Posts
I have been unable to access my blog for quite a while now... But, I have access to it again, and will resume my political blogging. Please, do not hesitate to leave comments, your suggestions and feedback are greatly appriciated. If you have any suggestions on topics that you would like to know more about, I would love to hear them.
My Thanks
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
My Political Philosophy
I decided that I should provide some background on the way that I think. Hopefully, this will provide a foundation upon which other political discussions can build.
The age old question concerning government is: what size government is best. Of course few can agree on any particular answer. Communists want it to govern everything, while others favor a Laissez Faire view. Ultimately, the size of government you want depends on what you want the government to do for you.
I am a practical thinker. I enjoy taking facts and piecing together plausible solutions. Using this method, I have come to a few conclusions.
There are many reasons that a governments power expands over time. The first reason is that it is easier to add on laws than to replace. When we as a people request new benefits the government cannot easily replace the old benefit system with a new more effective system. It instead adds on to the old which adds new levels of bureaucracy and duplicate departments.
Government also expands because of its large pockets. People tend to think that with the trillions of dollars in the government’s treasury, the government could take care of their problems. It is easy to think that your insurance bill is just pocket change beneath a trillion dollar umbrella.
With a few facts, and simple deductions, the idea of a large government is quickly undermined. A large government is entirely impractical. There is no way that the federal government can fulfill your individual or community’s needs. It has too many tasks to look after and your individual voice will be lost in the pleas of every other dissatisfied citizen.
I have compiled two reasons to shrink the size of federal government.
Accountability:
If we permit government to grow too large, we will no longer be able to hold the government accountable for its actions. The complexity of government limits the American public’s ability to find who is not representing them appropriately. Government becomes a blame game, departments and agencies all blaming each other, grinding progression to a halt. The more streamlined a government is, the easier it is to diagnose the disease in the system and eradicate it.
Efficiency:
Picture yourself in a room with a hundred corridors, each one leading to a problem that requires you attention. Even if you had a hundred men at your command, your progress would still be slow. The men under you would have to assess the problem, report to you, and then run back down the hallway. Finally, they would begin to address the issue, returning regularly to report their progress. That process would be slow and inefficient. Yet this is how our current government works. Congress is filled with thousands of reports and very little action. Government would run much smoother if problems were addressed at the local level. With a smaller federal government and larger local governments, solutions would better suit your individual need, and prevent costly wastes of time with solutions that don't match your needs.
The resized federal government no longer needing to focus on local issues could better service the needs of the whole nation. It would better be able to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" like it was originally designed to do, instead of sapping tax dollars to feed a hungry bureaucracy.
The age old question concerning government is: what size government is best. Of course few can agree on any particular answer. Communists want it to govern everything, while others favor a Laissez Faire view. Ultimately, the size of government you want depends on what you want the government to do for you.
I am a practical thinker. I enjoy taking facts and piecing together plausible solutions. Using this method, I have come to a few conclusions.
There are many reasons that a governments power expands over time. The first reason is that it is easier to add on laws than to replace. When we as a people request new benefits the government cannot easily replace the old benefit system with a new more effective system. It instead adds on to the old which adds new levels of bureaucracy and duplicate departments.
Government also expands because of its large pockets. People tend to think that with the trillions of dollars in the government’s treasury, the government could take care of their problems. It is easy to think that your insurance bill is just pocket change beneath a trillion dollar umbrella.
With a few facts, and simple deductions, the idea of a large government is quickly undermined. A large government is entirely impractical. There is no way that the federal government can fulfill your individual or community’s needs. It has too many tasks to look after and your individual voice will be lost in the pleas of every other dissatisfied citizen.
I have compiled two reasons to shrink the size of federal government.
Accountability:
If we permit government to grow too large, we will no longer be able to hold the government accountable for its actions. The complexity of government limits the American public’s ability to find who is not representing them appropriately. Government becomes a blame game, departments and agencies all blaming each other, grinding progression to a halt. The more streamlined a government is, the easier it is to diagnose the disease in the system and eradicate it.
Efficiency:
Picture yourself in a room with a hundred corridors, each one leading to a problem that requires you attention. Even if you had a hundred men at your command, your progress would still be slow. The men under you would have to assess the problem, report to you, and then run back down the hallway. Finally, they would begin to address the issue, returning regularly to report their progress. That process would be slow and inefficient. Yet this is how our current government works. Congress is filled with thousands of reports and very little action. Government would run much smoother if problems were addressed at the local level. With a smaller federal government and larger local governments, solutions would better suit your individual need, and prevent costly wastes of time with solutions that don't match your needs.
The resized federal government no longer needing to focus on local issues could better service the needs of the whole nation. It would better be able to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" like it was originally designed to do, instead of sapping tax dollars to feed a hungry bureaucracy.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
On Taxes
First, I would like to ask a favor. If anyone reading this blog, can easily explain to me the current tax code of the United States (preferably in a way that everyone can understand), please let me know. However, anticipating that no one will be able to give me a satisfactory answer… Let's talk taxes.
The United State of America pulls in around 1.5 trillion dollars each year in tax collection. It makes sense: the government has a lot of things on its plate. (We will talk about governmental obesity later.) Still, at the end of each year the ledger still registers a red minus sign.
This year, the IRS requested 11.6 billion dollars of congress to maintain operations. We could banter numbers all day, but when it comes right down to it the IRS is effective: they triple the money put into it by Congress. They have to be effective or they wouldn't be feared by the public the way they are.
But is it necessary? Do we really need a tax code in surplus of 1300 pages? No wonder we fear an audit by the IRS. What if I missed something important on page 1024! There must be a simpler way. I think that we have lost most of our control over tax collection simply because it is too large for us to combat. Senators even seem to have difficulty wrapping their arms around the tax code. (See http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html)
Rather than modify a broken system, we should throw it out and make a new one. The Founding Fathers understood this. They didn't try to fix the Articles of Confederation, adding complexities and loopholes; instead, they drafted a new Constitution that has lasted generations with little modification.
I believe that we need to simplify tax code and make a system that won't require $11,600,000,000 to enforce. You may have other ideas, and I would love to hear them, but I suggest a sales tax. This is a much fairer form of tax—putting the power back into the hands of the people. A national sales tax would be much easier for the American public to monitor and would equally disperse the load of taxation. The rich would pay more, but only because they spend more and not because the government demands it of them. Sales tax is equal across the board leaving no group unequally treated.
As an added bonus you won't need to fear an IRS audit: you can start worrying about more important things now.
Sources:
IRS: www.gao.gov/new.items/d07719t.pdf
US INCOME: http://www.startribune.com/business/11217101.html
The United State of America pulls in around 1.5 trillion dollars each year in tax collection. It makes sense: the government has a lot of things on its plate. (We will talk about governmental obesity later.) Still, at the end of each year the ledger still registers a red minus sign.
This year, the IRS requested 11.6 billion dollars of congress to maintain operations. We could banter numbers all day, but when it comes right down to it the IRS is effective: they triple the money put into it by Congress. They have to be effective or they wouldn't be feared by the public the way they are.
But is it necessary? Do we really need a tax code in surplus of 1300 pages? No wonder we fear an audit by the IRS. What if I missed something important on page 1024! There must be a simpler way. I think that we have lost most of our control over tax collection simply because it is too large for us to combat. Senators even seem to have difficulty wrapping their arms around the tax code. (See http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html)
Rather than modify a broken system, we should throw it out and make a new one. The Founding Fathers understood this. They didn't try to fix the Articles of Confederation, adding complexities and loopholes; instead, they drafted a new Constitution that has lasted generations with little modification.
I believe that we need to simplify tax code and make a system that won't require $11,600,000,000 to enforce. You may have other ideas, and I would love to hear them, but I suggest a sales tax. This is a much fairer form of tax—putting the power back into the hands of the people. A national sales tax would be much easier for the American public to monitor and would equally disperse the load of taxation. The rich would pay more, but only because they spend more and not because the government demands it of them. Sales tax is equal across the board leaving no group unequally treated.
As an added bonus you won't need to fear an IRS audit: you can start worrying about more important things now.
Sources:
IRS: www.gao.gov/new.items/d07719t.pdf
US INCOME: http://www.startribune.com/business/11217101.html
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Purpose of Government
I think that the purpose of government is a fitting place to start this blog.
I don't think that I have ever met someone who can say with all honesty that they like governments. There are people who like to analyze it for faults, and study how governments work because it is interesting. But, I have never met someone who loves government. I would love to get the word politician while playing password, because all I would have to say is crooked and most people would respond politician.
Why are we so dependent on government, when few like them and most associate them with corruption? I just finished reading "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, and found he very accurately discribed government. "Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one." He goes on to explain that if men were alway honest and true in their dealings we would need no law. But because this is not that case, every man must surrender up a part of his own property for protection. Protection is the root of government, we seek protection from outside powers, from crooks within."If men were angels, no government would be necessary." (Federalist Paper #51)
Government is the enforcer of laws, it keeps people true to their word. This is why we deal with governments... and this is why we should not put up with corruption within government.
I don't think that I have ever met someone who can say with all honesty that they like governments. There are people who like to analyze it for faults, and study how governments work because it is interesting. But, I have never met someone who loves government. I would love to get the word politician while playing password, because all I would have to say is crooked and most people would respond politician.
Why are we so dependent on government, when few like them and most associate them with corruption? I just finished reading "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, and found he very accurately discribed government. "Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one." He goes on to explain that if men were alway honest and true in their dealings we would need no law. But because this is not that case, every man must surrender up a part of his own property for protection. Protection is the root of government, we seek protection from outside powers, from crooks within."If men were angels, no government would be necessary." (Federalist Paper #51)
Government is the enforcer of laws, it keeps people true to their word. This is why we deal with governments... and this is why we should not put up with corruption within government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)