We can talk about the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of various forms of government, as well as their defined client base, at some other time. For the moment, we will stipulate that, in theory, the United States government is a representative government "of the people, by the people and for the people". That pretty much defines the client base. In theory.
In fact, the historical record shows that whatever the intended client base was, when any particular government is formed, the client base eventually devolves into an oligarchy. Putting it more plainly, the rich, the powerful, and the privileged end up getting all of the benefits that might be derived from the government at the expense of the people who are governed. In even simpler terms: them that has, gets, and them that don't, won't.
The constituency of them that has may shift from time to time, for varying reasons, but the end result of such a change is not discernably different from an overall perspective. A few people get to be the hammer, everybody else is the nails.
When we talk about the services a government provides, most of them can be summed up in a single word: protection - protection against threats to life, liberty, and property being right at the top of the list of things expected from a government.
These expectations usually include things like:
- protection from military (or economic) invasion by another country;
- planning for responses to natural disasters;
- providing emergency services;
- ensuring the uniform application of justice; and,
- protecting the public health
just to name a few.
Now without delving into the much longer list of things a government might do, it is easy to see that even these few activities require an investment of manpower, equipment, and materials; and those things have to be paid for, somehow! Furthermore, the longer the laundry-list of things we want the government to do, the more money it takes to do them - simple math.
Now our Congress is vested with the authority to expand or contract the list of services that we expect of our government, as well as the authority to determine how much we are going to pay for those services. Here's a clue: your elected representatives aren't any smarter than you are! They can't do math either! They pass laws that require the government to spend money, then they don't ever allocate enough money to do the job!
Why? Because every mother's son of you out there wants the government to do something special for you, so your elected representatives (desiring to be re-elected for their next term) pass laws specifically aimed at meeting your desires! Then, of course, you don't want to pay higher taxes, so the elected idiots, when they can be forced into doing something that resembles their jobs, pass appropriation bills with only token funding for pretty much anything that matters!
Voila! Now your House or Senate rep can claim that his "hard work" resulted in a new law that will take care of your particular concern, but by God he prevented taxes from going up - because he filibustered the bill that would have funded its implementation! He gets credit from both ends, and you get a non-functioning government initiative.
So if I were King, how would it be different? Here's how...
First: no law that places an obligation on the government to perform any service would be permitted to pass, unless it contained its own appropriation language. If Congress didn't want to have to argue whether to provide a particular service every single year, then that language should set a level of funding that would be provided to support that function in all subsequent years.
Think about it: There are a number of things we are always going to want government to do. Things like maintain a standing army; provide disaster relief, support the court system... and these are just a few! Probably 80% of Congressional argument over the federal budget could be eliminated, just by providing a set level of funding for those things we have to have! Take politics out of the picture for those things!
Second: no law requiring the provision of a government service would be permitted to pass unless the accompanying appropriation language provided sufficient funding. Imagine that! Can you expect a child to return from the grocery with a loaf of bread if you only gave hime half the money needed to buy it? NO! Of course not! The labor, equipment, and materials required to provide government services don't magically appear either - they have to be paid for, or you don't get the service.
The solution is easy - even though our Congressional representatives can't do math, they each have a budget for an office staff. Let them fire the sycophants that they have now, and hire people who can do math. Let those new, competent staff members research costs and build spreadsheets that can be included in the published text of the bill, showing how much it will cost, and damn it, let that amount be appropriated! How hard is that? Publishing the numbers and their sources also makes it more difficult to fake out the public - too many other people out there can do math, too!
Finally - and this addresses a pet peeve of mine - we need to remove the incentive for Congress to grandstand while deliberating appropriations. How many times have government operations been crippled by Congress' inablilty to deal with the realities of the cost of government? Too damn many! Congress - both houses - should be kept under house arrest any time an appropriation is needed! The idiots can't seem to do their job any other way, so let's confine 'em until they do! Not to any sumptuous quarters at taxpayer expense, mind you, but rather to a dormitory of cots with common sanitary facilities, and a soup line with nutritious, but very plain food. Maybe if they missed a few junkets or vacations they'd get the idea that we didn't elect them in order to serve their pleasure!
Why all the fuss about appropriations, in a rant about taxes? Where do you think the money for an appropriation comes from?
Mariner
No comments:
Post a Comment