Well since I think taxing people's labor is unjust I wouldn't take your route. I'm not sure what the solution is.
So, I suspect that if you are against taxing labor, you would derive the necessary revenues to pay for all non-discretionary spending through something equal to a Flat/Consumption Tax? If so, are you afraid that a Flat/ConsumptionTax will ultimately regress to a point where there is even more unfairness in resultant taxation laws.
I'd like to see the federal government completely stripped so that is basically only provides a defense (defense not offense), and then government functions such as courts and what not. That's it. I think you could reduce government to this minimalist state, keep the current tax rates for 2 years, pay off the debt, get rid of the income tax and put it in a small sales or consumption type tax that doesn't tax labor to fund the minimalist state in the future. Each state could do as their constituents think best in regard to crafting their form of government but I must say I like my federal plan at a state level too.
I agree that governmental discretionary and non-discretionary spending is way out of control. Frankly, I think we have simply lost our collective mind when it comes to managing money in general in this country. Based on your reasonable minded approach, I'm willing to sit down at the "Table of Reason" with you on the matter of taxation, to see if we can hammer out a solution that works for the common good of the country, while retaining individual rights up to the limit of the protection of Union.
Flat/Consumption Tax:
While the absolute cost that gets added to consumption remains equal, the impact (or, Felt Cost) to the consumer at the point of sale, won't be equal. The reason for that is the wealth distribution in society is inherently uneven and that is always going to be the case in the current economic and social paradigms that we have engineered for ourselves ever since before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. So, if we continue to maintain the Republic using the current socioeconomic model, there will always be a variable delta in the wealth distribution that will lead to inherent unfairness in net effect of the current taxation laws at the point of sale.
The conundrum here, is that the only way to make the Flat/Consumption Tax scheme fair across the board, would be to design a system that more evenly distributes wealth across the board. Then the true "consumption" component of the tax scheme is realized without the side-effect of being too unfair at a systemic level. Of course, this is simply impossible. It cannot be done. We can't maintain the same money based system where we exchange dollars for products and services on an individual basis, and evenly distribute wealth at the same time. That just won't work.
So, what we are really talking about is a complete paradigm shift away from "dollars for products" and to a system of "work for progress." There are several models out there that are classified by mainstream social science thinkers as being "Futuristic" and/or "Communal," but I think you get my point. A monetized system simply has inherent shortfalls when it comes to fairness, and extending that shortfall by unevenly weighting the burden of cost among those with less wealth and fewer means, only exacerbates an already strained "Felt Cost" reality.
So, I like the idea of reaching for a more fair taxation protocol, but I'm having real difficulty figuring out how to make it work without being overly regressive. If you come up with a good solution, let me know! My ears will always be wide open on the subject.
The Function of Government | Legislative:
I'm with you on this.
The question is how far do we go. I don't want see the people on the Atlantic Coast, or the Gulf Coast, or in the San Francisco Bay Area, or in the Southern California Valley, or in the Heartland, or the Midwest Agriculture Region, having deal with Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Floods and Droughts, without adequate resources to deal with them appropriately. Similarly, I don't want to share the roads, streets and highways, with motorists driving OEM produced vehicles that are inherently unsafe due to shortcuts in production and manufacturing that were taken merely because there was inadequate oversight (regulation). Similarly, I don't want to step into my shower and suffer acid burn or toxic ingestion, merely because I was taking care of routine personal hygiene. Occasionally, I do get a headache from working too many hours typically. So, I don't want to be hospitalized merely because followed the dosing instructions on a bottle of pain reliever. And, this does not even scratch the tip of the iceberg.
There are many aspects of our daily lives that we simply take for granted, where the tax dollars we spent were used to provide a level of ubiquitous and seamless synergy, that enabled us to function throughout the day in such a way that seems effortless. That's part of the Societal Infrastructure (for lack of a better term) that we all enjoy and expect to be there. So, "stripping" government to its bare essentials is definitely something I am interesting in seeing come to fruition, but we need to make sure that we don't strip ourselves back to a 300 B.C. lifestyle.
I like the concept of turning Congressional members into National Managers, where "Legislation" is brought to a straight National vote. This would provide our nation with a degree of Legislative Load Balancing, and remove (or, greatly reduce) the dictatorial and/or plutocratic influence on the legislative process. Each state would still vote the same way they do now to select their Representative. However, those sent to Washington D.C., would take on the new role of National Manager. They would initiate legislation on our behalf, but the People would provide the Ratification Layer through a national vote. This truly pushes power and control more closer to the People and it gives the People real veto power. Those Citizens that elect not to participate in legislative ratification, can't then later complain about the outcome. This will also give the People, a much stronger and better sense of what it means to be a Citizen of the United States.
The Function of Government | Executive:
As far as the Executive branch of government goes, I favor a Semi-Swiss Model, or a Swiss-Reduction Model.
I would create a Tricameral Executive branch where Conservatives, Liberals and Independents/Centrists would simply use their existing Presidential primaries as the mechanism for electing their representative to Executive Office. So, by definition there would be a Republican President, Democrat President and Independent/Centrist President. Added to this, I would then amend the Constitution to require (mandate) that each fiscal year, the Executive branch submit to the newly structured Congress, a balanced budget. Guess what? With the new congressional form, the budget would eventually find its way to the People for Ratification. It would be a thing of beauty.
I love this idea quite frankly. In fact, I drool over it sometimes because I like it so much. It has so many benefits, that I won't be able to get to them all here. It forces (demands) each side of the Executive branch to hammer out a tonne of details that Congress now fights over all the time. Effectively, the American People would be electing their respective party's Negotiator in Chief.
Now, this would "grow" government ever so slightly, because you would then have to redesign the floor plan of the White House just a bit. You would need to bring in a top Architect who was very familiar with 18th century neoclassical form, to build-out two additional Oval Offices, each sharing the exact same Foyer and main entrance. So, the symbolically, all three Executives would enter their respective Oval Office, through the same (equal) portal within the White House. I really can't express how much I love this idea.
Of course, this would require an amendment to the Constitution to remove and replace the singular Executive, or individual election requirement, with a new Tricameral election process, but the work to get this done would be well worth it and very beneficial to the country long-term. It is highly likely that had we used this type of structure in the past, that our involvement in Vietnam, might never have happened. World War I and World War II, would have most likely seen our involvement (as they should). The Korean War, would have been averted as far as U.S. involvement is concerned. The Cold War would have most probably still been waged, but I think its duration would have been cut in half.
There would have been no Invasion of Panama and there also would have been no Operation Desert Storm. No occupation of Nicaragua and no El Salvador conflicts.
There would have been on 1953/54 Coup attempt in Iran, and therefore there would have been no Iranian hostages taken in 1979. There would have been no U.S. involvement in the Soviet/Afghan War in the 80's and as a direct result, there would have been no U.S. involvement with Osama Bin Laden. As a direct consequence of that, there would have been no September 11th, 2001, as there would have been no Al-Qaeda to blame it on. Logically, there would have been no illegal invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan.
The Tricameral institution alone would have saved somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 American lives alone (at least) and saved the American Tax Payer trillions of dollars in direct war debt. We would most likely be running budget surpluses right this very minute and have a very robust economy with a healthy jobs surplus to boot.
I'll say it again - we can solve our nation's problems, but we are going to have to start using our collect head to do it and a lot less political ideological dogma.
So, I am willing to negotiate, but at the end of the day, I need to actually see some progress.
