Since there is a 3-year federal budget gridlock, my thoughts on the matter were stimulated by the rhad man. Rhadamanthus pointed out in the Catholic Bishop thread that there were a lot expenditures he would choose not to fund if he had the choice. (This was in my response to my objection to using my tax dollars to fund abortions.) Most of us favor spending on some budgetary items but not others. Hence, we could set a budget based on 90% of the previous year's federal revenue. At tax time, taxpayers could be issued a form with each of the spending categories: military spending, Medicare spending, Medicaid spending, education spending, etc. Under each of the categories, we could specify 20 to 25 subcategories. Each voter would be charged with checking the boxes that he or she agreed where his or her money could be spent. After a computer sort on the checked boxes, the total budget would be apportioned based on the percentages of boxes checked. Some programs might disappear through lack of funding and some might get bigger. However, the budget would be far more democratic in nature and earmarks would disappear. Of course, a graduated flat tax with no subsidies or shelters would simplify this process and make it more workable. Thoughts?
Yes, nothing like creating total instability by slashing or funding programs every other year based on the political winds. An agency that suddenly gets flooded with cash is not going to spend it well - especially knowing that it might go away next year. And an agency that is slashed due to some bad publicity is likely going to make terribly inefficient cuts to its operations. Never mind, also, that the general public is not going to have any idea what half the agencies really do and how vital or not vital their funding might actually do. What you'll get is a focus on short-term inefficient spending at the expense of long-term more productive spending.
Funded agencies would spend carefully and husband their resources for "lean" years. Under-funded agencies would go public showing how necessary their function is. With each situation, bureaucrats would be careful to spend wisely to please the public rather than themselves.
it's a seductive idea, but theoretically we already have such a system in place, but rather than voting at tax time each year, we do so every other year when we vote for members of congress. unfortunately, the bums have failed us. the solution is throw them all out, and get some new bums in there.
That will never happen. One of the big complaints the GOP has about the Obama administration is that they are creating "uncertainty" with taxes and regulations - you're proposed to expand this by telling every Federal agency that they have no ability to plan for the long term. Bureaucrats aren't spending their own money, so they aren't going to spend wisely to please the public. They are going to market their agencies with PR to encourage people to "vote" for them. It would be no different than any other election - lots of bogus promises, shiny marketing, etc. You'll end up with agencies doing things with short term appeal instead of long term planning, just as we see with the budget. There's a very good reason that we, and every other country, doesn't use direct democracy.
This is why a graduated flat tax is so important. Also, the 90% of the prior year's income means we have 10% to pay down the deficit, which ultimately frees up more funds. People would be innately encouraged by this system to participate in government. The "hawks" could vote military funds, and the "doves" could leave military funds unchecked. We would have a yearly ebb and tide of the country's mood and priorities. I agree with your concerns that long-term planning would be hindered, but there are kinks in any system that must be worked out. However, ultimately the government would be more responsive to the will of the people rather than the will of politicians and bureaucrats. The federal government would shrink because people would see the uncertainty of working for the government. Private enterprise would be stimulated in an inverse reaction.
I'd love to see how this kind of "elective spending" would actually turn out. Flat tax + check boxes for where you want your tax dollars to go. It could either be great (public transit, universal healthcare, renewable energy), or a total disaster (let's build a giant cross in Alaska that people in Russia can see and put an Army base on Mars).
If enough boxes are checked, that would prove there is a call for it by a large quanity of citizens. However, I don't think there would be a huge demand for an Alaskan cross. But, Fort Mars? Hmmmmm.
Now that corporations can spend to their hearts delight on political ads of whatever kind, the deluge of ads pimping for various agencies to be sliced and diced, or pumped up, depending on which avenue would benefit said corporation(s) the most, would be something to see. It wouldn't work, thumbs. Money would still buy what money wants to buy. The only sure way to prevent it, or at least curb it, is campaign finance reform. The current extremist Roberts Court has no interest in curbing corporate spending on political ads. Your ideas would be bought, just like your "tea party."
Would it not be harder to buy them under this system, though? None of the opposition I'm seeing to this idea actually criticize this idea, but rather, they deal with fundamental flaws in the system we currently have in place. i.e. too much corruption, too stupid of a populace, etc.
A lot of people don't understand what some funding projects are, or rather, don't understand the impact. A prime example of this ignorance is when Sarah Palin went after money spent on fruit fly research, while not understanding how much such research has taught us about things like autism or birth defects. That said, I think politicians determining how to spend money is a poor idea either, because as with my example above, they're just as ignorant as the rest of the American public. “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov So who do I think should decide where money is spent? Should it be the ignorant American public since it is their money? Maybe. That can't be any worse than politicians, I think. Should we vote on a panel of accredited experts to determine such things? They'll probably just devolve into politicians again after a few election cycles, if not the first. Tricky question. I don't think the ignorant American public is the answer, nor do I think our current politicians are. I can't think of a good answer that's scalable, will work, and that people will buy into.
Even new bums get sucked into the same "system" of corruption. With this system they are restricted from fooling with public money, which would allow them to be more deliberative of national concerns -- in short sessions.
I disagree. Pretty hard to buy over an entire population of people, especially if you're selling crap. Much easier to buy one (or a dozen or so) dudes who controls everything. In this instance, we're so far removed from our money, where it goes, and what it gets used on that it gets harder to pick the right guys to control the spending to begin with, IMO. More transparency/freedom of information and a smarter electorate would help, but certainly the system we have now makes buying influence an easy task.
Pols and 'crats would be forced to "sell" their views to the public rather than the public trying to sell ideas to the pols and crats. Research like the fruit fly have readily understandable benefits. Finding out how fast a shrimp runs is more arcane. I probably have more faith in the general public than you, but that's okay. We don't obtain or further knowledge when everybody agrees with everything.
Well, I disagree with you. In the first place, "one (or a dozen or so)" do not control everything. You have to have control of a majority in the House and/or Senate, control the Presidency, or have the President hamstrung by endless trumped up bull ****, and have a majority in the Supreme Court that agrees with your wishes, in the main. That's a hell of a lot of people, and a hell of a lot of money and time invested. One or a dozen don't get you there, Donny. This idea won't get you there, either. All it is insured of doing is produce chaos. It would do an excellent job of that, until the big corporations with their 1% figure out how to buy the process. And they would. It's science fiction without the science.
I can't concur with your conclusions. Lobbyists can more easily influence 500 or so in Congress plus major players in the administration than they can influence 200M citizens capable of voting. They would have to go on a massive ad campaign, but the public would have to buy into their advertising. As Lincoln said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
Funny! Last thing we need is the political equivalent of Yao Ming making the all-star team when he's only played in 5 games. The good news is... 1) In this situation, people only get one vote. So no vote stacking (a la fanboys). 2) It's possible to have a hybrid system, where elected reps are involved, etc. Same way the writers, coaches, and players all get votes for the NBA all-star game, whereas the "fan vote" is only a certain percentage.
