vision2020
Re: voting on government budgets
Robert, For a long time I have proposed that all loop-holes be eliminated
from the tax code. If you owe 1500 dollars you owe 1500 dollars. However ,
you get to apportion it the way you want to spend it. You would allocate
the a certain percentage to each of the Cabinet Secretaries up to 100 %.
For you Defense may get 30 % and Education 10 % and labor 10 % etc.
Somebody else may want to give defense nothing and transportion 80%.
Cabinet Secretaries would only have X number of dollars to spend on what
ever projects are in their realm. These monies include the payment of
administration. Also they have an identified constituency to which they
must answer for next years allocations may not be forthcoming. This
appraoch would go a long way to making tax payments and input into the
budget process palatible. It does however ever elimanate the fun part for
the congressman who can weild politcal power to get pork barrel legislation
for his district. I am all for as much public input as possible to the
budget process.
Sam Duncan
----------
> From: Robert Probasco <rcp@uidaho.edu>
> To: John and Laurie Danahy <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
> Cc: Vision2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>
> Subject: voting on government budgets
> Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 11:08 AM
>
> On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, John Danahy wrote:
> > Recently, on a trip to New York, I was stunned by the New York State
law
> > that required cities, towns, villages, and school districts to submit
their
> > yearly budgets to the voters for approval. If the proposed budget
fails to
> > get a simple majority, the governing entity must rework it and try
again.
> > Or do a last resort bare bones budget.
> > How does everyone feel about this concept?
>
> Nice idea. Most countries, like the USA, entrust a single entity (like
> Congress or the legislature) to collect AND spend public monies. I
> believe Switzerland is different, in that the spending agency is distinct
> from the assessing & collecting agency. Swiss voters decide how much
they
> will be taxed, and the government services must be confined to those
> constraints.
>
> Most American communities rarely get to vote directly on a tax increase
--
> except for the periodic school bond levy. Imagine what would happen if
we
> voters could vent our spleen on other issues: prisons, welfare,
university
> salaries and expenditures, state parks, licensing fees, etc.
>
> I can understand why New York presents an all-or-nothing choice to
voters.
>
> Bob Probasco rcp@uidaho.edu
Back to TOC