Why is it that the solution for every Big Government program that is failing (and they all do sooner-or-later) is to "fix" it, or "reform" it - as Mr. Rafferty suggests by "expanding it". Indeed, the problem is that they are just not large enough, and by that, he means to tax the wealthy even more.
Invariably, that's the solution for people trying to solve income inequality through state sanction. Statists will expand the size and scope of government by feeding it with more money and more power, and hope that the outcome will be one that will be equitable to all. It never seems to work that way. So they reform some more.
Unfortunately, if you liberated the income from all the wealthy, it pales in comparison to the wealth stored in the vastly larger middle-class, and for some (obvious) reason, this class ends up paying the lion's share of the tax burden.
Redistribution enlarges the parasitical class at the expense of the working class. That's why "reform" really means more power concentrated in the hands of the few - and those that control them.
The emperor has no clothes, and wants to punish anyone who points out that fact. Look for the disease of denial to spread.
"In general, freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association. In Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977), and Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1977), the Court held that freedom of association is unconstitutionally burdened where the state requires an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees."
I'm sure that for every law that I throw out, you can find one (or a dozen) that will contradict it. And that is my point - the law is very contradictory, and just arguing the law only ends in the appeal to authority (i.e. judge/jury).
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
I believe you could make a case that "pay" in the above quote would also include support, such as time and materials.
So in the end, what have you achieved by forcing the photographer to compromise his moral values by supporting an institution he finds reprehensible? He will most likely do a good job because he's a professional, but he now realizes that the authority of the state is capricious. He becomes a libertarian.
Maybe it's not such a bad thing after-all?
Alexander Hamilton writing about the French Revolution:
It is not necessary to heighten the picture by sketching the horrid groupe of proscriptions and murders which have made of France a den of pillage and slaughter; blackening with eternal opprobrium the very name of man.
The pious and the moral weep over these scenes as a sepulchre destined to entomb all they revere and esteem. The politician, who loves liberty, sees them with regret as a gulph that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted. He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion) the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty.
If you oppose Obama based on the content of his character, based on his actions, does that make you a racist?