I've gotten some comments on the selection of categories, and rightly so--they're arbitrary as heck, and different categories would undoubtedly produce different results. As you go through the literature on the subject of taxes and expenditures, you will, in fact, see many different interpretations of some of these categories. (For example, some people take the part of the debt attributable to the Reagan defense buildup, and factor that in as defense spending, rather than just debt. Hence, you'll see figures saying that more than half our budget is spent on defense. Is this true? Your call--personally, I think the point has some validity.)
The figures below represent averages of 50 submissions so far, each scaled to 100% if it didn't add up to 100% to begin with. There have been three submissions of all zeroes (see the comments below); since this survey is about priorities more than amounts, I took the liberty of spreading his 100% evenly across the ten basic categories. The raw data is available from me. I'm looking forward to getting a goodly number of submissions by next April 15th...
- From one guy came this...
- What? You've got to be kidding!
- Someone else said...
- Hey, how about voting by lottery?
- And how about this one...
- I don't think it's fair to ask people how they want their money spent.
- This came from England, I think...
- The only problem i have about the scheme, which i think is
interesting, is that i havn't the foggiest idea of how much
it costs to run various things. Like assuming everyone gives
1% to congressional salaries (what happens to senators?)
that might be way too much of the total tax bill (ie they
get HUGE pay rises) wereas paying 5% to government
overhead may result in way too little- the sacking of
the public servants needed to run the other programmes.
- A constructive comment:
- I would appreciate more standard budget categories (ie. line items or at least Congressional firewall categories)
It is difficult to treat the survey seriously when the categories
are not structured in a serious way. No entry for health, commerce,
foriregn aid, labor, etc? Why break out education and training from
Social Spending but not AFDC, Social Security, MediCare, etc. Copies of the fed budget are available online, you could copy catagories into the survey.
Improve the survey and I'm sure more people will participate.
In addition, how about more info. on attempts to bring about this reform. I'd be glad to help with some links.
Many others orgs are orking on the same thing, some discussion of approach would be good. You cant really expect survey results to alter federal policy.
- And this, which brings up an important point:
- I believe a general trust fund should also be included. There will be those
short-term controversies which could result in a major function losing all
funding. A general trust fund would provide a fiscal "breathing space,"
which would allow We The People to come to a rational decision on
whether to keep, change or junk that troubled function.
Of course, this assumes that We The People possess direct input into the
decision-making process. And that such a process is in place.
The amount set aside for general trust should be fairly small (no more
than 10%).
- More than one response echoed these libertarian sentiments:
- The only functions proper to the federal government
are its defense and court functions. All other functions
presently far exceed its constitutional authority.
The income tax should be abolished because it is a tax on
something non-severable and not optional, my right to exist
and thereby to work to support myself.
- One fellow suggested that everything go to pay off principal, with this additional caveat:
- 0% to IRS
0% to anything Janet Reno is and/or gets involved in
0% to anything mr and/or Mrs. President support
- the following from Australia:
- I am trying to promote the idea of ending tax deductions
for advertising expenses and for legal expenses. Neither
is a legitimate cost of production and both the
communications media and the lawyers have gotten
out of hand.
- Teresa said:
- Education should be the first priority for spending. Teachers
should be well paid so more qualified people can be attracted
to teaching. Equipment is less important than the content of
instructional materials. Moral values and sense of responsibility
is more important than learning a skill. If we can educate
our youngsters to be moral and responsible, lots of social ills
can be reduced for the future, thus reduce the nesscesity of
spending on prisons and other social programs.
Balance the budget should be the utmost priority on the agenda.
Paying interest on interest is the most rediculous thing and
a sad statement on financial management. Economic "experts"
should take lessons from some Asian countries re their philosophy
on spending.
GOVERNMENT as well as Individuals should NOT spend money they
don't have. Buying on credit should be checked carefully against
the ability to pay back in due time. Conservative spending may
slow economic growth a little, but will not lead us to bankcrupcy.
- One fellow sketched changes over time, and added:
- Get out of irrelevant businesses, such as arts & humanities,
all federally socialized agencies, (and a big one)
insurance.
- ...which was offset by someone who wanted 45% for welfare:
- Social spending should include universal health care
including dental and vision care,
universal nursery schooling, universal childraising
payment for childcare or parental care.
- More great comments --
- These are just some rough numbers.
Congressional salaries can come from the total for overhead.
Our EPA should not be funded by income taxes.
It should be funded by taxes levied against those who do not
follow legislation to protect wildlife and the environment.
- From Colorado:
- I do not want any of my money spent to pay congressional members who
received paychecks while federal employees were out of work and without pay,
if I may add, that includes the President and his buddies!
- Sez Harlow:
- Were we a town, this might work. Given the size and diverse character and interests of the American people, I am not sure it is practical. After all, we are a Republic, and we send people to Congress to decite the direction that the nation will take.
- Here's another suggestion:
- Elimination of the tax contributions to political campaigns.
There are more than enough SIG's to fund the political
parties. Instead re-direct those funds into education or
health care research grants.
- And this person cuts to the heart of the matter:
- I like the idea. If income taxation is to continue, this
just _might_ be enough to make it palatable...
- And to show that there's nothing new under the sun:
- Hey, great idea, one I started suggesting to my friends ten years ago
and met with the same ambivilence. Go figure, it's America.
- Furthermore:
- : I would prefer that I could spend my money as I see fit.
But I do not have that freedom to do so. Others use their vote to have the government force payment from me ( I pay taxes only because I have no real choice in the matter) and then decide how to spend that money. Again let me have the money I earn and let me decide how it is to be spent, that is the true self-directed income tax, and that is why I vote Libertarian.
- and this:
- Quit subsidising tabacco, and other industries which should be self-sufficient or gone
Smaller amounts should be paid to other countries as incentives. We have need for the incentives right here at home.
- And here's an interesting perspective:
- Its no wonder so few respond! Apparently you assume the present
(and escalating) level of taxation, and let us cash cows make some
suggestions as to where ists spent. If the supreme court rediscovered
the tenth amendment, education, arts & humanities, social spending
virtually disappear. Debt service isn't optional. Defense spending
would continue at about the same ratg, but would be over half
the budget. Environmental spending would drop by 90%. Justice drops
by at least half; you don't need all those federal attorneys , courts,
and prisons when most of the federal laws are declared unconstitutional.
Congressional salaries remain an insignificant percentage under
any system.
- Aha! Here's somebody who is beginning to look under the surface:
- This is really pretty stupid. We already have people voting for candidates about whom they know very little other than their looks and their two or three campaign planks, if that. I could only support something like this if we also had a requirement of mandatory political literacy (in the form of a test of understanding of issues) in order to vote. And that would be unconstitutional and illegal, since it discriminates.
- And we even moved one person to submit a short essay:
- It would be extremely valuable to show people the actual
comparitive levels of government spending in the areas you
cite above. You should also note that some kinds of spending
are not optional, either for legal or economic reasons. For
example, one can't simply lower the amount one chooses to spend
on interest on the debt. That amount is fixed by the percentage
of interest the government must pay on all outstanding federal
securities. Another example is the legally mandated absence of
spending caps on entitlement programs. Currently, the taxpayer
must foot the whatever the bill is for most entitlements. Of
course, revenues haven't kept up with the mandated pay-outs for
nearly two decades now, and this is one of the major causes of
the US debt.
In general, I like the SEDIT idea. There are two major drawbacks,
though:
1) The citizenry could choose to gut federal spending for those
activities which are absolutely essential to the existence of
the nation. For example, I find it difficult to see how a
modern nation can cut it without some measure of Defense spending,
without a robust judicial system, and maybe a few other things.
Absolutely unfettered economic democracy of this sort could
have some pretty negative consequences.
2) The media is so pervasive, and so active in the dissemination
of bogus and irrelevent information, that getting a straight public
discussion about spending priorities will be next to impossible.
Add to this the abysmal state of public knowledge about federal
fiscal matters, and you have a recipe for media-driven, ignorant
chaos. For example, I don't think people genuinely know what
the current NASA budget is. Most people grossly overestimate it.
I don't think many people actually know what the overall federal
budget is, how much interest the debt costs us every year, etc.
In matters of economics and the federal budget, I would argue
that most of the American public opinion is unqualified, at best.
If someone has a means of addressing the above issues, I would
love to hear them, and any ideas you have for improving on what
is already an appealing idea.
Rob Whiteley,Honolulu, HI
- ...and someone else sent in their platform:
- Affordable housing for single individual first time
home buyers (houses costing no more than $25,000.
with 4 bedrooms, living room, dining room, den, etc.
- Abolish all animal pounds/kennels, etc.
- Emphasize the gun control Law to specify no one single
individual or family should be allowed to own a gun or have
guns in their homes. Guns and arms should only be for the
Military for use in National defense.
- Abolish the welfare system completely.
- Abolish all taxes on purchase of cars, and property tax
both on land and vehicles.
- Abolish state tax.
- Abolish deer hunting nation-wide. Instigate a large penalty
for anyone caught deer hunting, or hunting any other type of
wild life.
- People with kids that are on walfare should be removed
from welfare, and should get a job, even if working in a fast
food restaurant.
- Lower all airline flights accross the ocean, Atlantiac and
Pacific Oceans. Round trip tickets to Europe or the Orient
should not be no more than $300.
- Prevention of cruelty to the animals. Anyone who runs
over a dog, cat, rabbit, squirrel, or any animal crossing
the street should be fined $5000.
- And another essay!
-
The intentions seem good but...
1)Last minute propaganda to sway public opinion before tax
time would be extensive.
2)With most people there is a discrepancy between what they
need and with what they think they need or want.
3)Many government programs have are necessarily multi-year
actions that require a certain level of support throughout
the program's life to be viable and effective. SEDIT could
reduce complex issues to a popularity contest, which will
lead to a significant variability in program funding year-
to-year.
Obviously SEDIT is not without its good points such as
placing the power to the people where it should be. Of
course there are a lot of really stupid people out there
(Don't ask me to define them or say who should decide who
is stupid,etc., but there are stupid people) who have no
idea of what is going on. This is one of the safeguards
that our representative democracy affords us ... protection
against stupid people who have no clue.
This leads me to my proposal which is a simple modification
to the SEDIT way. There should be a certain percentage of
tax dollars that is to be distributed according to the SEDIT
percentage breakdown and the remainder distributed according
to the way Congress decides is most appropriate. For
instance, Congress may decide that to provide for constancy
of purpose that 80% of the tax money is to be appropiated by
them as they see fit. This leaves 20% of federal tax money
to be divied by the people.
Thoughts ...
- Percentage that Congress decides should be high to
maintain multi-year program funding and to reduce
variability.
- Percentage that Congress decides can be lowered to say
60% if it turns out that there is not much variability in
the SEDIT percentages.
- Govt agencies would have to operate in a different way.
I think they would each separately focus on short term
results so people see that agency in a good light and give
them a larger percentage of the money next year. This of
bad.
- What about staffing in the agencies? There are real
people working in the govt. Would SEDIT result in cyclical
hirings and layoffs? If not, then what happens when the
agency or department that they are working for receives a
super low percentage of money? At the extreme I can see
1000's of workers sitting behind there desks doing nothing
(much as it is now) because there was no money left over
after paying salaries to implement any actual programs.
Kevin Harlow
email: harlk@vector.net
- And this makes it all worthwhile:
- I like this idea! I wonder if anything like it will
come about in my lifetime, though. I will do what I can
to promote it! Thanks!
- A strong conservative libertarian voice:
- Abolish the NEA, IRS and several other unnessary and seriously damaging (Big Brother type) government agencies. The obvious thought here is that less government is better for all of the people of the U.S.A.. We can improve on the best there was.
- And here's a very interesting twist on the idea:
- I think one's vote in general elections should be weighted
by the amount of taxes one pays. Therefore, a person taxed
by $100,000 will have ten times the voting power of a
person taxed by $10,000. People who don't pay any taxes,
i.e. children and the destitute, will have no say on which
politician gets elected. "Fatcats" have a greater say because
"it's their money" anyway.
I would prefer not to vote if it would mean that I don't
pay any taxes.