Government Corruption: Is it too late to stop it?

[Ernie S.]

.

Remove the power from those who abuse it most.

• Balanced budget amendment
• Strict, short term limits
• Publicly-funded elections

We can only do what we can do.



.

I would agree with all but publicly funded elections.
Consider that those that would be doling out tax dollars to fund elections have a vested interest in the outcome. I really don't think I want government to have any means to affect who gets funding.

Would you have agreed with the late Hugo Chavez appointing a commission to administer publicly funded elections in Venezuela? Adolph Hitler in Germany?
I'm not saying that corruption is a certainty, but frankly, I don't trust politicians.
I think campaigns funded through private sector donations, restricted to citizens and corporate entities based in the US is the best method with the least chance of corruption.
If any restriction on corporate donations would be placed, I think it should only be on companies that derive a majority of their income from government. That would HAVE to include public sector unions and unions at those restricted businesses.

 

[Ernie S.]

Citizens United pretty much kills any chance of ending any sort of corruption...actually it legalized it. Yea! Power to the people (by people I mean corporations who aren't really people but want to be treated like ppl until they decide they're not people anymore)

So, the stock holders of XYZ Corp. have less say than the members of SEIU?

Both are a conglomeration of people with similar interests. If you deny the freedom of speech to Monsanto, you MUST also deny it to the Teamsters' Union.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes. Unionization of public employees, combined with political contributions to the elected officials with whom they are "bargaining," is the very definition of corruption. Equivalent activities in the private sector are prosecuted as felonies.

But take away the federal government's ability to benefit or support those unions, and most of that that corruption goes away.

But that will leave behind a vacuum that will be filled with corporations corrupting government for their own benefit. Something that is currently happening and costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.

In order to eliminate corruption there needs to be something along the lines of a constitutional amendment that has the following aspects;

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts.

3. Deficit spending to cover emergencies must be fully paid off within a decade of it occurring. Automatic tax increases must be applied to cover 10% plus interest of the deficit spending.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury.
​

Granted this is somewhat simplistic but as a first draft it is somewhere to start.

Congressmen are elected to represent the best interests of their districts. Forbidding them from doing their job doesn't make sense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sometimes simplistic is the best place to start. Occam's razor and all that. But let's take your proposals one at a time:

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues My problem with this is you must first limit the revenues and what they are allowed to spend money on, or there is nothing to stop them from using this rule as justification to raise taxes to whatever level they think they can get away with.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts. My response to this is the same as in No. 1.

Perhaps we should look at this in a little more depth. The current problem is that there is no connection between spending and revenues. By linking all spending directly to tax revenues it turns every increase in spending into a de facto tax increase. Anyone voting for that increased spending is voting for a tax increase. Anyone who votes for tax increases has to answer to the electorate.

This means that there is an incentive for people in congress to not vote for increased spending bills because they know that they will be held accountable.



Agreed. Wars and disaster relief qualify as emergencies only.



Sarbanes-Oxley holds executives personally accountable for the accuracy of their financial statements. They can be imprisoned and made to pay for any damages. This is an attempt to do something similar for members of congress. This thread is about government corruption and this concept is an attempt to address it. Something of this nature should be feasible.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury. I like the thought but completely impractical. In fact some quite legitimate, noble, and proper legislation that benefits everybody is going to benefit the politician who votes for it. A rule like this is a certain prescription for endless accusations, speculation, conspiracy theories, and lawsuits. And does not address the issue of bribing groups who will in turn fund them and/or vote to keep them in power and/or shout down opposition to what they want to do.

Far better is to remove ALL ability for the federal government to benefit ANYBODY in a way that does not benefit EVERYBODY, and return all other programs to the states where the Founders intended such programs to be. And eliminate the politician's ability to amass great fortunes at tax payer expense by limiting him/her to a salary from which he will pay for his own healthcare, retirement, etc.

Your goal is idealistic. How do you intend to address it in practical terms?

For me the bottom line is that in order to reduce spending, you have to limit what the politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to spend money on. If the federal government is prevented from using the people's money to excise favor from any demographic or group, and if the tax structure is distributed proportionately without respect for political party or socioeconomic status, the people themselves will demand austerity and discipline from their elected leaders. Only those who have no dog in the fight, i.e. those who pay little or no federal taxes, don't care how much the government spends, most especially if they can get some of it.

And once politicians can no longer benefit themselves personally without benefitting everybody, the career politicans go out of business and you have true public servants running for office who are interested in doing things better instead of what will enrich them.

Most of the corruption in government and among the beneficiaries of government benevolence/largesse is eliminated immediately.

And it is accomplished with an iron clad Constitutional amendment prohibiting any member of Congress or any bureaucrat from enacting any law or regulation that will benefit any state, locality, person, entity, organization, or demogrraphic that does not benefit all without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. As quickly as it can be accomplished without creating chaos, ALL social programs will be transferred to the states who will also fund them.

Also baseline budgeting will be ended so that there is incentive for government to be economical and save instead of waste money.

How do you propose handling the migration of people from states with underfunded social programs to those with fully funded social programs?

 

[blackhawk]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

The main problem isn't that people don't get taxed enough pr government spends the money unethically though these are problems the main problem is they spend what get stupidly.Only government could be this financially irresponsible and survive no person or private business could.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps we should look at this in a little more depth. The current problem is that there is no connection between spending and revenues. By linking all spending directly to tax revenues it turns every increase in spending into a de facto tax increase. Anyone voting for that increased spending is voting for a tax increase. Anyone who votes for tax increases has to answer to the electorate.

This means that there is an incentive for people in congress to not vote for increased spending bills because they know that they will be held accountable.



Agreed. Wars and disaster relief qualify as emergencies only.



Sarbanes-Oxley holds executives personally accountable for the accuracy of their financial statements. They can be imprisoned and made to pay for any damages. This is an attempt to do something similar for members of congress. This thread is about government corruption and this concept is an attempt to address it. Something of this nature should be feasible.



Your goal is idealistic. How do you intend to address it in practical terms?

For me the bottom line is that in order to reduce spending, you have to limit what the politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to spend money on. If the federal government is prevented from using the people's money to excise favor from any demographic or group, and if the tax structure is distributed proportionately without respect for political party or socioeconomic status, the people themselves will demand austerity and discipline from their elected leaders. Only those who have no dog in the fight, i.e. those who pay little or no federal taxes, don't care how much the government spends, most especially if they can get some of it.

And once politicians can no longer benefit themselves personally without benefitting everybody, the career politicans go out of business and you have true public servants running for office who are interested in doing things better instead of what will enrich them.

Most of the corruption in government and among the beneficiaries of government benevolence/largesse is eliminated immediately.

And it is accomplished with an iron clad Constitutional amendment prohibiting any member of Congress or any bureaucrat from enacting any law or regulation that will benefit any state, locality, person, entity, organization, or demogrraphic that does not benefit all without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. As quickly as it can be accomplished without creating chaos, ALL social programs will be transferred to the states who will also fund them.

Also baseline budgeting will be ended so that there is incentive for government to be economical and save instead of waste money.

How do you propose handling the migration of people from states with underfunded social programs to those with fully funded social programs?

Why should that be a problem for her?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Citizens United pretty much kills any chance of ending any sort of corruption...actually it legalized it. Yea! Power to the people (by people I mean corporations who aren't really people but want to be treated like ppl until they decide they're not people anymore)

So, the stock holders of XYZ Corp. have less say than the members of SEIU?

Both are a conglomeration of people with similar interests. If you deny the freedom of speech to Monsanto, you MUST also deny it to the Teamsters' Union.

Ok, so what's the problem?

 

[westwall]

If you choose to believe that leaving the power of corporations to give unlimited funds to a candidate will somehow not effect how that candidate votes, that's your business. It's foolish. If you choose to believe that govt will not prop up certain businesses over another, while allowing unlimited campaign contributions, again, no logical way you can believe both things to be true at the same time, but knock yourself out.

No one can deny these facts
1. Money is power
2. Money influences the Ppl it's given too
3. Corruption occurs from the want of money and power

If everyone agrees on those simple facts. You cannot explain how Xitizens United didn't create a legal framework to keep corruption going. No one can. You can CALL it something else (free speech) but the foundation based on those 3 facts maintains that corruption is now legal.
Now the ONLY way you can catch someone in a corruption situation is literally catching them with a suitcase of cash and a recording of them saying cash is in exchange for a favor.
Instead of that, just have the campaign mgr arrange a large contribution (legal) and the pols create a law to favor that company (legal).

The way to explain it to rw'ers is think about the unions. Dont you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles? Now think about corporations? Don't you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles?

I can deny the first one. The government does not have power because it has money, it has money because it has power. To simplify it for people that think three word sayings are totally accurate, power is money.

Gates was perfectly willing to leave politics out of his life. I am willing to bet that plenty of people told him that not lobbying the government was a bad idea, and that no business would be able to grow as big as Microsoft did without paying the government off. He didn't believe them, and he was wrong.

The problem is not the money, it is the government.

Not talking about Govt having power from money, I said money is power, right?

So you are saying that money is not power, is that right?

"He who has the gold makes the rules. He who has the guns has the gold."

 

[westwall]

It is never too late.

I hope you're right.

Look at it this way, if we try my way, and fail, we can still use your method.

It's not my method. I've been in shitholes when that sort of thing is going on. Nobody wins. It truly is the last recourse.

 

[westwall]

Perhaps we should look at this in a little more depth. The current problem is that there is no connection between spending and revenues. By linking all spending directly to tax revenues it turns every increase in spending into a de facto tax increase. Anyone voting for that increased spending is voting for a tax increase. Anyone who votes for tax increases has to answer to the electorate.

This means that there is an incentive for people in congress to not vote for increased spending bills because they know that they will be held accountable.



Agreed. Wars and disaster relief qualify as emergencies only.



Sarbanes-Oxley holds executives personally accountable for the accuracy of their financial statements. They can be imprisoned and made to pay for any damages. This is an attempt to do something similar for members of congress. This thread is about government corruption and this concept is an attempt to address it. Something of this nature should be feasible.



Your goal is idealistic. How do you intend to address it in practical terms?

For me the bottom line is that in order to reduce spending, you have to limit what the politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to spend money on. If the federal government is prevented from using the people's money to excise favor from any demographic or group, and if the tax structure is distributed proportionately without respect for political party or socioeconomic status, the people themselves will demand austerity and discipline from their elected leaders. Only those who have no dog in the fight, i.e. those who pay little or no federal taxes, don't care how much the government spends, most especially if they can get some of it.

And once politicians can no longer benefit themselves personally without benefitting everybody, the career politicans go out of business and you have true public servants running for office who are interested in doing things better instead of what will enrich them.

Most of the corruption in government and among the beneficiaries of government benevolence/largesse is eliminated immediately.

And it is accomplished with an iron clad Constitutional amendment prohibiting any member of Congress or any bureaucrat from enacting any law or regulation that will benefit any state, locality, person, entity, organization, or demogrraphic that does not benefit all without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. As quickly as it can be accomplished without creating chaos, ALL social programs will be transferred to the states who will also fund them.

Also baseline budgeting will be ended so that there is incentive for government to be economical and save instead of waste money.

How do you propose handling the migration of people from states with underfunded social programs to those with fully funded social programs?

How about preventing it in the first place. We can only support so many till they capsize the ship (we are dangerously close to that point now) thus the only option is to limit the immigration to levels that can be supported.

 

[Montrovant]

A couple of quick comments.

First, I think that government is going to be corrupt no matter what form it takes. Limiting that corruption is the goal. I say this because I think the people who will be drawn to government are those wishing to have power and influence. Sure, it would be nice if only the selfless, civic-minded folks got into government, but that just isn't reality. So don't expect to prevent all corruption, but certainly do what can be done to limit it.

Next, I wonder just what the federal government will be able to accomplish if nothing they do can benefit anyone more than another. One example : the government must contract out much of the work it needs done. A company like Northrup Grumman is not based in all 50 states, so if they receive a contract, some states will benefit much more than others. How do you get around that?

Why are we only concerned with the federal government? If, by some feat of amazement you create a corruption free government, something I question if it has ever existed on a large scale, wouldn't the corruption simply move down to the state level? That doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

These discussions always leave me with the impression that some of the posters imagine our government, or any government really, has been without corruption. I have no problem with people wanting to limit the corruption in government, but I wonder if anyone who thinks our government was at any time in the past pure as the driven snow can really tackle such an issue.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, but let me explain...that is the wrong question.

The LAWS DEFINING OUR SYSTEM are designed to benefit a privileged few and their servants.

You cannot correctly call it corruption because it is the LAW.


If there is a right winger or a left winger on this board who disagrees with the above, I'd like to hear from you.

You see, citizens?

We all know something is happening here and we all do not like it.

The problem isn't that we want VERY different things, I suspect.

The problem is that we do not know how to achieve what we want.

Your neighbors are NOT the enemy.

Your leaders?

Well you have to take that on a case by case basis, but they are the people who create and execute the laws of the land, do they not?

So who to blame?

Who is to blame is those who assume the authority and ability to take one citizen's money and give it to another citizen. That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem and the one thing that the Founders were determined that the federal government would never have the power to do.

Fix that one problem, and it doesn't matter who is rich, who is poor, who benefits, or who doesn't so far as the federal law is concerned. All are equal under the law.

He who robs Peter to pay Paul, however, can always count on the support of Paul.

^this.

There is a mountain of corruption in the government and the people screaming about citizens united are completely off base. They are pulling their hair out because of the expression of the symptom of the problem rather than the cause. Before citizens united, government was just as corrupt and will continue no matter what you do about direct compensation.

What we need is to get the government out of selectively propping people and businesses up. Remove that power, which consists of 90 percent of congresses actual power, and you are left with a government that is far less corrupt, far freer and ultimately far better for the people. Unfortunately, it will NEVER happen because bureaucracies do not cede power, they garner it.

CC made a good example of the effectiveness of our leaders to focus people elsewhere also. There you have a case of an individual so infuriated with a ruling that UPHOLDS FREEDOM OF SPEECH because of they have shifted the focus from corruption of power to political commercials. That is it in a nutshell. That corruption does not go away when the commercials are ended, it just uses another venue. Gingrich anyone?

But look at my suggested solution. Take away the federal government's ability to benefit ANYBODY that does not benefit everybody.

The lobbyist won't be able to solicit any favor, contract, special legislation, or money. There won't be anything for him to lobby for so his role will be busted back to what lobbyist have always been intended to do: educate. If say a new environmental regulation is on the drawing board, the role of the lobbyist is to inform law makers of the benefits, downside, problems, positives, negatives of the proposed legislation for any particular industry. The purpose is for there to be an informed vote.

Corporations won't be able to use their money to buy contracts or other beneficial legislation because corporate welfare would be illegal at the federal level.

And yes, the billionaire is busted to the level of the pauper as to the power each has with the Congress because neither can buy a single special favor or consideration because it would be illegal for Congress to vote it or the President to order it via executive order.

Career politicians would have no license of any kind to benefit themselves and therefore wouldn't bother running for office. That opens the door for true public servants who want to do good government and serve their country to move into those chairs.

The unions could not look to those in Congress to shore up their power. They would have to go back to being true advocates for the worker and negotiating terms with employers that would benefit all.

And since there is no agenda left for the the leftist media to influence, there would be a huge incentive for reporters and editors to make a name for themselves by being competent reporters instead of advocates.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A couple of quick comments.

First, I think that government is going to be corrupt no matter what form it takes. Limiting that corruption is the goal. I say this because I think the people who will be drawn to government are those wishing to have power and influence. Sure, it would be nice if only the selfless, civic-minded folks got into government, but that just isn't reality. So don't expect to prevent all corruption, but certainly do what can be done to limit it.

Next, I wonder just what the federal government will be able to accomplish if nothing they do can benefit anyone more than another. One example : the government must contract out much of the work it needs done. A company like Northrup Grumman is not based in all 50 states, so if they receive a contract, some states will benefit much more than others. How do you get around that?

Why are we only concerned with the federal government? If, by some feat of amazement you create a corruption free government, something I question if it has ever existed on a large scale, wouldn't the corruption simply move down to the state level? That doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

These discussions always leave me with the impression that some of the posters imagine our government, or any government really, has been without corruption. I have no problem with people wanting to limit the corruption in government, but I wonder if anyone who thinks our government was at any time in the past pure as the driven snow can really tackle such an issue.

Even theocratic governments are (and have been) corrupt. Limiting corruption requires laws that the current corrupt lawmakers won't enact for obvious reasons.

The concept of limited government is also flawed because we don't live in the same word at 200 years ago. It was only through government programs such as education, transportation and energy that we have managed to reach our current state. To reduce government back to the state that it was 2 centuries ago would be a serious mistake in my opinion.

So we are left with the only option which is to try and reform the government of the people and by the people so that once again it is for the people.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

The best way to solve the problem is to cut off the 4th branch of government which is bypassing the other 3. To understand how the 4th branch was created and I'd suggest buying a book called, Pruning the Fourth Branch by Al Lee. It is a blueprint for how to fix what is wrong with our government. You can order it on Amazon. - Jeri

 

[Foxfyre]

For me the bottom line is that in order to reduce spending, you have to limit what the politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to spend money on. If the federal government is prevented from using the people's money to excise favor from any demographic or group, and if the tax structure is distributed proportionately without respect for political party or socioeconomic status, the people themselves will demand austerity and discipline from their elected leaders. Only those who have no dog in the fight, i.e. those who pay little or no federal taxes, don't care how much the government spends, most especially if they can get some of it.

And once politicians can no longer benefit themselves personally without benefitting everybody, the career politicans go out of business and you have true public servants running for office who are interested in doing things better instead of what will enrich them.

Most of the corruption in government and among the beneficiaries of government benevolence/largesse is eliminated immediately.

And it is accomplished with an iron clad Constitutional amendment prohibiting any member of Congress or any bureaucrat from enacting any law or regulation that will benefit any state, locality, person, entity, organization, or demogrraphic that does not benefit all without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. As quickly as it can be accomplished without creating chaos, ALL social programs will be transferred to the states who will also fund them.

Also baseline budgeting will be ended so that there is incentive for government to be economical and save instead of waste money.

How do you propose handling the migration of people from states with underfunded social programs to those with fully funded social programs?

Why should that be a problem for her?

It would be a problem for me if I had a state government that encouraged dependency with overly generous welfare benefits and therefore excessively taxed the people of that state. If I found the taxes too oppressive, I would move to a state that had a better and more compassionate system. (You see, I don't consider ENCOURAGING dependency to be at all compassionate.)

If enough people see it that way, the state that is losing people and businesses and their tax base will either have to reform its policies or be consigned to a reputation as a terrible place to live, start a business, raise a family etc. And chances are, the people themselves will eventually put people in their state government who are responsive to the will of the people.

The Founders believed that a free people allowed to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have would need some trial and error to find what works best, but will eventually get it more right than any authoritarian government ever could.

Take the federal government out of the equation in how the people will use their money and live their lives, and we will again have a much better country with all our freedoms and choices and options and opportunities restored.

 

[FJO]

.

Remove the power from those who abuse it most.

• Balanced budget amendment
• Strict, short term limits
• Publicly-funded elections

We can only do what we can do.



.

Agreed, with all those, but I would also add line item veto for the President in order to stop the dirty habit of loading all bills with pork.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How do you propose handling the migration of people from states with underfunded social programs to those with fully funded social programs?

Why should that be a problem for her?

It would be a problem for me if I had a state government that encouraged dependency with overly generous welfare benefits and therefore excessively taxed the people of that state. If I found the taxes too oppressive, I would move to a state that had a better and more compassionate system. (You see, I don't consider ENCOURAGING dependency to be at all compassionate.)

If enough people see it that way, the state that is losing people and businesses and their tax base will either have to reform its policies or be consigned to a reputation as a terrible place to live, start a business, raise a family etc. And chances are, the people themselves will eventually put people in their state government who are responsive to the will of the people.

The Founders believed that a free people allowed to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have would need some trial and error to find what works best, but will eventually get it more right than any authoritarian government ever could.

Take the federal government out of the equation in how the people will use their money and live their lives, and we will again have a much better country with all our freedoms and choices and options and opportunities restored.

So your position is that the federal government must have no role whatsoever in the welfare of the people? Is that an accurate summation of where you stand?

 

[Mac1958]

.

We allow money to play a huge role in politics, we allow politicians to buy votes and sell influence, we allow incumbents to leverage those things to stay in office, we don't push for a balanced budget amendment, we forgive and spin for politicians on "our side" much more easily because we agree with their politics.

And yet we complain about corruption?

The root of the corruption in our political environment is in the mirror.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should that be a problem for her?

It would be a problem for me if I had a state government that encouraged dependency with overly generous welfare benefits and therefore excessively taxed the people of that state. If I found the taxes too oppressive, I would move to a state that had a better and more compassionate system. (You see, I don't consider ENCOURAGING dependency to be at all compassionate.)

If enough people see it that way, the state that is losing people and businesses and their tax base will either have to reform its policies or be consigned to a reputation as a terrible place to live, start a business, raise a family etc. And chances are, the people themselves will eventually put people in their state government who are responsive to the will of the people.

The Founders believed that a free people allowed to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have would need some trial and error to find what works best, but will eventually get it more right than any authoritarian government ever could.

Take the federal government out of the equation in how the people will use their money and live their lives, and we will again have a much better country with all our freedoms and choices and options and opportunities restored.

So your position is that the federal government must have no role whatsoever in the welfare of the people? Is that an accurate summation of where you stand?

The federal government's role should be limited to promoting (not providing but promoting) the general welfare--that is everybody's welfare without respect to socioeconomic status, demographics, location, or political leanings. Whenever the federal government is given authority to take resources from Citizen A and give those to Citizen B, such unintended power quickly becomes corrupting both to those in government and the beneficiaries of it.

Restricting such powers at the federal level does not prevent any state, county, or local government from providing whatever benefits it chooses to provide and does not prevent any one of us from helping anybody we choose to help.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It would be a problem for me if I had a state government that encouraged dependency with overly generous welfare benefits and therefore excessively taxed the people of that state. If I found the taxes too oppressive, I would move to a state that had a better and more compassionate system. (You see, I don't consider ENCOURAGING dependency to be at all compassionate.)

If enough people see it that way, the state that is losing people and businesses and their tax base will either have to reform its policies or be consigned to a reputation as a terrible place to live, start a business, raise a family etc. And chances are, the people themselves will eventually put people in their state government who are responsive to the will of the people.

The Founders believed that a free people allowed to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have would need some trial and error to find what works best, but will eventually get it more right than any authoritarian government ever could.

Take the federal government out of the equation in how the people will use their money and live their lives, and we will again have a much better country with all our freedoms and choices and options and opportunities restored.

So your position is that the federal government must have no role whatsoever in the welfare of the people? Is that an accurate summation of where you stand?

The federal government's role should be limited to promoting (not providing but promoting) the general welfare--that is everybody's welfare without respect to socioeconomic status, demographics, location, or political leanings. Whenever the federal government is given authority to take resources from Citizen A and give those to Citizen B, such unintended power quickly becomes corrupting both to those in government and the beneficiaries of it.

Restricting such powers at the federal level does not prevent any state, county, or local government from providing whatever benefits it chooses to provide and does not prevent any one of us from helping anybody we choose to help.

Thank you for the clarification. I do appreciate it. So to put this into perspective you are opposed to having the taxes from one state being used to support programs in other states since this is equivalent to taking from citizen A to give to Citizen B, right?

Now if the federal govt needs to "promote" the welfare of the people by increasing funding to the CDC to find a vaccine for the latest bird flu epidemic then it must ensure that Citizen A who paid a higher tax rate gets the vaccine first rather than Citizen B who paid less in taxes. Because to give the vaccine to Citizen B at the same time would be the equivalent of taking money from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B. So even though both are equally at risk of contracting the latest flu virus those who pay higher taxes must be given treatment preferential by the federal govt under your scenario.

Now I know you prefaced your highlighted statement with "everybody's welfare without respect to socioeconomic status, demographics, location, or political leanings" but what I am trying to do here is point out the contradiction in your position with this example.

Obviously there is not going to be any preferential treatment as far as dispersement of a flu vaccine is concerned. However the scenario highlights that taxes go into a common pool and that is a fallacy to claim that resources are taken "from Citizen A" and given "to Citizen B". Taxes are the price we pay for the benefits of living in this society. The progressive taxation system ensures that the tax burden is carried according to earnings rather than falling primarily on one group or another.

Once the taxes are deducted they no longer belong to any individual but to we the people instead. At this point we the people get to decide how best to use these funds to promote the welfare of we the people.

The corruption occurs when these funds are diverted into corporate welfare and other boondoggles.