Lots of people think the federal government needs to be reformed, and there are a lot of battles to fight. So, without strictly arguing the merits of reforming the government, let's talk about how to do it and in what order.
First off, what are our goals? For the sake of argument, let's start with the following axioms. You may disagree with them, but I'm not going to try to justify them right now -- let's just use them as the starting place of the discussion.
1. The federal government should be representative, and should derive power from its citizens. Therefore, let's not consider recreating America as a monarchy or dictatorship.
2. The federal government should be small, cheap, and unobtrusive. How small and how cheap? Smaller and cheaper than now, but the exact details need to be part of the discussion. How do we build a government whose workers are not able to expand their personal power? With both major parties spending money like mad, it's hard to see how this goal could be met without significant changes to our governmental structure.
3. The federal government should strictly limited in scope, and that scope should be difficult to change. Since we're only talking about the federal government, our local governments may still cause problems, but let's ignore that for now. This axiom goes hand-in-hand with the one above, although they don't overlap completely. People always seem eager to take money from others through taxes and then spend it on themselves. How do we prevent that?
Where do we start? I've argued that we should repeal the 17th Amendment (and questioned the net benefits of the 19th). Some say the judiciary needs to return to Constitutional originalism. The War on Drugs is expensive (but probably effective) and limits personal liberty, and some advocate legalization, but at what cost? Then there's campaign finance reform, copyright law, public education, the FDA, the electoral college, legislation by jury, shrinking the bureaucracy, tax reform, flat taxes, ineffective laws and over-legislation, gun rights, illegal immigration... the list goes on and on.
I don't advocate all these proposals, and many of the ones I would approve of seem politically impossible right now. So how do we move forward? In my opinion, the broad sponsorship of the Fair Tax Act (32 co-sponsors out of 535 legislators) makes the abolition of the IRS and the establishment of a flat tax look reasonably achievable, and I think this single reform would do a great deal to curtail the power of our government by limiting its ability to redistribute wealth. Everyone hates the current tax system, and no one understands it; I don't think it would be hard to convince mainstream Americans to support a flat tax.
After that, I'd push hard to repeal the 17th Amendment. The benefits would be a bit abstract and people would be initially reluctant to "lose" some power to their state legislatures, but I suspect the smaller states would quickly recognize the advantages they would regain and push the new amendment through. The dynamic would be interesting, since state legislatures themselves would likely be willing to vote in favor simply to gain more power for themselves. The Senate vote would be dominated by "yea"s from the small states, but Senators might be unwilling to disrupt their gravy train; the House vote would probably be the toughest sell, due to the power of populous states in that chamber.
Reforming the judiciary would be a much slower process, and would take the lead from reforms of the Legislative Branch. As laws became narrower and fewer, judges would lose power naturally. The Executive Branch would likewise lose power as many of its functions are eliminated. In my mind, the key to it all is to restructure our Congress and our tax code -- after that, the other pieces will fall into place.
I fail to see how shifting the burden of tax collection from the federal level to the states will improve things. For one, the state beauracracies would explode. For another, that faceless entity known as the IRS would be replaced by local enforcement agents working in conjunction with local law enforcement. I prefer to keep my tax collectors as far away from me as possible. The flat tax is more easily doable... but it wouldn't be long before it would be made less flat again, in the interest of "fairness." I really don't think the sales tax is the answer, though.
Repeal the 17th, and reinstate some restriction on the right to vote... literacy, property ownership, citizenship, whatever is reasonable. Going to the polls should not be as easy as voting for American Idol. Who knows, perhaps people voting for the representatives that will be setting their tax policy should at least have had to PAY TAXES. (Could a copy of the 1040 be used in lieu of a voter registration card?)
Even better, how's this for fairness... The more taxes you pay, the MORE VOTES YOU GET!
gaw: How do you get from "Everyone hates the current tax system, and no one understands it; I don't think it would be hard to convince mainstream Americans to support a flat tax." to "[..]shifting the burden of tax collection from the federal level to the states [..]"?
You are conflating two different points of discussion. Michael's other point, restoration of states rights by giving them back their right to choose their senators, has nothing to do with his point about controlling government by reducing its ability to fleece us in an IRS shakedown. The flat tax would still be paid to the federal government through payroll deduction.
gaw: Changing voting eligability might be good, but I don't think it would be possible to change it much, and it might undermine axiom 1 if you go too far. Certainly votes based on wealth would.
S3: Good point about payroll deduction, that should be eliminated as well.
Actually, Michael, payroll deduction would probably be a better way to go. With a flat tax, the average taxpayer would know exactly how much would be deducted each pay period and at the end of the year wouldn't have to worry about over- or under-paying.
However, I suspect you are thinking of taxpayers earning at higher levels. In their case, it would make more sense to make payroll deduction voluntary. It seems to me the higher the income, the easier it is to actually calculate the tax and set it aside without touching it and earn the interest before paying the government.
That won't be as successful at lower levels of income. For instance, I know how my daughter would operate. She'd spend the money (because she would need to) and then frantically try to figure out where her tax payment was going to come from.
s3-
I didn't get there from where you said I did, but rather from his statement "broad sponsorship of the Fair Tax Act... makes the abolition of the IRS and the establishment of a flat tax look reasonably achievable"
The "Fair Tax" referenced in the link is a national sales tax administered by the states.
Mike-
I think axiom 1 (Fed gov should be representative) supports my proposal. the question is begged- on which basis should representation be established? Our founder's war cry was "no taxation w/out representation," why should higher taxation not lead to higher representation?
We've heard all the statistics before... the top 10% of earners pay the most taxes, the bottom 50% pay the least (I don't have backup data, work with me here.) If these statistics are true, then the top 10% are under represented and the bottom 50% are over represented. After all, if it is "your" country, based on the premise that you, the taxpayer, "own" it, should he that owns the biggest slice have a bigger say? (Hello, Ross Perot, call your office.)
Too many free-loaders at the bottom want to continue to suck it out of the wealthy and upper mid-class. As long as the upper classes are under represented, the trend to "stick it to the rich" will continue. Now if representation is based upon tax liability, there will be a natural inclination for the wealthy to not reduce their own taxes too much, as this would diminish their representation... a natural check against their misusing that extra representation.
Heather: Tax witholding is immoral, in my opinion. The government shouldn't get first grabs at the money anyone makes, and your daughter should learn how to save her money to pay her taxes. Making witholding voluntary would be fine also.
gaw: I'm not against representation based on tax liability myself, I just don't think such a proposal would be politically possible. It would never get passed. I'm not convinced it would be good unless coupled with a flat tax structure that made such a system pointless; I wouldn't want our country to devolve into feudalism.
The "Fair Tax" referenced in the link is a national sales tax administered by the states.
Ah! I remember that now. I had forgotten about that little bit of idiocy. (no offense Michael)
American Fuedalism... Sounds like an interesting social-economic experiment. I wonder how it would compare to the federalsocialistimperial system we've devolved into?
S3: I think the sales tax system is better than income tax. It encourages saving, and sales tax revenue tends to be much less erratic than income tax revenue, as many states have found over the past decade. Eliminating fluctuations in revenue is essential if we want to contain spending. Boom/bust cycles lead to bursts of government income, increased spending, and then increased taxes once the boom ends. Shifting to a sales tax would mitigate that.
gaw: Like I said, I'm not against a direct capitalistic form of government, but I'd rather try the experiment at the state level and see how it went before trying it on the whole country.
Net benefits of the 19th Amendment? I hope you were joking. I don't understand what "net benefits" you were referring to but I'd say giving women the right to vote outweighs any other "net benefits" you don't approve of.
Petra: Read the posts in question and decide for yourself. I laid out my position pretty clearly.
When I first posted, I hadn't clicked on "19th" so I didn't fully understand your position. Now I have. However, I still disagree with you. I am female and I am far more conservative in my ideas/beliefs than most people, men or women, that I know. Why would it be fair for someone to tell me I didn't have the right to vote because I got born with two x chromosomes instead of an x and a y?
Michael,
Since you are interested in reforming the government and you have a conservative tilt, would you please comment on this article?
"America as a One-Party State"
http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html
Michael, by your way of analyzing the net benefits of women voting, you could make the argument that, from your viewpoint, the right of Blacks to vote is a net negative. Do you oppose voting rights for Blacks?
Regarding representation based on liability: I served 10 years in the Armed Forces and I am a gulf war vet. Servicemen don't get paid much and therefore cannot pay much in taxes - especially compared to people like say, Andrew Fastow.
However, I feel that servicemen sacrifice more for their country every day than any multibilionaire does his whole life. How many votes should I have?
Also...Someone at the 35% tax bracket will certainly contribute more than a citizen that earns below the poverty level, but who feels the pinch more? Isn't it harder to contribute $1,000 when you earn only $15K/yr than to contribute $35K out of your $100,000/yr?
Petra: You apparently didn't read the post where I argued that no one as the "right" to vote, because voting per se isn't a right.
Joel: Ideally, we'd only let one person vote -- the person who would make the best decisions for everyone. The problem of course is identifying that person and establishing a functional "benign dictatorship". Failing that (and it's probably impossible), we should build an electorate that minimizes the chance of bad decisions and maximizes the chance of good decisions.
As a nation, we've decided to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion, because it's easier and that way we don't have to trust anyone. That's probably not the best we can do, but it's better than empowering the bad and excluding the good.
Further, there isn't much evidence that race plays a significant role in the way people think, once environment is accounted for. The same isn't true for gender; men and women are far more different than people across any racial divide, and those differences will never change with changing environment. It would make no sense to exclude a racial group that is mainly different due to environmental factors, even if those differences tend to (currently) lead them to make unwise political decisions.
I think the sales tax system is better than income tax. It encourages saving, and sales tax revenue tends to be much less erratic than income tax revenue, as many states have found over the past decade. Eliminating fluctuations in revenue is essential if we want to contain spending. Boom/bust cycles lead to bursts of government income, increased spending, and then increased taxes once the boom ends. Shifting to a sales tax would mitigate that.
You are drawing conclusions that are not substantiated by facts. You are certainly welcome to your opinion but I can't agree with you.
S3: It's all backed up by evidence from various states with differing tax schemes. Read Bill Hobbs if you don't believe me.
Aaron: The premise of such a system would be that people who invest their money would have more interest in ensuring that the country works well into the future. We have an all-volunteer military, and the soldiers are paid wages that they agree to to do a job they agree to do (except for in certain cases when stop-loss orders take effect).
Micahel,
I read what you wrote. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution envisions voting as more than a mere privilege. It isn't an absolute right (felons can be excluded, as well as NCM, etc., minors, etc.), but it is a right.
Joel: The Supreme Court of the United States is not the final authority on what "rights" exist. They just interpret the existence of Constitutional rights. That's all they can possibly do.
Michael,
When you look at the Constitution in the context of the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments, which all refer to voting as a "right" it seems pretty clear what the Constitution says today, regardless of what it might have said when the Constitution was first written.
Joel: Again, I'm not sure why you're bringing the Constitution into the discussion. The Constitution is not the final authority on what our natural rights are. It only determines what civil rights exist according to our system of government.
Joel: Further, the whole context of this discussion is about amending the Constitution, so it's immaterial what the SCOTUS has said about voting, or anything else.
If each person was allowed a number of votes proportional to their payment of taxes the country would inevitably slip into aristocracy. In case you have forgotten, this was precisely the system our founding fathers wanted to leave behind.
The system of voting shouldn't be tilted either way - towards the poor or towards the rich. Tilt towards the rich and you get a stratified society complete with lords and serfs. Tilt towards the poor and you get communism. Niether of those systems work.
The reason the rich pay more is because they have more and therefore have benefited from the governance more. Personally, I would rather have NO taxes at all - but niether party seems to want to reign in spending
Michael: Our armed forces are currently all volunteer, but what happens when the draft is instated? Why should the rich benefit from the protection of the military while the relatively poor go and die?
also...
The Constitution IS the final authority as to what rights US citizens have - in this country. You may claim that God gives us our natural rights and I wouldn't be inclined to disagree. However, once you allow government to govern acording to religious beliefs you have opened the door to extremism. (ie...Taliban - in today's sense, Spanish inqisition and protestant reformation in yesterday's sense.) Who has the right to interperet "God's will" for us? Certainly not the government.
Since the Constitution is the highest law of the land, we should be very wary of ammending it. That said, I think your arguement for repealing the 17th ammendment is a good one. Now lets repeal the 16th.
I believe that under Natural Law, voting is a fundamental right and liberty.
Joel: I think you're right - and that's the way it should be. I find "gaw's" suggestion that his vote should be more valuable than a veteran's vote solely because he pays taxes offensive. It's disgusting - and un-american - to suggest that he has somehow sacrificed more for this nation than a man whose name is on the Vietnam memorial.
Joel: Voting is certainly not natural. Humans haven't voted until very recently, and there are no other animals that vote in any sense. You may think voting is very important, but you certainly can't argue that it's a natural right. Furthermore, there are non-democratic governments that do respect natural rights, and whose subjects have more freedom than we outselves in America do. Democracy is great -- the lesser of all evils overall, I think -- but it's not the only possible moral form of government.
Anonymous: A man whose name is on the Vietnam Memorial cannot vote, being dead. Plus, many of those soldiers were conscripts; conscription is [probably] immoral, and it's not what we're talking about here anyway. We're talking about volunteer soldiers.
Voting derives from liberty and liberty derives from natural law. Now, the greatest freedom is freedom through Christ. Christianity envisions choosing to be a slave to Christ, not being forced to be a slave. Morality without liberty is works righteous.
"gaw's" suggestion that his vote should be more valuable than a veteran's vote solely because he pays taxes offensive
Words are being put in my mouth that I did not say (or write.) My suggestion was that our representatitive governance may be more equitable if conditions beyond mere existence were taken into consideration. Under the current system, the brave airman, soldier or marine shares the exact same voting strength as the anarchist that would just as soon see him die so as to make Bush look bad. I suggested that tax burden should have some bearing on one's ability to choose the government; perhaps military service should be a consideration as well.
If military folks have a stronger voice at the polls, then perhaps our leaders will be more likely to choose our fights well.
I say it again... voting for our leaders in this representative republic should be more difficult than voting for the American Idol... Am I wrong?
gaw: Many people think you are wrong. I'm not sure, myself. I can see some benefits to what you're saying, but I don't know where to draw the line and I'd be afraid that over time the line would be redrawn so many times that the system would become oppressive.
The point is, there is no fair way to judge who has sacrificed more for there nation. Some pay more taxes than others. Some do public service. Some people have won the congressional medal of honor and others sit around complaining. The only just solution - everyone gets one vote.
Make it count.
Aaron: That's the general argument, yes. And with a biased voting system there would always be people who thought the value of their own vote was unfairly calculated (of course, there are people who think that way now).
But there are people we don't let vote: children, invalids, felons, and so forth. So we do disenfranchise some weak minority groups, probably for the best. So it's hard to argue that it might not also be for the best to disenfranchise some other groups -- even if it's not possible.
Michael: Equal protection under the law is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence. Who do you disenfranchise? Black people? Gay people?
Felons had the right to vote and lost it. Minor's don't have the right to vote but presumably their guardians do. Save goes for the "mentally challenged".
But we aren't really talking about disenfranchising anyone of their vote. We are talking about stacking the deck in our favor just because we disagree with the opposition. This is exactly the kind of problem voting/democracy is designed to solve. Let everyone vote - and the majority gets the decision. But don't shut people out just because you don't like what they have to say!
"A government by the people, for the people."
Everybody gets one vote.
Now as for the 17th Ammendment, I think you have a good arguement for repealling it. But just so that we're clear - repealling the 17th Ammendment wouldn't deprive anyone of their right to vote.