Tuesday, October 02, 2007
pushing a 'war tax' to fund the Iraq war, they're adopting a variation of the 'Pay As You Go' approach. This variation, which I'll call 'Tax To Pay', directly ties government spending to collecting the tax dollars needed to fund that specific spending; government can only spend on a particular program the dollars that collect in in the form of designated tax collections.
While I don't like the idea of my taxes going up, especially to pay for a war that I don't support, I can wholeheartedly buy into the concept. Part of the reason that government spending is out of control is that there isn't any direct connection between spending and the taxes that are assessed in order to pay for that spending. I think government spending (and all of the ills that accompany having Washington be such a large part of the economy) would be greatly reduced if the voters/taxpayers had ala carte approval of the federal budget. If we're not willing to have our taxes raised in order to pay for a particular program, such as Hillary's proposal to spend $20 billion a year giving $5,000 to every new baby, then we don't enact that particular program
And with the Democrats have bought into the idea of raising taxes to pay for spending, they obviously can't oppose lowering spending and reducing taxes, right?
With that in mind, why don't we:
* cut out the billions of dollars in earmarks and reduce taxes by a like amount.
* cut federal spending on subsidies for farmers and reduce taxes by a like amount.
* cut federal spending on pensions for Congressmen and Senators who have resigned or otherwise lost their seats as a result of disgrace and/or corruption and reduce taxes by a like amount.
* cut federal spending for contributions and subsidies to the World Bank, the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the other corruption-ridden international groups and reduce taxes by a like amount.
* cut federal spending on subsidies for the arts and reduce taxes by a like amount.
* cut federal spending on disaster relief for those who choose to live in disaster prone areas of the country and reduce taxes by a like amount.
* cut federal spending for Congress to take 'fact-finding' trips (junkets) and reduce taxes by a like amount.
* cut federal spending for half of the Congressional staff on Capitol Hill and for half the armchair Generals and Colonels in Washington and reduce taxes by a like amount.
The above is just a start and obviously is in line with my philosophical view of what the federal government should be and shouldn't be doing. You're welcome to propose your own ideas.