Posted: August 30, 2024 - 11:00 am est
This is an attempt to move and continue the present discussion of the legality of taxing individual wages as "Gross Income" from its present position at IRS.
Under the topic of IRS, I made a motion , which was duly seconded by HC
THE MOTION:
I make a motion to create a plank in our new Unity08 platform that incorporates the legal predicate that the U.S. Constitution does not empower the state to tax an individual's labor.
To that end, I offer my last post: Motion stands in connection with this topic in hopes that we may yet find our path.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Before I cite several supreme court decisions, I will try a little common sense.
If you invest $20, and get a $30 return, you would expect to pay income tax on $10, right? Now, you invest your labor and get a $30 return, how much of that $30 is taxable income? You are going to say $30. That answer would give your labor a value of $0. If your labor is worth nothing, why is your boss paying you? In fact, if your employer is not paying you LESS than what your labor is worth, how can he possibly make a profit on it? In effect, what we as wage earners are paying income taxes on are GROSS RECIEPTS. There is no gain in wages, it is an equal exchange.
Southern Pacific v. John Z. Lowe,Jr. 1918
"Certainly the term "income" has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act(income tax) than in that of 1909(corporation excise tax)"
Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 1921
"there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word(income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court."
Eisner v. Macomber 1920
"After full consideration, the court declared that income tax may be defined as gains derived from capital, from labor, and from both combined, including profits gained from sale or conversion of capital." is quoted in Eisner v. Macomber and the court went on to say "a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income", which would include the "common sense" demonstration above,and the one at the end of this post. i.e., gains derived from labor would be your employer's gains, not yours.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Company 1955
Defines income as “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion”. Since there is no “accession to wealth” in wages, they are not income.
Parenthesis added
The source is not taxable income under any statute or case law. The income DERIVED from a source is taxable. Since there is no gain in wages, there is no income DERIVED. The taxable income DERIVED from a source in labor could be an employer's gain in the re-sale of that labor. The supreme court cases mentioned, while not specifically pertaining to wages, do indeed DEFINE TAXABLE INCOME as PROFIT, the lower courts, and the IRS, not with standing.
U.S. Code 26, section 61 states " Except otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all incomes from whatever source derived, including(but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from a business
(3) Gains derived from dealings in a property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from Life Insurance or Endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership income;
(14) Income from the interest of an Estate or Trust;
The point the IRS, and other parties with an interest in continuing this hoax on the people hope you miss, is that the SOURCE is not the same as TAXABLE INCOME, only Income DERIVED from the listed SOURCES. For instance,
"(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items"
is defined as a SOURCE of taxable income, but is not defined as TAXABLE INCOME. Taxable income frome this SOURCE could be realized by the employer, but could not be by the one earning wages, or a fee for service. Since the supreme court on numerous occasions has defined TAXABLE INCOME as profit, there is no TAXABLE INCOME DERIVED from wages. We are being taxed on gross receipts. Microsoft, General Motors, Exxon, Verizon, The company you work for, nor any other entity in the United States of America, other than wage workers or fee for service workers, pays income tax on their gross receipts.
You may have noticed, in the code shown above, that if wages were indeed taxable income, this code could be simply changed to read "wages are taxable income", end of story. It has not been changed, even though the argument I pose has been on the table for many years. The reason it has not been changed is that if it were, it would be an illegal regulation, AND THE IRS KNOWS IT. As long as it reads as it does, the regulation itself is perfectly legitimate. THE CURRENT TAX LAW IS PERFECTLY LEGAL, AND I HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITH IT. However, the current enforcement is illegal, completely opposed to IRS regulations, the supreme court, and the Constitution, including the 16th amendment. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE D E R I V E D, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Wages are an equal exchange of money for labor. No wealth is gained. They are merely the monetization of labor. If you make a red chair, and sell it, take the proceeds and by a blue chair, where is the "accession of wealth"? As currently applied, you are taxed on the full sale price of the red chair, while you have in fact gained nothing but a different coat of paint.
As I stated previously, since there is no gain in wages, we are being taxed on our GROSS RECEIPTS, which no other entity or corporation is subject to. Another way to look at income tax applied to wages is that it is a property tax. Our labor is our property. When we exchange it for money, there is no gain, merely a conversion. When you sell your house, you are not taxed on that portion of the price that is not a gain. Your labor is worth EXACTLY what someone is willing to pay for it. When they pay for it, there is no gain, merely a conversion. When your employer pays you, he has made an investment, which he hopes he can sell at a profit, creating income from a source in labor.
We have been made slaves.
...without clear statutory authorization from Congress to tax individual wages, which Congress clearly has the authority to do, with or without the 16th Amendment, government has taken the law into its own hands and we have become a fascist state.
I hope everybody who reads this understands the seriousness of this statement. Because, frankly, it is quite an epiphany for me too. I am even beginning to suspect it lies at the root of all that Unity08 says is wrong with our political process at the present time.
ex animo
davidfarrar
While you are correct in assuming congress has the authority to tax wages, this authority is not included in the 16th amendment which allows the income tax to be collected "without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Since this would be a direct tax, not on income, but on wages, it would fall under the rules established in Article I section 2 "Representitives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers". Or possibly an excise tax falling under Article I section 8 "Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". In the first case, It would have to be a head tax, in the second it would have to apply equally to all persons, i.e., not progressive, and no exclusions, deductions, personal exemptions, earned income credit, minimum taxable wage, etc. Every one that draws a wage, however large or small, would pay exactly the same %excise tax.
"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall."
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."--- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, complaints against King George justifying seperation from England.
Has any one seen a better description of the IRS?
It is just the state instrument used to carry out the theft. It is the Congress and all those who have taken the Oath of Office, as required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:
"I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God," I see as the real traitors. It is they who have the power to right this wrong...more than that, they are under an oath to right this wrong, and yet they do nothing.
I hope somehow, someway we can have Unity08 ask each candidate if they can find where Congress has passed a positive law authorizing the taxsation of individual wages as income, and if not, will they take an oath to either get a law passed by Congress that does specifically authorized the IRS to tax individual wages, or to stop the practice immediately as unconstitutional.
If you can come up with a better worded "American Agenda" question, please do so. But we need to establish the question, get a second and then present it to the delegates as soon as possible...there is not a minute to loose!
ex animo
davidfarrar
The IRS is at least half the problem, since they are enforcing imaginary law. Congress, and the executive are the other half for not reigning them in.
I am not really there yet. As far as I understand it, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any additional taxing authority and certainly did not add any new authority to tax individual wages -- which is what I had believed.
But as far as I am concerned, the mere fact that the federal government has taken the law into its own hands, is, in fact, acting without the authority of the people, is nothing less than a call to arms, politically speaking of course. Because, as disillusioned as I am at present, I still am not convinced yet that we are so much of a fascist state we cannot bring about change without resorting to a force of arms.
But I do here, now, firmly resolve that one way or another, this situation cannot prevail. Either Congress passes a law specifically authorizing the taxsation of individual wages, or clearly demonstrate that it has given statutory authority to the government to tax individual wages -- which for those who believe Congress has authorized the taxsation of individual wages, should not be a problem -- or the paying of federal income taxes on wages be immediately stopped and declared unconstitutional.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You are quite right, the 16th amendment gave congress no new taxing powers, but did give them alternative application, allowing a direct tax without apportionment. But since we are talking about wages, not income, it gave them nothing.
Since we both agree Congress already has the power to tax individual wages if it wanted to; if it did, since wages is not income, it would have to be apportioned, or a new amendment passed.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Or an excise tax with absolute uniformity, most likely collected as withholding.
There are no taxpayers in the United States of America. Taxes are COLLECTED at the point of a gun (whether the tax is legal or not). If you don't believe it, stop paying your taxes. Eventually, some one with a gun will come to your door, and if you resist they will either physically subdue you, or point the gun at your head. If you continue to resist, they will shoot you.
Taxes are armed robbery, private property confiscated at gun point, and should only be used to support those gov't actions required for the survival of the nation, not to plant bushes on the interstate. If you want bushes, go plant them, or contribute to some fund to do so. Don't steal your neighbor's money to do it.
Adherence to this simple truism would almost instantly eliminate the national debt, and remove the need for an illegal "income" tax. In short order we would have an economy so strong we could support all of the current "entitlements" with charity(generous people that we are), enhancing our humanity, and creating a strong sense of community; Something the IRS does not do.
I give little to charity as things now stand, with my "community" mugging me every payday.
I think they have exempted themselves?
Well, it looks like so far this thread has no disagreers... let me be the first.
First of all, I'd like to say that we don't live in an anarchy, and we don't want to. We need government, and we want government. I agree to a certain point with Libertarianism... but not all the way to flushing government down the toilet.
I agree that government can be reformed, streamlined, made more effective.
But I don't agree that government can be abolished... or as Grover Norquist said... "shrunk to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub".
And as Benjamin Franklin said... the only two things that are inevitable are death and taxes. At least in a system that resembles remotely this thing we call society.
I believe it is possible that we could get 20% more bang for our government dollar with 20% less cost... a 50% gain in efficiency... most obviously by looking at where we could make efficiency gains, then making the changes to make it happen. However, in the total scheme of things, we still need agencies to protect our children from abuse and neglect... we still need agencies to help people do job searches and stay on their feet when they lose a job... we still need agencies that keep industry from polluting and dumping... we still need agencies that foster small business growth. Now... it may sound like I'm a 100% Democrat... and I'm not. I think teaching people to be EFFECTIVELY AND FOREVER self-sufficient and responsible is something that is a little too lacking in our welfare system, for example. The Democrats will holler "How can somebody be responsible when they don't even know where their next meal is coming from?"... and TO A DEGREE they are right... but to a degree... as an unavoidable bottom line, the Republicans are ALSO right... in a perfect world... people who avail themselves of government assistance should strive to become independent and make it on their own. Some probably won't make it... but they should be trying... and our government agencies should be a little more focused on prevention and empowering, and a little less on short term interventions and solutions after the fact.
I think it's a reasonable argument that a country with a government that solves problems is better than a country with a government that doesn't. And that government needs to be funded with money. And money has to come from taxes. We need taxes. Period.
One thing we have to consider is that certain tax structures have certain impacts on the economy. And that some of the tax structures proposed by people of both the Republican and Democrat side of the house would cause serious problems in one way or another if either had their total run of the show indefinitely. And guys like Alan Greenspan understand this kind of stuff... and can help us negotiate the straits.
But we still can't get around the fact that there need to be taxes. And probably at a level not exponentially different than the level of taxes we currently "endure". Sorry, folks. Government is here to stay, and so are taxes.
So... to me, it seems like the question we should be asking is what tax system or combination of tax systems is the most fair? What does not hurt the economy?
As I read of world history, one of the things I've been repeatedly struck by is how arbitrary the taxation has ALWAYS been in the world. Taxes through the ages seem to be fairly consistently random, and not intentionally and fairly distributed. Special interests go back as far as taxation, and it seems like those in power ALWAYS figure out how to minimize their burden, and to shift it to someone else. DUH. Can we improve on this? Have we improved on this?
So where does that leave us?
I can think of three ways I personally pay taxes... sales tax, income tax, and property tax.
Right off the bat, there's a big problem with property taxes... and that problem is that big cities get the shaft with things funded from property taxes... which is a big chunk of their budget. The first thing is that property values tend to be less on average in a city with a decent percentage of ghetto or almost ghettos that many of our cities are. So the "base" is smaller. And that means that the bedroom and wealthier communities where the middle and upper classes live get better services, because they have a bigger base, and a smaller baseline cost to maintain the same level of results. Especially better schools, that's the killer... and just feeds the cycle. And a lot better proportion of police to crime. An effective response to neighborhood improvement... etc. etc. etc. However, there is one benefit of property taxes... from a government perspective, it's steady. The tax base stays fairly stable, and they set the mil rate to pull in the needed revenue... and that's that.
Sales tax is no way to fund the lion's share of government costs... the line for working poor would shift into something clearly unworkable.
What does that leave? Income tax. Period. All things considered, a moderately progressive income tax is the most fair method of taxation I can think of.
To indulge in flights of fancy for a minute... if we want to get the most bang for our tax buck, I think it makes more sense to eliminate a level of government altogher... the state level. Obviously we need a Federal level of government... that is unavoidable. Obviously this would require VERY effective checks and balances to prevent government from becoming too big and intrusive... and accountants to figure out the cost effectiveness of this program and that program, and certain priorities within those programs... and a Constitutional limit on the total tax burden that can be levied... which is lower than the current tax burden, and with less loopholes... And obviously this means we need to put a stop to things like earmarks and pork... otherwise, we're missing the point.
BUT... that is a huge change in the way we do business. In fact, everything I've said is a huge change in the way we do business. So guess what... until we can get the motivation and balls to do it right, we're stuck with the system we've got... plus or minus a little here or there. Democrats and Republicans BOTH have some good points, and they just need to start working together more to pass good laws WITHIN the framework we have.
For the past two hundred and something years, the big government people have been fighting the small government people... the law and order people have been fighting the free spirits. And the balance of power keeps shifting back and forth between them because... they both have good points, but both sides have drawbacks and areas where they are wrong, if they're allowed to totally dictate how things go down. So the last 200 plus years have been a big see-saw... one side does something while they've got the gavel with a 55/45 majority... but they go too far... and the people vote the other side into a 55/45 majority and the pendulum swings back and forth the other way.
This is dumb.
The Republicans and Democrats need to learn how to work more in the middle. And there are ways to do that.
The Republicans and Democrats need to learn how to work more towards a compromise that makes both sides happy... because it addresses the areas where each side is respectively right... and that because the middle solution is better, it gets a 70 or 80% consensus vote... and both sides quit tearing down the efforts of the other side.
Sorry, I disagree with the whole premise of this post. Trying to abolish a certain form of taxation that has become a staple of funding our government is obviously skewed to one side, and obviously not in the middle. I "move" that Unity '08 vote down this "motion".
If we want to talk about making tweaks and adjustments that make sense... things that make both sides happy... then I think we've got something to talk about.
This place is about finding common ground in the middle.
It's not about seeing how much we can shift that consensus to one side or the other.
D
Don't forget your excise taxes. Everyone takes a piece of the gasoline pie.
Eliminating State government would only make things worse. The further away the seat of government is from the people, the worse off we will be. I don't think it is the government structure that is a problem so much as it is that outside influences cast a fog over direction.
I thought you had it when you mentioned the influence of special interests. Eliminating that influence from the halls of government would do more to get us back on track than anything else! Once the corrupting influences are removed, we are left with a government that can once again be responsive to the people. That one action would do more to simplify and help us clean up the source of many problems in the U.S. than any other single action --- reform the tax code! Time to close the special interest loopholes!
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Hey, Phil... thanks for the feedback.
Sorry to ramble so much, but I'm working on my own project separate from Unity '08, and a lot of the stuff here is inspiring me along those lines to do a little free association run-on... and I don't have time to boil both efforts down enough to keep them separate without blending together.
You might want to check out a book titled "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria (the International Editor for Newsweek). This whole "closer to the people" thing can have exactly the opposite effect you would think. He goes into how there have been a series of changes since the 1960's to try to bring government "closer to the people", and to "open the process"... and those changes have in fact stayed in place, and have not been taken away... so hypothetically, we the people should have more access to the corridors of power than we did back then. Yet through those very well intentioned changes, government is actually controlled MUCH MORE by special interests than it was before the changes were made. It turns out that special interests are better at exploiting the portals meant to give access to the people than the people are.
People are sheep. And the average person is selfish and shortsighted on an average day... if not totally, at least to a degree that needs to be accounted for. It's unfortunate. It's sad. But it's true. Corruption and the special interests are one problem, and I agree they need to be fixed... but if we just say "give it to the people" without really carefully working out how that works, then not only will we still have corruption and special interest control, but we'll have a new raft of problems created by the tendency for "people" to think mostly of themselves, and mostly of right now.
I detest the effect of the domination of special interests on politics just as much as the next person, maybe more. But on the other hand, special interests have a right to be interested in whatever it is they care about, and to try to lobby for that. The trick is to make sure they don't run the show. The trick is to make sure money doesn't run the show. The trick is to consider ALL the input, to weigh it, and to make wise choices in the long term interest of the country, and the people. At the current time, we're not doing too well in any of those areas.
I am very much for the democratic ideals, and representative democracy, as envisioned by Madison, et. al., so many years ago. But I also share their same caution that you have to be careful where the "doors" are, because it's a lot easier to make a mess of things than to do it right. And it's pretty amazing that they got it so close to right, with very little example to follow. We pioneered the way from scratch, and given that, we did a pretty good job. But not perfect.
I think the real strength of our government, and our "system"... is that the goals were correct. The "vision" was good... as spelled out in The Federalist and the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Not only did they write down a clear and concise document, but they understood WHY it was written the way it was. That understanding has been taught to schoolkids in simplified form, it has been used by Supreme Court justices to draw boundaries, and it has guided legislators in their lawmaking... although almost all of these are becoming less and less as Americans' attention span becomes shorter and shorter, and more insistent that everything fit into a sound bite. I watched a different network than I usually do for the news the other night, and I was sickened by how shallow and "fluffy" the "news" was. So we're drifting away from the thing which has made us historically so strong.
It's not as if our government officials and legislators have stopped trying to "solve problems". Every election cycle, we hear about a certain batch of problems, and how those people running for office will "solve" them. But most of those promises never happen. They are churning, and talking... but it's a lot of hot air and going through the motions. It's easy to say it shouldn't be that way, but the incentives to do things that way are built right into the system.
I agree that our government should be closer to the people. But it has to be in a way that encourages better long-term decision making, not just populist pandering to the whim of the moment. It has to be tied to the part of us all that CAN sit down and work through the long term ramifications and weigh options. For example, some changes could be made to how the House and Senate are elected, structured, and what their roles are, which would make the legislature responsive to the people much more, and to special interests less. It's easy to say "special interests are bad, they shouldn't have an effect on our policy"... but like any other complicated thing, it's best to fix the problems at the root... at the system structural level, instead of trying to band-aid a system where the problems and loopholes and motivations for ballyhoo are built right into the foundation of the system.
So as for government being close to the people... if you read an average High School Citizenship/Civics book, it will say something about "The House of Representatives was meant to be a body of legislators that was responsive to the people, and the Senate is meant to be a body of legislators that is more steady and deliberative". And it actually does KIND OF work that way. And it actually kind of helps smooth out some of the idiocy. But there's a problem... when the Constitution was written, a U.S. Representative represented 30,000 people. Now a U.S. Representative represents 689,655 people (300 million divided by 435). That's an increase by a factor of 23. Now you can come up with all kinds of grand theories about how you could use the internet, how you could do town meetings, etc. etc. etc... but the fact is that if each Representative is representing 23 times as many people as he/she used to be, that the branch of the legislature that is supposed to be responsive to the people... ISN'T VERY. I think there's a solution... to return to the original intention and approximate ratio of representation of the House of Representatives, and to restructure it's organization and responsibilities accordingly. In a huge, global company, "the people" (or representatives thereof) DO have ways they give input... through venues like brainstorming sessions, planning and steering committees, and suggestion boxes. And if they've got a good idea, and can elucidate their vision in a convincing way, it might become "law" in their office, or worldwide. So why not make the House of Representatives our permanent national brainstorming session? Our permanent "exploratory committee"? Our ever engaged panel of experts, always on the job? Our facilitators of community forums and town hall meetings with a ratio of representation small enough that concerned citizens could actually engage and work with our U.S. Representatives. Right now, a U.S. Representative has so many people to "represent", that all they can do is say some inoffensive platitude or promise that keeps everybody happy for now... but that doesn't really mean much, because they're already beholden to vote a certain way. So they smile and shake hands with a few dozen or few hundred people every third day, but never really have a substantive chain of four meetings and an in-depth conference on an issue with average citizens. There just isn't time. There's too many of us, and not enough of them for them to be truly responsive to us. You want your U.S. Representative to be responsive to you? Get in line, there's 689,654 people in front of you. WE are the people. And if a U.S. Representative doesn't have time to meet, or hear, or respond to US, then she/he can't be responsive to us. It's simple fourth grade math that there's no getting around with band-aids like "the internet", or "they should listen more".
In other words, if we want accountability and responsiveness to the people, then change the variable that has BY FAR THE BIGGEST IMPACT on a legislator's accessibility to the people... the ratio of representatives to represented. Everything else is beating around the bush. This way we get the best of both worlds... responsiveness, and results... the results of this interaction with us, the actual citizens would be ideas and plans that get passed up the chain... then a "more deliberative body" takes a look at those ideas and sifts through the chaff and separates out the wheat. Hey, if you remember your high school Civics class, doesn't that sound like the intent of how it's supposed to work now? The structure and work of the House of Representatives would be a lot different than it is now... more populist, more engaged, more open, more flexible... but one thing that would be back to the way it was originally designed and intended would be that the lower house of legislature would be responsive to the people. And to me, that's way more important and sacred than the number 435.
And the way to lessen the power of special interests is to figure out their point of leverage and make their levers a lot shorter. Right now, the special interest's point(s) of leverage are in a couple of different areas, But if we plan carefully, we can probably make some adjustments to chop off multiple heads of the Hydra in one swoop, and put special interests in perspective and balance with the rest of the process.
Special Interest Lever of Power # 1 - "Opening" our political process more since the 60's (supposedly for the people) has made it more open to special interests more than it has made it more open to the people. Or let's just say that special interests can effectively get influence through the opening, and average people cannot. Engaging and talking to special interest groups matters to whether a Congressperson gets re-elected... it is well worth the special interest's time and money to pay lobbyists, give campaign contributions, and other schmoozing to influence a vote. So the special interests and Congresspersons have reason and motivation to listen to each other, and make decisions accordingly. But all the people have is their unorganized, usually small in number voices. Sure, a concerned Joe or Sally Citizen may be "right" in their concerns... but right doesn't get a Congressperson re-elected. Campaign contributions, NEA and NRA endorsements, and satisfying a party base (i.e. a bundle of special interests) in a reasonably safe district for their party are the things that matter. There is not much of a reason for a Congressperson to listen to an individual person other than nodding politely, smiling, and telling you what you want to hear in a thirty second sound bite, and then promptly forgetting about you. Of if you e-mail your Congressperson a few times, you'll figure out pretty quickly they have a canned please-as-many-people-as-possible response to every hot button issue currently in the news, and they mail-merge it back to you with "Dear Joe, thank you for your input, Congressperson Murphy will review this issue carefully" at the top, and "Sincerely..." at the bottom. But don't expect to influence a Congressperson's decision much unless you can do some serious organization of large groups of concerned citizens... as in... MORE THAN HALF OF YOUR DISTRICT of 689,655. Obviously that is more than a full-time job, and obviously something that not many citizens can take the time to do. The money imbalance between special interests and citizens, and motive to use it to influence legislators is also related here, but that's big enough to address in it's own bullet. SOLUTION # 1a - As mentioned above, return to a smaller ratio of representatives to represented. If we established a ratio of 50,000 to 1, each citizen's input would instantly become 14 times more important to her/his representative than it is now, making it necessary to engage real people more... and special interests would have to spread their money out to 14 times as many legislators to have the same effect... and the resulting tip in the scales of influence from special interests to the people would be 14 squared, or a factor of 196. Okay, maybe the actual effect would not be quite that dramatic, but it would shift the balance of power significantly to the people in the lower house.
Lever # 2 - Money in the election process. Solution # 2 - Find ways to make money less important to the process... because special interests have it and give it to candidates, and citizens don't so much. We could do things like the voter information pamphlets that Oregon sends out where every candidate and every issue gets equal time and space to make their case, and it gets sent in the mail to everybody. Like more debates. Like being able to see the debates on Youtube if you miss them. Like people being more open to tell a pollster they're thinking of voting for Dennis Kucinich, or Wesley Clark, or Ron Paul, or Colin Powell, or some other maverick... and making the huge war chests of television ad money less important. Like people in this country reading more five page, in-depth articles more, and making decisions from thirty second sound bites less. Like our networks giving us a more in-depth news broadcasts like other countries get instead of cup of sensationalized drivel like we've got now. Okay, wandered off track there for a minute.
Lever # 3 - Control of the budget... Part of the reason Congresspeople have so much incentive to play the games they do is that they are the biggest factor in control of the purse strings. And controlling the flow of money this way or that way obviously has some tempting temptations... especially when combined with a tendency to make decisions idealogically, and then trying to make the money follow. In a private company, it is the accountants that are the biggest players that control the purse strings, and the executives and the board (i.e. legislators) need to make their money decisions at least make sense to the bottom line, or they won't be around long... and that means they need to listen to the accountants, who do cost/benefit analysis with real numbers, etc... but in our government's budgets, the accountants do their work after the fact to keep track of what the legislatures decide on. SOLUTION # 3 - Accountants should have a role in creating government budgets similar to the role they have in creating corporate budgets. Budgets are something the wonks do better than the legislators and executives with vested interests in pushing it one way or the other as a blind, blanket decision. So they should have a little more input up front instead of just sorting it all out after it's decided.
Lever # 4 - Running for re-election. Every time a legislator or executive runs for office, they must raise campaign funds, and the special interests have this figured out way, way better than concerned citizens do. Even the citizens that contribute often are... people motivated by their beliefs in the cause of Special Interest A, or Special Interest B, usually. SOLUTION # 4 - Well, this gets complicated... but not terribly so, so let's dive in. Senators should have a ten year term, and can serve one term only. Then we don't have to worry about incumbents automatically winning... there will be no incumbents. But 10 years is a long time, so there should also be the option for the House of Representatives to have a vote of no confidence for a Senator. If a 2/3 majority of the House members say it's time to go, then it's time to go. And we don't need the drama of an impeachment for high crimes or misdemeanors. This means a Senator could take a principled stand and do the right thing on one or two issues, even if it's not popular, and hope history sorts out his or her reputation... but not to the extent King George IV has done so... Georgie took it too far, and would have been gone by now. Men and women of principle who take a stand every now and then, and explain themselves eloquently, are actually some of the most popular and most impactful (positively) leaders in the long run, compared to the spineless "tell-em-what-they-want-to-hear" wannabe leaders. So this should also be coupled with a requirement for a Senator to explain their vote in writing for every vote within 60 days - and these explanations should be easily accessible to the public. And with a House of Representatives numbering in the thousands... such a body would be incapable of writing or agreeing on concise legislation... so the duty of actually passing bills would rest with the Senate alone. And the Senate would need a 6/10 majority to pass a bill. If there was an emergency and something needed to be done but they couldn't get to a 6/10 quorum, they could pass a bill with a 50% plus one majority, but that bill would only be effective for 60 days. And no bundling of previously 50% passed bills to continuously string them along in temporary status and avoid tough compromise needed to get to 60%. Every bill must be debated to be voted on. In the really tough situations, this would put the Senate in the same pressure cooker that the framers of the Constitution were in... they knew the Articles of Confederation were weak and needed to be fixed, and they knew the time was upon them... but there were some very serious issues and differences of opinion to be worked out, and some compromises to be made... but not compromises that allowed the whole ball of wax to be weak and ineffective. So they got down to business and stuck it out, even though it was pretty intense for all involved. Just in case the Senate passes a bad bill... the House of Representatives could "veto" a bill of the Senate with a 6/10 majority in the House, keeping the Senate honest. And for any of you who think a single house legislature can't write good laws, how do you explain the Constitution? Requiring 60% of the Senate to agree on a bill would encourage more "moderate" positions by the Republican and Democrat members therein... and encourage election of more moderate members to the Senate in the future (like requiring the ratification of 9 out of 13 states for the Constitution to become official encouraged a fairly moderate but effective Constitution). Okay, so you know back when we said that the Senate should be a "deliberative" body... they need to be a deliberative body to come to these heavy conclusions... and one of the key things that allows them to be deliberative is following their conscience, and one of the things that allows them to follow their conscience is having a ten year term and a one term limit. And it's not dangerous, really, to give them that freedom from election pressure... if they start screwing up, they get tossed out with a vote of no confidence in the House. And we make the ethics laws a little simpler and a little tougher, and allow a little more reading of "intent" into that... in other words, don't use your office to enrich yourself or hurt your enemies... we can spell out some specific rules around that, but obviously there's a certain "be a decent person" and "don't abuse your power" thrown in there as well, and violation of the intent should be possibility to get a person kicked out of office... no second chances. There are good men and women in this country... enough good ones that if we kick a bum out of office, we can get another good one to fill their spot. I think the "zero tolerance policy" idea usually sets up a punitive, scared, false accusations atmosphere... but there should definitely be a pretty low tolerance for shenanigans by Senators. No more of this stuff where Congress has a quarter of their people with a criminal record with offenses that are more than speeding tickets and youthful indiscretion. It's a joke, and it should stop. We should expect more from our leaders. I'm not going too far the other way, either... Monica-gate was unnecessary and dumb. Clinton showed poor judgment, but did nothing illegal, and it had little to do with his job.
Even in the wildest swings of our country's political life the Republican/Democrat pendulum almost never swings more than 60/40 or 40/60... and if it does, it's never for very long. And we don't have to worry that requiring a higher level of consensus and bi-partisanship would convert Republicans to Democrats, or vice-versa, thus permanently tipping the balance... it won't happen. The only thing that would work consistently would be to meet in the middle more often. It would be like requiring a fairly permanent coalition in the middle, if you want a parliamentary analogy. And we get to keep our two party system, but it would actually start working for a change : )
As far as the members of the House of Representatives being corruptible running for re-election... it would automatically be a lot less of an issue by making the changes above. By making the House more responsive to the people and less to special interests, that automatically cuts back on the amount of pressure special interest groups can leverage. Oh, and I forgot to mention that corruption by elected officials (either against the letter or spirit of the law) should be treated like a normal crime, and primarily investigated by the FBI. And punishable by prison time. Obviously there is a "reasonable person" test that needs to be applied.
Lever # 5 - Plain ol' bribery. People or organizations with interests to peddle or power to sway are usually people or organizations with money in their pockets. And the practice of slipping sums of that money under the table for special consideration is... oh, probably about as old as humanity. I think the solution we need here is a combination of three things... the first is a little old-school honor and incorruptibility. A credo. Our public officials should mean the words they say when they are sworn in. The second thing is a wage that reasonably puts our Senators out of reasonable temptation. The issues a Senator (or President, but we'll cover that later) are significant enough that they wield the power and influence of a CEO. Now our CEO's are getting paid a little too much, but our Senators are getting paid too little. They make decisions that are MORE important than the decisions CEO's make. Their actions affect our lives proportionately. It is (and/or should be) a heavy burden they bear. A Senator should make... two million a year. BUT!!! there should be some pretty serious restrictions on other sources of income while a Senator is in office. No more Halliburton stock options. No 150,000 dollar speeches. Two million a year while preventing income which would cause a conflict of interest in being a public servant would be a pay cut for many of those with the drive and connections to make it to the position of Senator... but in a way, that is a good thing, too. If they choose to be a Senator for ten years, they should be willing to take a pay cut as a service to their country, or they are in politics for the wrong reason. And just like corruption and side-dealing motivated by control of budget issues... corruption motivated by plain ol' greed should be a crime investigated by the FBI, and punished by prison time. With a reasonable person test, of course.
Aside # 6 - The sweetheart medical and retirement packages of Congress... this is disgusting... when the average Congressperson serves a few terms, they walk away with as much, or even more than their yearly official salary as a legislator, last time I checked. And they've got 100% medical forever, for life. Well... unfortunately for the country, retirement and medical coverage are one of the biggest things that the rest of the country has to worry about... and by "taking care of" our Congresspeoplepersons so well, we're allowing them not to think about these issues too much. Should we be surprised when they can't seem to find answers that work long term for the rest of us? SOLUTION # 6 - Congresspeople should have pension plans and medical plans that aren't quite so sweet, so they've got at least one toe in the same boat as the rest of us. I don't mind taking care of an Ex-President at a pension say 2/3 the salary of the current President, for life... it's undignified for Presidents to end up the way Thomas Jefferson did. But after a ten year Senate term, I don't see any need for a Senator to make more than 35% of a current Senator's salary in pension. It's still a pretty sweet deal, and enough to keep them with out of trouble, but obviously most of them would go back to something productive, or life off their investments, and that's good. We need to stop taking care of our Senators so well that they don't have to worry about real life after they get out.
------------------------------------------------
Okay... let's talk reality for a minute. As it pertains to Unity '08 and the upcoming election, I [emphasis] am the one full of hot air. You may or may not agree on the merits of any of my ideas, but regardless, none of this will become a reality through THIS blog alone, or by adopting this plan as a Unity '08 platform. Maybe there's some good, or even great ideas here that I've borrowed and cobbled together from my friends, textbooks, common sense, the Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians and Progressives, and a revisiting of world history, the history of our own beginnings, and the history of how what we have has played out.... But it's not that easy... that's just not the way things work : ) People hate change, even when it's for the better, and this would be a big one.
I'm working on some ideas in this area, and others, and I'm also studying how large, successful changes have been sold and implemented in the past, and I'm looking for people to help me with a project which incorporates all of that into a government that REALLY works. The foremost objective is workable plans to address our current and future issues at the root, while building upon what we've learned over the last 200 years, both in politics, and out. In my mind, there are a few things that are sacred... the original package of intent of the founders of our country, the reality of the situation, how things actually play out, and what works. From there, we'll see if it gains momentum.
----------------------------------------------------
As for mostly doing away with the state level of government... I WORK FOR A STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY... and you would be amazed at how much money is wasted by doing the same thing 50 different ways in 50 different states. And you'd be amazed at how much inefficiency there is because there's only so much money to implement all of the constantly changing federal requirements... and so way too much of the time, things get done in a way which "misses the point" or "doesn't really get there". We, the state government workers, are usually very well intentioned, and at least averagely conscientious... but there are little things and big things EVERYWHERE that waste time, create mistakes, and miss chances to share information, or miss chances to get from Point A to Point B... and since we're all hourly union workers, there's not much incentive to "fix" anything. It's not a big stretch that with a little less running around like chickens with our heads cut off (in the big picture, on a national scale), and a little elimination of redundancy (in the same way Honda does when they set up a new factory or process)... as I was saying, it's not a big stretch that the average government worker could be 50 to 100 percent effective at doing whatever it is they are supposed to be doing. [I'm talking about averages, most of us are hard-working and conscientious, but the waste comes from a much higher plane than us]... Something else that feeds into this is that bureacrats are deathly afraid of any change that doesn't come from the top, and the top can only know and do so much. There's a saying which floats around the agency I work in that "No good deed goes unpunished"... which basically means that if you really care and try to make things better, you will run afoul of the bureaucracy and end up in trouble. So you just do what you're told. And if you think it should be easy to just say "well then don't be like that", then why is almost every bureaucracy the same way?
If we could have a little change of heart about how a bureaucracy runs... if things could be streamlined and restructured similarly to the way a well-run business is set up, this country could save BILLIONS, and get better results, too. And government workers wouldn't be afraid of doing a good deed. If a good manager of a private company saw all this double-effort and missing the point and bureacratic merry-go-round, and fifty different ways to do the same thing... it wouldn't be like that for very long. And in the end, there would be better results for less money spent. Global companies can do it, with the right rules and motivations, so why couldn't government do the same thing? So it's purely a pragmatic suggestion.
It seems to me that getting the people's involvement in government and the inefficiencies of too many layers of government are two separate problems... and each needs to be solved in a way which addresses THAT problem, and in a way that the two solutions work together.
Anyway, that's all I can think of for now... and it's bedtime.
D
Yes, part of the reason we are losing contact with representatives is that while the population has grown, the number of Congressman has not changed. Perhaps it is time to once again tie the number of representatives to population and open up that two way communication that has bloated so much that interaction has suffered.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
I really do not think we need to increase the population on Cap Hill. What we need to focus on is elimination of the 85% of the "Safe Seats" up there now that have been carved up by the various State's reapportionment gerrymadering. Free up those "Safe Seats" via an Iowa-like apolitical blind computer reapportionment or something and the flow of communication and holding these guys to full account for their actions EVERY election cycle will increase the "communications" flow nicely with the present numbers up there.
It will also decrease the influence the K-Streeters have as well and put the influence back to where it belongs - the districts voters!! I am not interested in generating more "Safe Seats" but eliminating/minimizing them as much as possible so they are held to full account EVERY election and make it so ALL seats are NOT safe. That will make government truly more accountable and less responsive to the special interest's (representing you and me BTW in many of our particular interests) vast ends-means disconnects they like to foist on us all and get away with via Congress/Exec Branch and their expertise in pulling the power levels therin.
Problem is that Government is in many respects way too responsive now to the demosclerotic hyperpluralism that is present more than ever now in the last 20 years. More Congressmen will in no way make this better and may make it worse.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Good evening, John...
Thanks for the reply.
The problem with "elimination" of safe seats is that some seats really SHOULD be safe.
I wrote a post somewhere with thoughts about this... and yes, I agree that safe seats tend to elect more radical left or right wing nutjobs...
But on the other hand, there are some areas that are geographically distinct, solidly 80% Republican, and big/populous enough to be a legislative district... if "reverse gerrymandering"... i.e. intentionally re-drawing the lines to make all the districts a toss-up... seems like it ignores the will and rights of some groups of people to be Republicans, and have their views represented as such. And vice versa.
And... maybe a FEW nutjobs on BOTH sides don't hurt the process much... and maybe even help.
But on the "other" other hand... most of America is not purely blue or red... but more purple... and widespread relatively purple areas should hopefully generate widespread relatively purple candidates and legislators.
I think we're justified in engineering "unsafe" districts to the degree the people in those areas are actually relatively mixed... and maybe even "push" a little toward 50/50 purple/unsafe when it's within the 40/60 to 60/40 range... but certain areas definitely lean solidly red or blue... if you look at a map of recent elections where they actually show red and blue and shades of purple... most of it is a shade of purple... so we don't have to worry about losing our souls to the radicals... luckily the extremists don't have control of very much real estate. So let 'em have it.
So it's my feeling that it's not right to intentionally deprive the far left and right of their right to be represented... we don't have to, they're not enough of a threat to worry about if we harness the power of the purple that's already out there.
I'm not totally disagreeing with you... I just think "elimination" is too strong of a word. : )
-----------------------------------------
As far as ideas about changing things on a bigger scale, I am NOT recommending Unity '08 adopt any of this as a platform. No candidate who runs on any of what I suggest would win in the '08 race.
But... and this is a big but... all these little tweaks we've been trying HAVEN'T BEEN WORKING! So we try new little tweaks, and it only makes it worse! And so we try a few new little tweaks, it gets more, and more, and more messy. Demosclerosis.
Why do we think that we can keep adding more "tweaks" to an already over-tweaked system and think that it will work? Special interests like tweaks... each one pursues a tweak for their interest. Their incentive and opportunity to do this VASTLY OVERWHELMS any attempt to keep the structure unchanged, but limit their influence. Special interests ARE our political system. And we're not going to change that by anything less than systemic change. The only analogy I can think of is Capt. Miller trying to stop the German tank from crossing the bridge by shooting at it with a .45 handgun in 'Saving Private Ryan'.
The thing with tweaks is that there are always going to be exceptions and loopholes... we open the door for loopholes because it seems like some "exceptions" are absolutely justified and necessary. Almost nobody questions exceptions in the tax code for raising children, or spending your own money involuntarily in the course of your job. But the thing with loopholes is where do you stop? And when our system has been around as long as it has... there are a hundred thousand band-aids and loopholes... and we're trying to stick another ten band-aids on there... but there is no way that it's going to stop special interests from pursuing and getting loopholes. When a system has evolved to become as complicated as ours has... and if we're going to keep the way it is... the way it is... and try to stick a fix "on top of" all this... the only way to try to fix things this way is is to make the system even more complicated. To add another level or rules and regulations. But there still has to be "access" holes and paths... because people have to interact with government somehow, and government with people. No matter how much we try to restrict special interests, they will always find a way to keep doing what they do, at or above the level they do now... if we try to just keep patching the holes.
If a new CEO was stepping into a company with a very tangled, twisted, layered... and untimately ineffective bureacracy and set of rules and policies... what would a good CEO do in this situation? The answer would be to make things simpler... as simple as possible, and no simpler.
------------------------------------------
I didn't spell this out, but I didn't foresee members of a more numerous and populist House of Representatives being "on Capitol Hill". There would be nowhere to put them. The whole point of that line of thinking seems to be to keep them spread out... back in their districts... doing symposiums, town hall meetings, issue research. Being more in touch with the people by... being more in touch with the people.
However, I agree with you that the best a Unity '08 candidate could expect to accomplish in real life would be band-aids like districting rules fixes to lessen the effect of safe districts... but even the best Unity '08 President trying to work within the system would not be able to accomplish very much during the course of a four year term, or even two four year terms. FDR and Kennedy/Johnson are probably about the best examples of the maximum that a President can change the world... but both had demographic and huge world history forces on their side that forced some kind of change... they just shepharded it. There is nowhere close to that level of change driving force in our world today. Therefore, no President elected in 2024 could expect to change the world to the same degree as those two presidents... UNLESS you want to consider invading Iran and Syria and the WAR which resulted as change... to some degree G. W. Bush and Cheney have been able to have as much influence as they have due to al Qaeda. So they have a driver (whether you say they've over-leveraged a twisted perception or not...) nonetheless, they have set the wheels in motion that they wanted to, and it would not have happened without Sept. 11th. But none of that is going to be a driving force to reduce special interests, etc. If we want a "revolution" of that scale, it's going to take some initiative greater than an average Presidential campaign.
I agree that "demosclerotic" is a good description of a big part of the problem... if what I read by doing a google search of that term represents what you mean. However, I don't think making seats less safe is the ticket... it will help, but... it will not take away the incentive of the special interests to lobby for their cause... it will not change that the special interests can still throw enough money at each candidate that the special interests' money will overwhelm the input of concerned citizens.
http://www.rense.com/general78/defeat.htm
161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions
Total National Media Blackout
10 -4 -7
IRS Suffers Staggering Defeat
Tax Questions Raised Regarding Gold and Silver Coins Used to Pay Wages
Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.
The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.
Another excerpt:
The essence of the argument is that under the Constitution Congress is obligated by law to mint and circulate such coins as demand requires, and must establish the value of coins as they are used as legal tender, but the coins' market value, arising as valuable personal "property," is a distinct, separate attribute of such coins, and is of no legal consequence if the coins are used as legal tender.
In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system.
This one is well worth the read!
HC, and your point? Check this out.
"Michael Kennedy, who defended Lori Kahre, said the case turned on the notion that taxpayers could be wrong without being criminal. He was referring to the fact that his client, Lori Kahre, and other defendants had not paid taxes according to the market value of the precious metal content of the coins in which they were paid, as opposed to their face value. He conceded at trial that his client may owe federal taxes for her mistakes."
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!