Civil War, Part II

[kandrathe]

Here is a new article in the American Chronicle, May 25th 2009, Does the Sovereignty Movement Go Far Enough? by Dr. Robert Owens.

"The increasing pace of America´s progression from free markets to a command economy has reached such a pace and become so obvious the Russian Prime Minister used his spotlight time at the World Economic Forum to warn America not to follow the socialist path. Now the Russian newspaper Pravda, once the leading communist voice on earth published an article entitled, "American capitalism gone with a whimper." People around the world can see the individual decisions of producers and consumers are being replaced by the form letters of a faceless central-planning bureaucracy even if the Obama boosters still haven´t swallowed the red pill and watched the matrix dissolve."

It seems ironic and in a way twisted that the President of our former communist enemy warned the US in the most recent economic conference in Davos, "Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake." and "Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent. The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation. In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated." It seems that the former Soviet experience, plus our own incessant indoctrination of economic free market capitalism did sink in there, however, conversely, their incessant indoctrination of central government control also sank in over here (back in the, back in the, back in the USSA).

Dr. Robert Owens solution? "Resurrect the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th (the popular election of Senators) and while we´re at it let´s drive a stake through the heart of the 16th (allows for levying income tax) and all that´s still on the conservative side of radicalism. Restore the balance and save the Republic!"

Again, I'm not opposed to all three of those proposals. What do you think would be the result of repealing the 17th Amendment to allow State Legislatures to again elect the Senators rather than directly by the people? Would this help to curb the TANSTAAFL effect of too much self serving democracy?

Everyone probably knows here that I'm a big proponent of consumption based taxes, and even entertain some ideas surrounding progressive consumption based taxes. One idea would be to define a standard "footprint" of consumption for an average person, then base taxes upon that footprint. This implements two strategies important for fairness in the world with one, albeit large, change. It would have the effect of helping people to consider conservation as a part of their unbounded consumption, and also be a way of fairly levying taxes. Yes, there will be those who might think that consumption based taxes are regressive, but if you adjust them based upon the "common" footprint, then I think they might be made more "fair". At least I believe it is more fair than the current "Cap in Trade" legislation being bandied about Congress.

<blockquote>As an environmentalist I need to get this [rant] off my chest. I'm very tired of consumption based schemes which are sold as environmental. Much like the "buy three, and get the fourth one for free" sales pitch, we are being hoodwinked by pseudo-environmental propaganda and the eco-snake oil salesman that their next big thing is just what mother earth needs. I'm not impressed by the Hummer that is converted to run from used fry oil, or bio-diesel. You might power two vehicles, with the same utility for the same energy expenditure. I've long been suspicious of the utility of burning crops for fuel, and its impact on land use and food availability and prices. I'm suspicious of the wind and solar argument as well, when you bundle in the massive investment and upkeep of distribution lines needed to route it to the major cities. </blockquote>

Then others might worry that changing the tax structure like this would have a negative impact on the economy, and I would admit for awhile it probably would. Consider that we currently base our economy on pushing for over consumption, and measure growth by consumer spending. In our current system, one idea to jump start a sluggish economy is to steal money from peoples future (federal budget deficit) and give it away by the bushel basket today in hopes that people will go out and buy things whether they need them or not. Another, is to lower interest rates (which at some point hit bottom) to a level where people will borrow and steal money from their own futures to spend on things they may or may not need. I believe that the upside would be longer term growth based on investment and savings, rather than based on excessive consumption.

Our focus should not be on transferring wealth to the fund the poor in an ever increasing life style, but to insure that every person has the same opportunity to become self sufficient and as wealthy as they are capable and desire to be. So, what does that mean? I see two things; Education and Employment, which are the vocations of every person. Insuring that every person has a full measure of both should be the ideal and focus of our society, although I would add that they can be a morass if left to the government to administer.

The third argument I've heard is that basing taxation upon consumption would put the government in the position of encouraging consumption to remain fiscally sound. To which I would respond, not any more than the current situation that puts the government in the position of encouraging excessive consumer spending.

Basing taxation on consumption would encourage saving, and spending on things that will eventually produce a profit and I believe it would encourage the government to be no bigger than it needs to be. To me it brings to mind the situation of any person who seeks to make something of themselves where they tighten their belts and save their money to eventually buy that farm, or invest in a company, or start one of their own. Why should the government take from the income side of the equation? The answer was that they needed money for wars and it was the most expedient way to quickly tap into the money stream of those who were earning it.

The other tax position I have is "usage" based taxes. For example, if you use the school, then you pay for the school. If you use the road, then you pay for the road. If you use city water, then you pay for the upkeep of the water system. If people want infrastructures, like libraries, or roads, or schools, or water systems, then they will need to work together to encourage their use and keep them useful. I do see a role for government in helping to organize people to do these things, however, ultimately the buck stops with the person who is willing to maintain the thing you have built. There are so many multi-million dollar boondoggle projects in my state which may be visited or used by a few dozen people per year, and while nice, they were not a good use of money and in the future the maintenance of them will remain a further drain on our resources.

In my town a while back, the mayor, and the city council where I live had this grandiose plan inspired by the State department of transportation and their grant money to rework all the roads in our little town to expand them, add sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street lights. Myself and some of my neighbors went door to door to every home owner in the town and talked about what appealed to the folks that lived here to move here, and why now we would want to change our "rural" feel for that of a "standard" city street. Also, once built, it would be our town, and the local property taxes that would be needed to sustain this new infrastructure. Needless to say, once the people had the full story and were able to think it through, the entire plan evaporated in a summer filled with full town hall meetings and the mayor and city council were replaced at the next election.

To this day, when people campaign for town office here, the litmus test is that they are committed to preserving the character of the town. If only, the people in the US, would do the same at a national level.