Wednesday, March 02, 2005
In response to Michael Higgins
In response to Michael Higgins at http://chocolateandgoldcoins.blogspot.com/ I do realize that the tax proposal is a bit flawed. Throughout the week I've personally
deconstructed the plan, and was hoping that others would help in finding some of its problems. It is all too much a reality that while the budgetary controls could be passed along to the tax payer, the federal government would pull rank and do with the money as it wishes. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way to control the budget (which i will get to in the next post). Another idea I'd had was to prorate government spending based on the efficiency figures provided by the Office of Budget and Management. Unfortunatly, if we were to give more money to the least efficient programs, the tax payers' dollars would be wasted. If spending on the most efficient programs increased, while the least efficient were short changed, the roles would be reversed within the next few fiscal years. To top it all off, government efficiency
is a very relative term.
The story Mr. Higgins provides, while probably untrue, seems like something a Louisiana politician (Huey P. Long comes to mind)would do. While the figures he suggests (40% defense, 40 social spending, with 20 left to the government's discretion) hold some value, the difference of one percent could be very effective (what's the latest budget number? $2.6T). The only real reform we can look forward to, however, is the paring of the tax code itself. Of course, all the loopholes that many have been taking advantage of will be closed immediately, so we're probably going to wind up paying more. But we'll be saving at H&R Block (and for us do it ourselfers, well we get screwed). Ah, the life of a tax paying American. Isn't it wonderful.
deconstructed the plan, and was hoping that others would help in finding some of its problems. It is all too much a reality that while the budgetary controls could be passed along to the tax payer, the federal government would pull rank and do with the money as it wishes. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way to control the budget (which i will get to in the next post). Another idea I'd had was to prorate government spending based on the efficiency figures provided by the Office of Budget and Management. Unfortunatly, if we were to give more money to the least efficient programs, the tax payers' dollars would be wasted. If spending on the most efficient programs increased, while the least efficient were short changed, the roles would be reversed within the next few fiscal years. To top it all off, government efficiency
is a very relative term.
The story Mr. Higgins provides, while probably untrue, seems like something a Louisiana politician (Huey P. Long comes to mind)would do. While the figures he suggests (40% defense, 40 social spending, with 20 left to the government's discretion) hold some value, the difference of one percent could be very effective (what's the latest budget number? $2.6T). The only real reform we can look forward to, however, is the paring of the tax code itself. Of course, all the loopholes that many have been taking advantage of will be closed immediately, so we're probably going to wind up paying more. But we'll be saving at H&R Block (and for us do it ourselfers, well we get screwed). Ah, the life of a tax paying American. Isn't it wonderful.
