I've got it. I can't believe it took me this long. I've got the secret to achieving Peace in Our Time. And best of all, it reflects true democracy.
It started when I saw an article on the Huffington Post about how our wars over the last decade have so far costs us $3.7 trillion. In the last year or two I have read lots of articles about de-funding Planned Parenthood, ACRON, NRP, the National Endowment for the Arts, Social Security, etc. And it occurred to me that I really didn't mind seeing my tax dollars go to partially fund those things, but I minded like hell that a much larger chuck of my tax dollars went to support war. I'm not a fan of war, and I am a fan of us taking care of our own.
This government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people", and yet despite public support for the wars waning steadily over the last few years, Congress seems oblivious to the turning tide, and continue to rubber stamp their approvals all over wasteful spending on dubious project. And as if that's not enough of a kick in the teeth, they have the temerity to bicker among themselves about debt and spending. Are they assuming we can't see this? We're broke, war is expensive, peace is cheap. Do the math. If you added up all the money we've spent over the past ten years on Social Security, Medicare, social welfare programs and all the funding that ACORN, NPR, and Planned Parenthood have gotten, I would bet that our spending on wars amounts to a lot more. Gutting the funding we give to all of those programs while continuing to fund an expensive war campaign that nobody wants is not the path to fiscal solvency, ladies and gentlemen.
Anyway, back to Peace in Our Time.
The House of Representatives has 435 members, and the Senate 100. These men and women are in office because we voted them into office, with the assumption that they were going to go to Washington and represent us and our interests. My Congressman, Adam Schiff, does a pretty good job of consistently voting in ways I agree with. I get the feeling that on a national level, I am outnumbered in that opinion. What I am suggesting is this: when it comes to spending taxpayers' money on projects, whether it be war or public housing, that the Representatives go to their respective constituencies and get a sense of how best to vote. And here's the kicker: if Congressperson "A" votes in favor of a war and Congressperson "B" votes against it (assuming they are representing their constituents), and that motion to go to war passes, the costs associated with that war be shouldered only by the taxpayers in Congressperson "A"'s district. In other words, I don't have to pay for a war out of my taxes if my elected representative voted against the idea. If Congress voted to fund subsidies to NPR, ACORN, or Planned Parenthood, and my representative voted yes, my tax dollars will get used for that.
This idea completely solves the problem of having one's tax dollars going to fund ideas, campaigns or projects that they disapprove of. I would love the idea of paying my taxes and knowing it goes to support the things I think Congress should be doing.
Now to the naysayers I say, yes, some people's taxes will be higher than others. But don't complain to me about that. Complain to your elected representatives, your Senators and Congressmen and women. They're going to be the ones committing your tax dollars. If you don't like they way they vote to spend your taxes, you can do one of two things: either vote them out of office or move to another district. I have to wonder, having written that, how many people who can't be bothered to vote would sooner move than get involved in their own democracy.
As an example of how this would work: if your representatives vote "no" on fixing road and bridges at your direction, and the bill passes anyway, your disctrict won't get any help fixing the roads and bridges from the Feds. You had the chance to accept the help and you said "no". Happy motoring!
If your representatives vote "yes" on funding PBS and NPR and the measures pass, you don't have to worry about your district's PBS and NPR stations doing their annual fundraisers. To the rest of you, enjoy the marathon fund raisers!
So there it is: Peace In Our Time. When our representatives are sticking the small minority of the population who support the idea of war with the $3.7 trillion bill, I am guessing that we'll be more willing to explore non-military solutions to our international problems. I'm guessing that we'll see some real fiscal conservancy, once taxpayers understand the relationship between their votes and their taxes.
It started when I saw an article on the Huffington Post about how our wars over the last decade have so far costs us $3.7 trillion. In the last year or two I have read lots of articles about de-funding Planned Parenthood, ACRON, NRP, the National Endowment for the Arts, Social Security, etc. And it occurred to me that I really didn't mind seeing my tax dollars go to partially fund those things, but I minded like hell that a much larger chuck of my tax dollars went to support war. I'm not a fan of war, and I am a fan of us taking care of our own.
This government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people", and yet despite public support for the wars waning steadily over the last few years, Congress seems oblivious to the turning tide, and continue to rubber stamp their approvals all over wasteful spending on dubious project. And as if that's not enough of a kick in the teeth, they have the temerity to bicker among themselves about debt and spending. Are they assuming we can't see this? We're broke, war is expensive, peace is cheap. Do the math. If you added up all the money we've spent over the past ten years on Social Security, Medicare, social welfare programs and all the funding that ACORN, NPR, and Planned Parenthood have gotten, I would bet that our spending on wars amounts to a lot more. Gutting the funding we give to all of those programs while continuing to fund an expensive war campaign that nobody wants is not the path to fiscal solvency, ladies and gentlemen.
Anyway, back to Peace in Our Time.
The House of Representatives has 435 members, and the Senate 100. These men and women are in office because we voted them into office, with the assumption that they were going to go to Washington and represent us and our interests. My Congressman, Adam Schiff, does a pretty good job of consistently voting in ways I agree with. I get the feeling that on a national level, I am outnumbered in that opinion. What I am suggesting is this: when it comes to spending taxpayers' money on projects, whether it be war or public housing, that the Representatives go to their respective constituencies and get a sense of how best to vote. And here's the kicker: if Congressperson "A" votes in favor of a war and Congressperson "B" votes against it (assuming they are representing their constituents), and that motion to go to war passes, the costs associated with that war be shouldered only by the taxpayers in Congressperson "A"'s district. In other words, I don't have to pay for a war out of my taxes if my elected representative voted against the idea. If Congress voted to fund subsidies to NPR, ACORN, or Planned Parenthood, and my representative voted yes, my tax dollars will get used for that.
This idea completely solves the problem of having one's tax dollars going to fund ideas, campaigns or projects that they disapprove of. I would love the idea of paying my taxes and knowing it goes to support the things I think Congress should be doing.
Now to the naysayers I say, yes, some people's taxes will be higher than others. But don't complain to me about that. Complain to your elected representatives, your Senators and Congressmen and women. They're going to be the ones committing your tax dollars. If you don't like they way they vote to spend your taxes, you can do one of two things: either vote them out of office or move to another district. I have to wonder, having written that, how many people who can't be bothered to vote would sooner move than get involved in their own democracy.
As an example of how this would work: if your representatives vote "no" on fixing road and bridges at your direction, and the bill passes anyway, your disctrict won't get any help fixing the roads and bridges from the Feds. You had the chance to accept the help and you said "no". Happy motoring!
If your representatives vote "yes" on funding PBS and NPR and the measures pass, you don't have to worry about your district's PBS and NPR stations doing their annual fundraisers. To the rest of you, enjoy the marathon fund raisers!
So there it is: Peace In Our Time. When our representatives are sticking the small minority of the population who support the idea of war with the $3.7 trillion bill, I am guessing that we'll be more willing to explore non-military solutions to our international problems. I'm guessing that we'll see some real fiscal conservancy, once taxpayers understand the relationship between their votes and their taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment