You Can Decide How To
Spend Your Tax Dollars

Support Targeted Tax Spending

“Many people in the power structure of our capital think that appealing to someone's narrow self-interest is the best way to appeal to the American people as a whole, and that's where they're wrong. When the American people go to the polls, when they speak out on the issues of the day, they know how high the stakes are. They know the future of freedom depends not on “what's in it for me,” but on the ethic of what's good for the country, what will serve and protect freedom. … It isn't just self-gain or personal profit that drives the free market and accounts for the entrepreneurial spirit. There are larger issues involved: faith, a clear vision of the future, a hidden altruism, that simple human desire to make things better.”

Ronald Reagan, 1983

www.TaxpayerVeto.com

www.TheTaxpayerIsAlwaysRight.com

by: Art Garitty
(artgaritty@gmail.com)

Introduction: Fundamental Reform that Unites and Inspires

I am a supporter of the current widespread movement in favor of fundamental reform in our system of national government; however, the fundamental change that I hereby propose can be accomplished while preserving (if not enhancing) our highly cherished constitutionally protected freedoms.

I consider my proposal to be quite unique in its attempt to address with specificity the critical problems of systemic corruption and fiscal incompetence present (and self-perpetuating) in our federal government. The target audience for my proposal is the general public which has become disenchanted with the corrupt and/or incompetent manner in which our federal government (both current and past) has grossly mismanaged the allocation of our vast public resources to the significant detriment of all American citizens (upper, middle and lower class).

I will preface my entire proposal with the following four influential quotes/proverbs which play a central role in my recent thought processes. The first is "Some men see things as they are and say 'why'? Others dream things that never were and say 'why not'?" I consider myself in the latter category particularly in my visualization of what our federal government could become with unified public pressure demanding that Congress relinquish direct (and absolute) control of federal purse strings in favor of indirect control (by an effective limited veto) by individual taxpayers.

The second quote is “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The inherent legitimacy of this quote underscores my belief in the fundamental importance of an effective education system in the overall success of any advanced society. Too many operational and policy aspects of our current educational system defy logic and require significant reform.

The third quote is “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” I consider this to be a close variant of the Golden Rule; as such, this quote inspires in me a consistent attitude of humility and empathy.

The fourth quote is “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” This quote has significantly motivated my decision to develop my proposal as presented herein. I sincerely hope that my fellow American citizens will genuinely consider adopting this commonly referenced quote as their mantra.

Request for Open-Minded Consideration

I humbly ask you to devote a few moments to objectively consider the ideas that I present herein. I have tried to "water down" a rather complex group of ideas to make it easily (and quickly) comprehensible in its basic form. If, after reading, you consider my idea to contain no intrinsic value, I will respect your opinion and want to express my sincere gratitude to you for giving my idea your open-minded consideration.

Despite my extremely private nature, I have provided a brief overview of my personal background primarily in hopes that you will give serious consideration to my proposal despite its apparent simplicity; I believe that relative simplicity would be considered preferable to the current system of needless complexity embraced by our national legislators. (“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”) Note that I have addressed my proposal to highly influential individuals (in both media and politics) with drastically different viewpoints because I sincerely believe that, if given an open-minded evaluation, it will have considerable appeal to all. I would genuinely appreciate any feedback (positive or negative) that you can provide. If you are interested in discussing this matter further, please email me at artgaritty@gmail.com or call me at (504) 232-6547.

Personal Background

I grew up in a large middle-class family in the greater New Orleans area. I am in my early 40’s, am married and have 4 young children. I have a wide variety of real-world work experience in the fields of accounting (licensed CPA), computer systems and networking (self taught), engineering (degreed Mechanical Engineer), general business (degreed MBA) and law (licensed attorney). Since beginning college, I have personally paid for the majority of my educational expenses by working in numerous (at or near) minimum wage jobs. I would not be considered to be in either of the highly interested groups in today’s political discussions (neither low income benefitting from enhanced government benefits nor high income subjected to increased taxation).

Crisis / Our Most Critical National Challenge

I agree with most that our country is in a crisis situation; however, I do not believe that healthcare reform and global warming are critical issues requiring immediate attention. I sincerely believe that our most critical challenge as a nation is elimination of the self-corrupting system of wasteful government spending whereby control of federal “purse strings” (regardless of party affiliation) too frequently results in pursuit of self-interest at the expense of legitimate public interest. This has resulted in the pervasive disenchantment of our citizenry. In this regard, I propose that we address government reform with the same zeal that is currently being directed at healthcare reform and global warming.

Simple Analogy of Recent National Government Spending

“It is a fraud to borrow
what we are unable to pay”

Visualize the absurdity of a credit card company issuing a non-revocable credit card to you (as an individual) with no limit on spending (albeit with an interest charge on the outstanding principal balance) and no required minimum payment (i.e. you always have an option to finance all unpaid interest expense by adding it to the principal). Under these circumstances, I imagine that very few individuals could resist the temptation to spend recklessly without any regard to one’s earnings. After all, what recourse does the credit card company have? The limitless credit is non-revocable and the interest can always be rolled over to principal. No “pain” is ever experienced by the credit card holder. This is exactly how I view our federal government’s recurrent mindset toward deficit spending; it is a continuing fraud on the American people.

Tax Utopia – Unleashing the Hidden Altruism

Now imagine a system in which those individuals with available surplus resources (i.e. taxpayers) altruistically and generously give from such resources in order to address the most critical societal ills (as each individual perceives it – education, defense, reducing the deficit, etc.). After cursory consideration, this system sounds too idealistic to be plausible. I acknowledge that, based upon my understanding of basic human nature, mere reliance upon the generosity and true altruistic behavior of the taxpaying public would fail to achieve the level of public support required to adequately address many of the existing problems in our society. Some degree of compulsion would be required in order to modify this “utopia” into a workable system.

Specifically, the current federal tax system [income tax, FICA tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, estate tax, carbon tax (as proposed), etc.] would continue to collect federal tax revenue; however, the allocation of the cumulative total of these aforementioned taxes for each individual taxpayer would be self-directed to public interest programs as specifically designated by each individual taxpayer. I contend that such a system could not only flourish but would likely result in the elimination of many of the highly corrosive elements in the current self-corrupting system (i.e. partisanship, non-transparency, etc.). I acknowledge that I can visualize an efficiently implemented version of this system only with the recent advances in internet-based computer technology allowing for near-universal access to real-time information. Detailed operational information regarding all potential recipients of federal resources should be made publicly available (via the internet) for evaluation. This should rectify our continuing national problem with lack of governmental transparency assuming that taxpayers would insist upon detailed financial and operational information from potential recipients of federal program funding prior to making a formal allocation of their tax dollars (similar to the information that you should expect Congress to demand from recipients of federal funding under our current system). This proposed system would allow each individual taxpayer to specifically designate the public organizations/programs which would benefit from their tax dollars; this is an aggressive variant of the nominal option that citizens already have on their federal income tax forms to designate that a certain sum (currently $3 per individual) be allocated to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. I acknowledge that there are certain areas that should not be subject to complete transparency (i.e. certain national security programs); we must rely upon an independent and objective media to skeptically monitor government oversight of these programs.

The indirect benefit derived by every taxpayer is the belief that they are individually making a positive difference in our admittedly imperfect society through self-directed allocation of tax dollar credits to worthy causes (including approved civic/charitable/government organizations as well as possibly including eligible low-income individuals). I sincerely believe that this would directly result in a dramatic increase in the level of volunteer activity by such "donors" in an effort to personally reassure themselves that the recipient organization effectively and efficiently administers its resources resulting in a meaningful and predictable outcome (i.e. maximizing the bang for the buck).

By allowing donor individuals to participate in the decision making (i.e. skin in the game), I believe that they will take a more active ownership of the process (i.e. by thoroughly evaluating the goals, policies, management and effectiveness of potential recipients).

In the case of eligible “public” organizations, all potential donors should have readily available access (via the internet) to detailed information regarding both past performance (specific services performed, average benefit received per individual, administrative expenses, etc.) and future goals/budgets. Thereby, each charity would be required to continually "sell" the American taxpaying public on the virtue of its goals in improving our collective quality of life (as well as its effectiveness in achieving such goals). The extent to which a particular public organization succeeds or fails in this regard will be directly judged by the amount of funding received.

To prevent overfunding of certain programs (thereby potentially depriving other worthy programs), budgets would be required and all potential funding transactions would include disclosure to the donor taxpayer regarding the status of the program in achieving its target budget. Perceived excessive budgetary estimates would predictably be, in effect, admonished through withheld funding.

I am confident that public organizations which demonstrate effective, efficient and meaningful use of available resources will be rewarded with adequate support from donor taxpayers. I am likewise confident that organizations which cannot demonstrate all of the above will probably (and should) experience difficulty in securing resources. I contend that if an organization cannot adequately justify (directly to the individual taxpayer) its purpose for seeking public resources, it should not exist. I am emphatic that I would not support any public organization unwilling to “open the books” to public scrutiny.

I believe that most citizens have been routinely disgusted with the collective performance of the federal government over the past 20+ years. How frequently have you heard complaints over the misuse of “our tax dollars” reflecting the widespread acknowledgment that ordinary citizens have lost all control over how the federal government allocates federal government resources. I contend that success of this proposed system is highly achievable provided that overwhelming unified public pressure is focused on our federal lawmakers to relinquish the federal purse strings back to its rightful owner - the American public. Congress should now be required to sell its ideas (i.e. legislation signed into law) in an understandable manner (not needlessly complex 1,000+ page documents) to We The People to have us authorize the funding of such ideas through direct allocation of our personally earned tax dollars for which we intimately would feel not only the sacrifice but also the satisfaction of allocating such needed resources to critically important programs (as determined by each individual taxpayer). If legislation is based upon a great idea of critical importance to the success of our nation, it would likely be adequately supported by the taxpaying public. On the other hand, the frequent wasteful earmark projects would likely receive little, if any, funding due to the public’s realization that our national government must discontinue its practice of excessive deficit spending as though our collective access to resources is limitless. We must (and should) operate within a limited federal government budget equivalent to our gross tax revenue. To squander resources on non-critical programs deprives critical programs of those same resources resulting in the net weakening of our society.

My “utopia” does not, however, ignore the common (and rational) argument that our current progressive income tax system does create a work disincentive - the more the progressivity, the greater the disincentive. This disincentive is particularly exacerbated by the current widely-held perception of widespread wasteful government spending; many consider a significant portion of their tax dollars to be squandered on near-worthless causes by self-serving public officials. Thus, by empowering taxpayers with the ability to self-direct their personally earned tax dollars to genuinely heartfelt causes, such work disincentive would be significantly decreased.

I have many zealous feelings regarding how our local, state, national and global communities could be improved; however, with the seemingly insurmountable systemic obstacles to truly having your voice heard (not to mention the considerable risk of unjustified, impertinent personal attack by those with opposing political views), these ideas remain largely unexpressed. I suspect that there are many unexpressed creative ideas which never see the light of day due to the substantial obstacles inherent in our current system.

If my proposal is not a solution that most Americans can agree to, I make this proposal to inspire others to propose their own ideas. We all seem to be in state of paralysis waiting for Washington to solve OUR problems. I emphasize that these are OUR problems; and, unless solved by us, our children may be deprived of the liberties that our ancestors fought so bravely and selflessly to defend and preserve for our benefit. Every generation is dramatically tested in one form or another. I sincerely believe that the commitment to steadfastly confront the insidious systemic corruption in our federal government is our generation’s challenge; we must insist upon the logical and ethical reform of our self-corrupting government institutions.

I am deliberately not going into voluminous detail to avoid losing my target audience prior to them giving this proposal their open-minded consideration. I can assure you, however, that considerable thought (over several months) has gone into many of the more detailed aspects of this proposal as well as numerous ancillary issues (national defense implications, Social Security, Medicare, Cash for Clunkers, healthcare reform, tort reform, global warming, education reform, deficit spending, term limits, retraining of unemployed workers, minimum wage, politics of personal destruction, direct taxpayer assistance to low-income individuals, funding of labor unions, encouraging public input into proposed legislation, voting fraud, identity fraud, corruption, state/local government implications, etc.). I have creative ideas for evaluating and/or addressing many of the aforementioned issues in a logical and nonpartisan manner.

Harnessing Private Sector Skills

“If you want something
done right, do it yourself”

Most of our nation’s talent (creativity, intelligence and experience) is in the private sector yet relatively little of this talent is harnessed to any significant degree in support of our public causes. Many successful individuals in our society are successful because they have an extraordinary ability: (1) to creatively identify significant opportunities; (2) to focus limited resources toward the achievement of critically important goals; and (3) to clearly communicate the importance of these critical goals to their organization. I believe these same attributes are critically important for public officials yet I believe they are sorely lacking (if not completely absent) in the vast majority of our current national public officials. Implementing a system of resource allocation by individual taxpayers would, in effect, harness a significant degree of this private sector talent in support of the efficient and effective allocation of our national public resources. We the People can achieve the effective and efficient allocation of federal resources in a professional and ethical manner; Congress has repeatedly proven that it is incapable of doing likewise.

Failure to Address (Deliberate Avoidance of) the Big Issues

To the extent our federal officials refuse to address hot-button issues [by the commitment (or denial) of resources] due to a perceived political suicide, such hot-button issues are guaranteed to never be addressed. This is further justification why the Congress should no longer be vested with the power to continually self-fund its legislation. Consider, however, the ability (and willingness) of the individual taxpayer to address the aforementioned hot-button topics through funding decisions (or non-funding decisions, as the case may be). Currently, these critical issues are being ignored as if they will go away by simply burying our collective heads in the sand.

I have enormous faith in the desire (and ability) of the American taxpaying public to critically evaluate the varied alternative uses of their personally earned tax dollars and to effectively allocate such resources to vital national issues in a more efficient and effective manner than our current national government officials.

“United We Stand, Divided We Fall”

“No American is ever made better off by pulling
a fellow American down, and every American is
made better off whenever any one of us is made
better off. A rising tide raises all boats.”

To those who will criticize this idea as not giving a voice to low income citizens, I respond that such low income citizens would continue to receive the staunch and unrelenting support of passionate advocates zealously promoting the issues of critical importance to low income Americans. My sincere belief is that individual taxpayers would address their responsibility to effectively allocate their tax dollars in a genuine effort to improve our nation (and, in many cases, the world) such that the outcome will be a remarkable success in focusing adequate national resources on our most critical national issues (including poverty). Our national leaders and the media would bear responsibility for the ongoing education of our population regarding progress (or lack of progress, as the case may be) toward achieving such critical goals. Thus, it is critical that our national leaders and the media consistently maintain credibility beyond reproach in order to be able to effectively persuade the general public regarding the merit for supporting certain critical programs. To the extent our government officials and the media damage their credibility with the general public, the public would predictably be much more skeptical of all advocacy efforts by such tainted individuals. Programs advocated by those lacking the requisite credibility would be much more likely to suffer from lack of funding.

To those who will criticize this idea as giving a louder voice to wealthy individuals, I respond with the quote “To whom much has been given, much is expected.” All “allocating” taxpayers should be specifically prohibited from directly benefitting any member of their family or anyone who has privately and directly solicited such tax funds; any knowing “quid pro quo” should be harshly prosecutable as fraud. Note that it will be the entire society (rich and poor alike) that will reap the benefit of the success of this proposed system; likewise, both rich and poor will ultimately bear the burden of the failure of this proposed system.

Our current abysmal view of Congress (and the media in many cases) is well deserved in my opinion. Future success of any particular Congressman would no longer be measured by the earmark projects obtained for his (or her) home district but rather by his (or her) demonstrated credibility with constituents as well as the public at large. Likewise, the success of any member of the media would continue to be evaluated based upon demonstrated credibility in accurately, independently and objectively reporting public interest issues with a bold and critically skeptical inquisitiveness; frequently, this criteria has been demonstrated to be significantly lacking from many of the members of our mainstream media; we must insist upon a higher degree of professionalism from our media.

Thus, we would all have a substantial vested interest in making this proposed system successful in achieving the goal of overall improvement of our society. If the taxpayers fail in implementing this proposed system, this resource allocation function would predictably revert back to government officials with an expected return of systemic corruption and fiscal incompetence.

Incentive for Support of Ineffective Programs?

There would be little incentive to allocate your personally earned tax dollars to ineffective and inefficient projects; collectively, we are all harmed by misuse of national resources through the degradation of our society. To the extent you personally allocate your earned tax dollars to inefficient or ineffective programs, you lose the ability to allocate such earned tax dollars to programs that you truly feel would make a positive difference in our society. If we all altruistically direct our personal tax dollars to critical, effective and worthwhile causes, we all benefit from a tax system that succeeds in achieving its goal of the overall improvement to our society.

Potential International Impact

“Build a better mousetrap and the
world will beat a path to your door”

If the United States could successfully implement a system whereby specific allocation of national resources could be effectively determined by taxpaying individuals (the fuel of our national economic engine), visualize the potential international impact. Recall the outrage exhibited by a significant segment of the Iranian people over the perceived voting fraud in their recent national presidential election despite the fact that relatively few substantive differences existed between the central policies of the two main candidates. If the Iranian people became aware of a successful governmental system whereby citizens are allowed a substantial voice in the allocation of public resources, imagine the potential for internal national pressure demanding similar reform of their regressive political regime; likewise, imagine the potential public pressure on political regimes worldwide demanding adoption of such a system.

2010 Elections

I believe that, if my idea is given sufficient public exposure, it will result in substantial grassroots support for committed proponents in the upcoming 2010 elections such that significant progress (if not complete success) can be achieved toward implementation of many of the basic proposals of shifting resource allocation control to the taxpaying public.

Fraud Will Not Be Tolerated

“All that is necessary for
the triumph of evil is
that good men do nothing”

To accomplish this proposal without effecting widespread abuse resulting in substantial misdirected resources, I propose very harsh penalties for fraud. Taxpayer donors would be specifically prohibited from allocating tax dollars to any program which directly benefits their own family. For purposes of full transparency, those individuals publicly promoting any potential recipient of federal resources should be required to fully disclose all compensation received from the promoted organization/program.

We must be willing to aggressively pursue (and expose) those individuals who defraud/abuse this system as such fraud and abuse undermines public confidence. A strict policy of zero tolerance for fraud and abuse (demonstrated through harsh, certain and swift punishment) becomes quickly understood and respected by those tempted to commit such crimes.

Expected Resistance From Government Insiders

My primary concern is that my idea will fall on deaf ears due to the lack of interest of national leaders in surrendering their clout in making national budgetary decisions for the “rest of us dumb folks”. I analogize my plight to trying in the late 1800’s to convince: horse breeders of the merit of an automobile; candle and lantern makers of the merit of an electric light bulb; or telegraph operators of the merit of a telephone. All of these entrenched systems would be expected to intensely oppose such predictable monumental changes; most individuals are highly resistant to stepping outside of their comfort zone. Similarly, in response to the ideas proposed herein, I expect tremendous resistance from government insiders. My idea would result in much less power vested in our national politicians (along with much less potential for corruption). Although most (if not all) politicians would deny that they could ever be corrupted, too many already have been and will continue to be corrupted under our current system. Even if formal prosecutable corruption cannot be proven, I consider politicians who have destroyed their credibility through their effective ongoing deceit of the public through disingenuous representations to have been irreversibly corrupted by the system. Note that I am from the Greater New Orleans area and have heard the principled lecturing from many supposedly well-intentioned politicians who have since been publicly convicted of the very corruption which they so formally denounced before having their well-concealed motives unexpectedly revealed.

Under this system, publicity (positive or negative) would be a major element in creating a strong incentive for all “public” programs to act in a responsible manner at all times. Continued credibility of each program’s leaders (as well as proponents) would become paramount to each organization’s survival. Again, the media would play an important role in independently and objectively providing critical operational information on the various potential recipients of federal funding.

How do I, as a taxpayer, succeed in this new system?

Surely, not by throwing my money away to worthless and wasteful causes. The biggest bang for the buck for each (and every) individual comes from locating worthwhile and meaningful causes and supporting them in an appropriate amount. Neglecting to make any allocation of your tax dollars at all could result in either an automatic reduction of the federal deficit (which many sincerely believe is a very meaningful cause) or in such amounts being automatically allocated pro-rata to all under-budget programs.

Does Congress still have a role in this process?

Absolutely; they would be in a unique position (along with the media) to influence the general public regarding their assessment of worthy (as well as unworthy) programs. Despite Congress having this influence, the ultimate decision making would be made by the individual taxpayer; thus, credibility of the messenger would be a highly influential element in persuading taxpayers to support certain programs.

Health Care Reform Concerns

I am not opposed to certain healthcare reform efforts; however, I am opposed to any universal reforms which will have provisions which apply different standards to the President and members of Congress than to the general public. This is a very easy concept to understand. If the President and members of Congress are not willing to have it apply to their families, why should I?

I am annoyed with the reasoning that healthcare reform will be significantly paid for with savings realized from eliminating fraud and abuse from our Medicare and Medicaid systems. Any delay in eliminating waste attributable to fraud and abuse from federal programs is intolerable. This specific issue has universal support and should be addressed immediately rather than waiting for comprehensive healthcare reform. If comprehensive healthcare reform legislation is not passed, will our government continue to allow such fraud and abuse to continue?

Also, I do not want guaranteed unlimited coverage without reasonably prompt access to the underlying healthcare services due to inevitable rationing caused by a significant increase in demand with no related increase in supply (Economics 101). After I have died, it is no comfort to me in saying to St. Peter (wishful thinking), “If I could have survived long enough to have received the delayed (but not withheld) treatment, all expenses would have been covered by insurance.” Guaranteed unlimited coverage by insurance means nothing without reasonable access to the services which are covered. Is it better to die (without treatment) with unlimited insurance coverage than to live (having received treatment) without insurance coverage? I will choose the latter every time.

Furthermore, is it merely circumstantial that restricting senior citizen’s access to medical care seems to have a direct correlation to an improvement in the enormous Social Security insolvency problem? After all, the government does not have to continue paying Social Security benefits to those senior citizens who have died.

Global Warming

Within reasonable limits, I support ideas to promote renewable energy; however, I want to be convinced regarding the reality of global warming before our government undertakes Herculean efforts to make arguably insignificant reductions of carbon dioxide levels in the environment. I want to be convinced regarding the likelihood of the economic viability of wind and solar power production and distribution before tens of billions of dollars are invested in its uncertain development. I also want to be convinced regarding the dangers of nuclear power before an expansion of nuclear power is summarily rejected. When compared to absolute near-term global destruction (as authoritatively claimed by many influential commentators), is nuclear power so objectionable that honest debate should be avoided? Furthermore, if nuclear power is so objectionable, why don’t we shut down all existing nuclear power plants?

Term Limits

This is my creative idea for leveling the playing field for candidates challenging incumbents without imposing strict term limits. In order to address the numerous problems presented by lack of term limits, I propose implementing a system in which, for each successive term, the incumbent in a specific position would need greater than a simple majority to win reelection. Such additional required amount for reelection would be determined as follows: 1% per year served in such position (to a maximum of 15% - or 65% required to win reelection). As an example, a 2nd term U.S. Senator (who has already served 6 years) would need 56% of the vote to win reelection. This would not only deter marginal, ineffective public servants from becoming career politicians, it would allow exceptional public servants to continue serving in a specific position beyond a minimal limited period as well as significantly encourage newcomers to get involved in the political process.

Conclusion

To those who consider the direction of our nation to be out of control, I contend that you must view this challenging period not as an inexplicable tragedy but as an opportunity to embrace bold new ideas that would not be seriously considered except for our current circumstances. In less than 14 months, national elections will be held for 100% of the U.S. House of Representatives and 36% of the U.S. Senate. If appropriate legislative changes are not made by then (or if inappropriate legislative changes are made), WE THE PEOPLE will then have our formal opportunity to express ourselves at the voting booth. Between now and then, we should unequivocally make our feelings known.