Reinventing Government

Redefining Government

A Free Market Version of Government

www.RedefiningGovernment.com

www.TaxpayerVeto.com

by: Art Garitty
artgaritty@gmail.com
(504) 232-6547

I would like to preface my comments with the following three quotes which embody much of my thought processes. The first quote was by John Adams in Thoughts on Government (1776):

"The principal difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed in constituting this Representative Assembly. It should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them."

Thoughts on Government is very interesting in that it was written 11 years before the U.S. Constitution, yet it suggests three branches of government: the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, all with a system of checks and balances. Through much of my readings regarding the founding fathers, I have come to strongly believe that John Adams was the leading visionary behind many of the pivotal elements of the American Revolution specifically including the creation of our governing structures (state and federal). As discussed more fully throughout this proposal, I believe that John Adams’ vision of an exact portrait of the people can be achieved in our modern times, particularly considering the advanced and highly efficient methods of communication that are now commonplace throughout our society. This envisioned exact portrait could materialize through a feedback mechanism which would prevent our politicians from ignoring the true Will of the People.

I contend that our founding fathers intended for our REPRESENTatives to merely REPRESENT their constituents because We the People, with minimal constraints, are generally capable of making prudent decisions whereas individuals who are elevated into significant positions of power are too frequently, through basic human nature, corrupted into making self-serving decisions at the expense of the Public Good. I further contend that our current Washington politicians consider We the People to be generally incapable of protecting ourselves, requiring such politicians to supplant their judgment in place of our judgment in order to protect us; thus, they consider it acceptable to ignore their constituents because “they know better.” With a consistent long-term 10%-20% approval rating, do you consider our Congress to have ever come close to meeting this challenge of an exact portrait?

The second quote is from Thomas Jefferson:

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

I first ask each reader to assess the inherent truth of this statement and next to assess the level to which our current government (as well as any government – real or imagined) is guilty of operating under this articulated description of tyranny. I contend that implementing the idea expressed herein would effectively eliminate the motivation for a government to operate in a tyrannical manner. Finally, I ask each reader (conservative, liberal or moderate) to evaluate whether they would like a Taxpayer Veto provision to allow for a rapid individual taxpayer feedback mechanism with teeth as well as whether they feel at least as competent as our elected lawmakers to allocate limited public resources in a responsible manner.

The third quote is from Federalist Paper No. 49:

“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”

I propose simply giving the taxpayers a veto power over the allocation of their taxes by Congress. I do not propose doing away with taxes. But instead, give each taxpayer the ability to determine which programs his own taxes will fund.

Free Market Principles Needed in Government

The idea presented here is basically that our government would function much better if it operated under constraints similar to those imposed by the free market; that is, if I (as the customer/taxpayer) am not satisfied with the product or service that you are offering, I can take the Fruits of my Labor (i.e. money) and go elsewhere or, at a minimum, prevent you (i.e. legislators) from using my money for purposes which I passionately object to.

For adaptation to a governmental entity, the only modifications that I propose to this pure free market system is that: (1) budgets must be balanced so that politicians (our government service providers) are prevented from “printing money” to magically offset revenue shortfalls; (2) taxpayers will have the same tax liability regardless of whether or not they decide to fund current government programs - to eliminate any self-serving motivation to reduce tax liability by not supporting current government programs; and (3) taxpayers are always offered the option to allocate any portion of their tax dollars to retiring our federal debt (an effective vote of no confidence in our current legislators) – a citizen feedback mechanism with teeth.

Discussion of Modified Laffer curve
(see this link for a description of the Laffer curve)

I will now introduce a significant variant of the Laffer curve. In such graph, the x-axis is a measure of the alignment of government policy with the will of the population and the y-axis is percent of GDP made available for current “government” programs. I contend that, on the side of the graph whereby government policy is NOT aligned with the Will of the people (i.e. dictatorship, oligarchy, etc. – highly unstable), potential revenue can be locally (not globally) maximized through the imposition of brute force whereby the taxed classes are intimidated into not questioning / challenging “the system” because it is too powerful to oppose for the expected benefit to be derived from such opposition (see discussion of Opportunity Cost below). I alternatively contend that, on the side of the graph whereby government policy is aligned with the Will of the people (i.e. true representative democracy - highly stable), potential revenue can be globally maximized at immensely higher levels through the mutually pledged cooperation of the various factions of the population for the purpose of improving society for the mutual benefit of all citizens.

Analogy to Horse Breaking

I analogize movement from the right side of the curve to the left side to the act of trying to “break a horse” through “iron-fisted” methods. Instead of commenting on this subject in which I have no real-life experience, I ask you to see the Horse Breaking link for further commentary on the specifics of horse breaking.

Without commentary, I will also reference the following “iron-fisted” methods of control and the related reactions in response – some real, some fiction (but popular):

In all of these cases, the “controlled” will appear relatively passive until the time is perceived to be ripe for escape and/or a challenge to those in control.

Difference Between Paying Taxes and Giving to Charity

Many today view paying taxes similar to charitable giving. I contend that, in our current system (for several decades), charitable giving frequently results in a much more efficient utilization of resources. Many taxpayers who object strenuously to increased taxation give significant amounts to charity. I contend that such taxpayers are willing to give freely from their personal resources mainly because they are able to directly benefit a specific cause which they genuinely believe “makes a difference” resulting in an overall benefit to society. Additionally, I contend that they strenuously object to increased taxation mainly because of their perception of extremely wasteful and inefficient spending on the part of government; I doubt that anyone disputes the extreme level of wastefulness in current U. S. government spending. If they were assured that government would efficiently and adequately support their cause, they should have no objection to an imposition of increased taxation in that it shares the burden (“WE MUTUALLY PLEDGE”). But what about those who vigorously object to your cause? Should they not be given the opportunity to object and direct their tax dollars to causes they support? This is precisely what I attempt to address.

Those in support of increased taxation frequently reference specific government programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, National Security, RIF, Head Start, etc.) which cannot afford to be cut in justification of such tax increases; they obviously have strong feelings about maintaining such programs. I contend that they would strongly support that such programs be given funding priority in the event of widespread spending cuts. Unfortunately, whenever objection is expressed to an increase in taxation, proponents of tax increase only focus on the potential of such cuts impacting essential government functions (i.e. firing policemen, firemen and teachers) with no acknowledgement of the completely absurd use of taxpayer resources on a continuing basis. If our government ran a tight ship, there would be considerably less objection to increased taxation; however, there would also be much less need for increased taxation.

I contend that my proposal whereby taxpayers are given a feedback mechanism (with teeth) into the resource allocation function is a middle ground that will force a power-hungry (or not) Congress to listen to the American people. At the theoretical point at which government policy is in 100% alignment with the Will of the People, is there any real difference between Taxation and Charitable Giving? Also, at this point, is there any real difference between an allocation scheme proposed by Congress and an allocation scheme determined through taxpayer input? See John Adams above Exact Portrait quote.

I now present a further variant of the Laffer curve in which the following have been added to the previous graph: (1) basic private needs; (2) discretionary private spending & potential charitable spending; and (3) effort & resources spent fighting & defending the machine and/or fighting for control of the machine. Note that unemployment results in an overall shift of each of the curves downward resulting in a decreased standard of living for everyone.

Who is the Machine?

Also, I present a graph of “Who is the Machine?” in terms of population. As alignment of government policy with the Will of the People decreases, the individuals who make up “the Machine” is minimal containing only those in control of the Machine and those significantly benefitting from the Machine; this represents a government subject to considerable instability. As alignment of government policy with the Will of the People approaches 100% (remember the national unity experienced following 9/11/01), the Machine consists of nearly the entire population; and government is extremely stable.

This graph demonstrates why Class Warfare is so popular in politics today; you only need alienate a small portion of the population while benefitting a large portion of the population; however, by alienating the productive population upon which so much reliance must be placed for economic growth, the result is frequently increased poverty and unemployment due to a decrease in job creation. I am surprised by the fact that, although enormous attempts are made to “buy-off” the majority of the population by negatively impacting a very small segment of society, election results are as close as they are. I surmise that the reason for this is that a considerable portion of the population understands the fallacy of this mindset and can effectively see through the smokescreen.

Balanced Budget & Taxpayer Veto

In light of our national leader’s recurring inability to recognize and implement the Will of the American People, I further propose that certain additional constraints (supplementing the Constitutional Separation of Powers) should be imposed upon government in order to motivate our politicians (acknowledging the inherent imperfection of human nature as it relates to the corrupting influence of power) into more fully aligning our government policy with the Will of the population. Two constraints upon the power of government that I believe would result in a substantial accomplishment of this goal are: (1) mandate a strict balanced budget in which expenditures cannot exceed tax revenue – this would force our politicians to critically evaluate the Opportunity Cost (see discussion below) of proposed legislation; and (2) empower all taxpayers with a Taxpayer Veto – or a right to designate (without lowering their tax burden) whether all, some or none of their total tax dollars are used for current government programs based upon their individual evaluation of the merit of such program. All funds not used for current government programs would be dedicated to reduction of our national debt (an unarguably good public cause). Negative feedback from this form of expression (i.e. restricting the use of tax dollars for current government programs) would be very hard and foolish for politicians to ignore (as compared with phone calls, emails and letters).

Opportunity Costs Ignored

Subject to the above constraints, politicians would be motivated to implement fair and wise policies (related to both taxation and spending). To the extent such government policies are considered to be unfair / unwise by certain segments of society, revenue for current government programs would certainly diminish resulting in a commensurate diminishment of power for our elected politicians. This results from the direct feedback mechanism provided by the Taxpayer Veto. This stands in stark contrast to our current system whereby power is maximized by politicians by maximizing federal government spending on programs championed by each politician without regard to any Opportunity Cost analysis (see this link for a description of Opportunity Cost). Only with the above constraints will government decisions start to be made based upon an honest consideration of Opportunity Cost. Genuine consideration of Opportunity Cost in decision making (with a mechanism for direct consumer feedback impacting revenue) is what allows the true private sector (operating with minimal government regulation) to operate with such incredible efficiency.

Our problems arise from our politicians view of our system as having unlimited resources which has arisen from the lack of balance of spending with revenue in our budgetary processes. What is the Opportunity Cost of implementing another $50 billion program when nothing needs to be cut in order to implement this new program? Anyone speaking out against such new program is quickly labeled as an uncaring individual rather than fiscally conscious of the Opportunity Cost.

I received a comment (from Glenn Beck’s call screener, Keith Malanik) that something similar to my plan was ruled by the U. S. Supreme Court to be “un-Constitutional.” I have never received any information in response to my request for a specific case reference. While I truly believe that the plan which I present herein is in agreement with all articulated founding principles as well as the specific language and spirit of the U.S. Constitution, I am genuinely interested in receiving information concerning this purported U. S. Supreme Court decision that a similar plan was un-Constitutional as well as any founding principles which any reader considers this plan to violate. While I admit to not being a Constitutional scholar (and will not waste any further time in trying to become one), my substantive response to this comment is that, except for developing a basic understanding of the rationale supporting the original formation of our Constitution, you should downplay a strict evaluation of what would be considered by the U. S. Supreme Court to be “Constitutional” in any serious efforts to envision a creative mechanism for correcting the problems which have come to exist in our present system of government; I ask you to consider Kelo v. City of New London if you still believe that the U. S. Supreme Court has a firm grip on our founding principles. Furthermore, our founding fathers provided an amendment process precisely because they acknowledged that, with the benefit of hindsight, genuine improvements to their original magnificent creation would be possible. I sincerely believe that our founding fathers would be disappointed with those who take the simple position that the original system was “perfect enough” as implemented and will never need improvement; I consider this to be a rather slothful perspective. Our founding fathers created the Constitution as an experiment to be perfected over time; and I believe they would have expected their progeny to creatively and ambitiously envision meaningful improvements to their original creation.

I believe that our founding fathers’ concerns regarding the inherent imperfection of human nature (as demonstrated by their insistence upon Separation of Powers) must be taken into consideration. I merely propose slightly expanding the Separation of Powers to include that We the People be given a limited VETO power over government’s current use of the confiscated Fruits of our own Labor. I do not want any VETO power over the use of the confiscated Fruits of your Labor; and I expect you to not want any control over the use of the confiscated Fruits of my Labor. While our representative government would be responsible for enacting specific provisions for what allocation mechanisms are allowable, we should be given greater individual input (a feedback mechanism with teeth) in the final allocation decision. Similar to the demise of a business man who implements unwise business decisions, a government which operates against the will of the people under the above-described constraints will realize a similar fate.

For a more developed discussion of the principles of Taxpayer Veto, see the original Targeted Tax Spending article.

QUESTION?

Is our current American government system of taxation really much different than being held up at gunpoint and robbed of 50% of your worldly possessions by a thug so malicious, powerful and well-connected that you dare not question and/or challenge his “theft” or substantially risk suffering inevitable, unimaginable consequences?

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson

Does the Government fear you or do you fear the government?

"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

John F. Kennedy

Give those from whom the operating resources of the country are confiscated (via taxation) a simple veto power (a feedback mechanism with teeth) over the use of such resources for current government programs. See Targeted Tax Spending. Our politicians have routinely ignored (and continue to ignore) our voices alone.

Make the Politicians Listen!

Demand that Taxpayers Be Given
a Voice that Cannot Be Ignored!

Alone, I Cannot Make This Happen;
Together, We Can!