The current major fiscal collapse was largely triggered by the banks using a new formula which allowed them to loan money based on estimates of future inflated worth. Our government does essentially the same thing. In Oklahoma, for instance, the current budget can be based on estimates of next year's sales tax and income tax revenues!
The federal government's budget is not limited to expected government income. In this way we yearly spend money we do not have, which is the definition of deficit spending. They obligate future citizens to pay for it. How did we come to give the government permission to carry out such a foolish and dangerous policy? Isn't it obvious what a disaster is ahead of us? We got a taste of it when only the banks spent money they didn't have. What will happen when the entire economy is based on such inflated valuations AND THEY COME DUE?
Every year the mint prints more paper money, which is cleverly no longer based on a gold standard. Since there is no real formula equating (amount of paper money) to (gross national product), the value of a dollar bill is both arbitrary and decreasing. More money printed for the same value equals inflation, which is the decrease in value of each dollar bill. Such a decrease in value amounts to a hidden tax, costing each citizen the amount the dollar decreases in value due to inflation.
What if the government was prohibited from deficit spending? Our legislators would be limited in spending an amount based on last year's taxes, for instance. If some urgent project required more money than was in the budget, they would then have to do what all of us citizens have to do in such circumstances: get a loan OR raise their income. Getting a loan means to add a fixed repayment amount to subtract from next year's budget, just as all us citizens have to do. Raising their income would mean they would have to raise taxes for next year, and for that they should need a special vote from the general population of voters. We would have a direct say in what the government would be allowed to spend over its current income. If we said "No", they would have to abandon the project until such a time as it could be afforded. Just as we citizens have to do.
Our dollars would not be decreasing steadily in value. Our taxes would be clearly related directly to the things we as a people wanted our money spent on. Our government would be directly accountable for its fiscal behavior and would have to answer to us for what they spent. They probably won't want to do that. No, scratch the "probably".
I think we should demand that deficit spending be prohibited and that the government should live within its budget. I don't for ONE MOMENT believe that anyone in government will vote in congress assembled to limit their spending unless we force them to, and I don't really see how to do that. Any ideas?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tying Votes to Taxes
If we had a true democracy (which I hope will not happen) we could study each issue, see how much it would cost us, and decide about its usefulness. That would be totally impractical, of course. Have you even seen what a bill going to the legislature looks like? Thousands of pages and study results. The Health Care bill is hugely complex; can the average citizen read and comprehend the implications of all that material? Probably not. Most of us (at least those who actually can read) would never take the time or put out the effort to understand such a bill, let alone the hundreds that have to be considered each year.
So we have representatives do that for us. Actually, they hire assistants who read the bills, make summaries, look at implications and alternative, and make recommendations, and even that is overwhelming. Without all that information, we really have no right to an opinion except in the broadest of terms. I doubt if ANY of the most vocal critics/advocates of the Health Bill have read it, but they talk about its contents as if they knew what they were.
All right, we have to trust our representatives to do our studying for us, see the problems and spend our money wisely. Our only alternative is to refuse to re-elect them, but that is always a long time after the fact. With the internet, is it possible to find at least somewhat of a middle ground? Could we get the summaries provided by the assistants to our representative, and not be allowed to vote on an issue on which we have not done our homework?
And what if we had attached to each issue its cost, so that we could literally put our money where our mouth is? Example: "Are heart transplant costs to be included in universal health care? (Estimated cost for each voter: $5.00) (Total money you have indicated willingness to spend this far: $752.03)"
This would obviously work better if we had a flat tax or national sales tax; graduated income taxes are hard to figure.
I get tired of hearing self-proclaimed liberals voting for items that they are unwilling to pay for. At a recent meeting, largely populated by such liberals, I asked how many were in favor of the Health Care Bill. Every hand went up. I asked them if they were willing to vote for an additional compulsory graduated tax for every citizen which would cover the costs of such a bill. Suddenly there was a silence, and only one or two hands went up.
Amazing how easy it is to be humanitarian and liberal when you don't have to think of the cost as coming from your own pocket. It's for that reason that I think that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote. No representation without taxation!
So we have representatives do that for us. Actually, they hire assistants who read the bills, make summaries, look at implications and alternative, and make recommendations, and even that is overwhelming. Without all that information, we really have no right to an opinion except in the broadest of terms. I doubt if ANY of the most vocal critics/advocates of the Health Bill have read it, but they talk about its contents as if they knew what they were.
All right, we have to trust our representatives to do our studying for us, see the problems and spend our money wisely. Our only alternative is to refuse to re-elect them, but that is always a long time after the fact. With the internet, is it possible to find at least somewhat of a middle ground? Could we get the summaries provided by the assistants to our representative, and not be allowed to vote on an issue on which we have not done our homework?
And what if we had attached to each issue its cost, so that we could literally put our money where our mouth is? Example: "Are heart transplant costs to be included in universal health care? (Estimated cost for each voter: $5.00) (Total money you have indicated willingness to spend this far: $752.03)"
This would obviously work better if we had a flat tax or national sales tax; graduated income taxes are hard to figure.
I get tired of hearing self-proclaimed liberals voting for items that they are unwilling to pay for. At a recent meeting, largely populated by such liberals, I asked how many were in favor of the Health Care Bill. Every hand went up. I asked them if they were willing to vote for an additional compulsory graduated tax for every citizen which would cover the costs of such a bill. Suddenly there was a silence, and only one or two hands went up.
Amazing how easy it is to be humanitarian and liberal when you don't have to think of the cost as coming from your own pocket. It's for that reason that I think that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote. No representation without taxation!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Earned Votes
It's easy to understand why we have a representative democracy, rather than a true one. Reading and understanding the laws governing the United States is a full time job, and then some. We have had to delegate this task to others and pay them to spend all of their time trying to digest and understand the laws as they are proposed. It's really impossible, of course. In fact, our representatives have a full-time paid staff to help them understand the laws; the staff read and make summaries, which is a great deal to accomplish.
Things are changing, now, however, with the advent of the internet and increasing access to all the information anytime anywhere. It is conceivable that within the next few years we might be able to move in the direction of a true democracy, with each of us in our homes reading and voting on local and national issues.
Do we want to do this? I am imagining a country run by the masses of people, the majority of whom have no interest in national issues, nor the competence to understand them. Many can't reat, of course, but the real obstacle is lack of interest and will to take such an active stance. Another objection is the amount of time required as well as the complexity of the material. The sheer volume of words is overwhelming. Possibly the most damaging objection to a true democracy is that there is no ready place for bargaining.
On the other hand perhaps that last objection is really an advantage. Would it be a bad thing if each item proposed for vote had to stand on its own merits? Does pork-barrel bargaining really benefit the country?
Moreover, the laws would have to be written in a simple and precise way. Perhaps only the practical intent and application of the law would be all that is needed. However, there could be no unrelated amendments attached, which is how bargaining worked its way into the legislature. Each proposed law would have to be limited to a single subject, and written with a fair and brief explanation of its effects.
This presupposes that we all as voters would be capable of understanding the proposed legislation and its consequences, and I am not convinced that more than 30 or 40% of the public is actually capable. At the risk of sounding elitist, many of the people that I know and with whom I am friendly are not interested, willing and/or able.
So what about leaving voting to those who are 1) interested, 2) literate, and 3) able? Suppose that votes had to be earned through examination? In that past, literacy examinations for voters were simply a way of excluding certain classes of citizens who were not encouraged to be schooled and literate. However, those days are long past, and now it seems clear that anyone who wants to learn to read and write can do so. I don't want people voting who cannot understand what it is they are voting for.
And I don't want people voting on how to spend our money who don't pay taxes. Our motto should be "No representation without taxation!" It's easy for a welfare recipient to vote for more welfare; he/she doesn't have to pay for it. An important qualification for a voting card should be that the person pays taxes and earns a living if not disabled. Perhaps additional votes could be earned or awarded for community services. For instance, it's conceivable that combat veterans could earn an extra vote; perhaps the extra vote could be limited to areas in which the person has demonstrated especial knowledge or ability.
We might end up with an electorate who are knowledgable, honest, thoughtful and literate, who have earned the right to have an opinion and whose money finances the government. Scarey thought, isn't it. Do we think that a genuine democracy could actually work?
Things are changing, now, however, with the advent of the internet and increasing access to all the information anytime anywhere. It is conceivable that within the next few years we might be able to move in the direction of a true democracy, with each of us in our homes reading and voting on local and national issues.
Do we want to do this? I am imagining a country run by the masses of people, the majority of whom have no interest in national issues, nor the competence to understand them. Many can't reat, of course, but the real obstacle is lack of interest and will to take such an active stance. Another objection is the amount of time required as well as the complexity of the material. The sheer volume of words is overwhelming. Possibly the most damaging objection to a true democracy is that there is no ready place for bargaining.
On the other hand perhaps that last objection is really an advantage. Would it be a bad thing if each item proposed for vote had to stand on its own merits? Does pork-barrel bargaining really benefit the country?
Moreover, the laws would have to be written in a simple and precise way. Perhaps only the practical intent and application of the law would be all that is needed. However, there could be no unrelated amendments attached, which is how bargaining worked its way into the legislature. Each proposed law would have to be limited to a single subject, and written with a fair and brief explanation of its effects.
This presupposes that we all as voters would be capable of understanding the proposed legislation and its consequences, and I am not convinced that more than 30 or 40% of the public is actually capable. At the risk of sounding elitist, many of the people that I know and with whom I am friendly are not interested, willing and/or able.
So what about leaving voting to those who are 1) interested, 2) literate, and 3) able? Suppose that votes had to be earned through examination? In that past, literacy examinations for voters were simply a way of excluding certain classes of citizens who were not encouraged to be schooled and literate. However, those days are long past, and now it seems clear that anyone who wants to learn to read and write can do so. I don't want people voting who cannot understand what it is they are voting for.
And I don't want people voting on how to spend our money who don't pay taxes. Our motto should be "No representation without taxation!" It's easy for a welfare recipient to vote for more welfare; he/she doesn't have to pay for it. An important qualification for a voting card should be that the person pays taxes and earns a living if not disabled. Perhaps additional votes could be earned or awarded for community services. For instance, it's conceivable that combat veterans could earn an extra vote; perhaps the extra vote could be limited to areas in which the person has demonstrated especial knowledge or ability.
We might end up with an electorate who are knowledgable, honest, thoughtful and literate, who have earned the right to have an opinion and whose money finances the government. Scarey thought, isn't it. Do we think that a genuine democracy could actually work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
