Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial page editor Mark Trahant has a laudable proposal in today's column: "We should decide how our money is spent"
What if the United Way approach were forced on the federal government? What if We, the People, instead of Congress or the president, ticked off the spending priorities that we wanted? ... We, the People, ought to have a direct say in how our money is spent.That's really a pretty good idea. But one gets the feeling that Mark Trahant supports giving the people a direct say in how their money is spent and rejects representative democracy precisely when the elected representatives happen to be Republican. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 16, 2006 04:28 PM | Email This
Even though they know that "true democracy", like true communism, does not work in groups over 500 persons.
This is really just a first step in the direction of totalitarian rule.
For this will happen, as "the facts" gets out that the "current administration" is not receptive to being, in essense, replaced.
Later the "people" will be rallied into protests against the government. And in the end, there will be a call for a "new" revolution.
Lead by the same groups that are "out of power", now. Similar to the ones that took place in the 1920's Germany.
Of course these "new" leaders of this "new" revolution will say the have all the answers.
By removing the rights of anyone, who is not part of the "approved parties/colectives".
Then again, maybe I am just a bit cynical.
Posted by: Mike P on April 16, 2006 05:26 PM
Corporate welfare, foreign and domestic, should be stopped and market forces should drive prices. Import taxes for foreign goods should bring the prices of those goods into line with domestic products (adjusted for quality). The import tax revenues should then be used for defense and border enforcement.
Then, of course, taxes should be lowered to reflect the lower expenses incurred by government.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on April 16, 2006 05:53 PMSomewhere in that growing redistribution state, America will cease to exist.
"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." - Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain.
1 out of 4 Americans who file 1040 forms already pay no income taxes. The next quarter of working Americans pay nearly nothing in taxes. That's half of Americans with no personal stake in higher taxes or growth of government. We're not far away from half of America living off the other half already, so let's not accelerate the problem, huh?
Posted by: MJC on April 16, 2006 06:27 PMLet's try limiting spending to those items.
And leave the rest to the states.
Or is following the law too much to ask? (forgive me, dumb question).
If you want to see outrage, put real line item fiscal control on the ballot with an election like '04.
Bad idea on many levels.
Posted by: JCM on April 16, 2006 06:43 PMWhat makes Trahant think he would like to turn federal taxing and spending into something akin to a free market?
Also, since he clearly wrote that each taxpayer would get to earmark his or her own taxes for certain things (much as we now can with the campaign funding check-off), would he really go along with giving the lion's share of the "say" to the people who pay the lion's share of the taxes?
In this regard, MJC at April 16, 2006 06:27 PM, I believe you are incorrect.
Approximately 50 percent of the taxpayers already pay something like 96 percent of the federal income taxes. The other half pay the other four percent. Aren't we already living in a system that resembles what you think would occur under the editor's proposal?
Under Trahant's proposal, half the people would have virtually no say in how the federal government spends the income tax revenue -- because they pay virtually none of it.
Actually, I'm sure the editorial writer never would go along with letting each taxpayer decide how his or her own money should be spent. When he says "our money," what he probably means is that there is no such thing as "your money" -- there is only "our money."
Assuming he really means that people who pay little or no federal income taxes should be authorized to tell the government how to spend someone else's tax money, how is that different from our representative democracy?
It differs only in that the decisions would be made by individuals who know even less than our elected representatives in Congress.
That's a prescription for disaster. Doing your own shopping isn't the same as figuring out what is needed for the national defense.
It's bad enough that many people in our Congress are people who promise to take someone else's money and give it to people who will vote for them. Letting know-nothings make the spending decisions for the government would be worse.
Posted by: Micajah on April 16, 2006 08:10 PMSo how is direct democracy on the budget representative democracy?
Remember we are a representative republic. Rule of law, as passed in the legislative process, reviewed by the courts, and managed by the executive branch is greater than the vote.
With rule of law eating sheep is illegal, no matter how many wolfs vote.
I'm tired of having even the best conservatives, when they get to Washington, "go native" and become almost as big spenders as their democrat brethren.
Posted by: Cartman on April 16, 2006 09:53 PMThe Representatives still get to decide how our money is spent, but we get to veto anything that's a really bad idea with a majority. Basically, the initiative process, but a little stronger and directly aimed at putting the brakes on really bad and wasteful ideas, like oh, say, a tunnel replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 16, 2006 10:00 PMIn Tacoma it has already happened, 56% of all Tacoma Residents receive some form of Federal, State, County, or City Aide!!!
75% of Tacoma Police do not live in Tacoma, 80% of Tacoma Firefighters do not live in Tacoma, 70% of Tacoma teachers do not live in Tacoma, and 65% of Tacoma City Workers do not live in Tacoma!!!
GREAT PLACE TO WORK...BUT WHO WANTS TO LIVE THEIR!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 17, 2006 07:43 AMToo many people consider their refund as a savings account and not what it truly has become... what you're allowed to keep.
Posted by: Ken on April 17, 2006 10:32 AMIt laughable when liberals complain about their tax dollars going to the Iraq war that they oppose so much. There is hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years in the Department of Education, which alot of conservatives believe the federal government has no business in education. And lets not forget the money provided to organizations like public television/radio, and other social organizations that many conservatives disagree with...it's a guns or butter argument.
I think the tens of billions spent on the SDI program are a complete waste, but that's not stopping that program. We all have beefs with certain government programs or expenditures, but somehow we manage to carry on.
Posted by: Palouse on April 17, 2006 10:53 AMI think it's a great idea. I hope it works out for them so we can start with our lists too.
Posted by: Ken on April 17, 2006 11:00 AM