cats and down-and-outs who reflect an unjust capitalistic system. Why, he bemoans, aren’t THEY paying their fair share?

Clever. But liberals usually are.

Conservatives don’t need dexterous speech when we have principles. Here is what I have been (mentally) shouting at the television (well, mostly mentally): the debate is not whether the rich are paying their fair share, the argument is what amount of income the government should receive. The reasons are obvious, when you think it through:

1. The government cannot create wealth, they can only take it out of the economy.
2. Once wealth is out of the economy, it cannot return.
3. The government has never managed anything efficiently or profitably (post office, solar-powered companies, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, public education).
4. Taxes have only ever increased, and our debt has only ever increased.
5. Government spending has only ever increased, and economic disparity still exists.
6. Who determines what is fair? And for that matter, fair share of what?
7. Who determines who is wealthy and who is not?

And the granddaddy of them all: even if the government taxed the wealthiest 10% of Americans at 100% (thus taking away their entire income), we would not come close to paying off our nation’s debt. The Wall Street Journal calculated:

Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

In addition, our economy would be in real pain if the wealthiest 10% had no money to invest or spend. We are a trickle-down economy, as much as some people hate that truth.

Conservatives have a big job. We need to re-educate people to think with logic and by principle. Government should only receive funding to cover its intended—and limited—purposes: to protect Americans from foreign and domestic “invaders,” punish those who break the laws, and promote the liberty of the individual and institutions (family, church, and the marketplace).

(And “promote” does not mean the creation or funding of programs. Promote simply means to speak highly of.)

Next time someone begins a discussion with the merits of what equates fair taxation, start at the beginning. What funding should the government receive? Or better yet, what is the role of government?

Dry, I know. But without an understanding of the original purpose of government, anything goes. We’ve witnessed enough decisions by this administration to know…anything has gone. Trillions, in fact.