Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity

____________________________________

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Chris Muir's Day by Day

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Taxation-Spending Proposal

Here's an interesting suggestion in how to amend the current taxation structure along with real solutions to reigning spending by Congress.  It's put forward by James MacDonald a commenter in the WSJ.  Here's the article link
Change the motivations that drive congressional spending.


The current tax and budget system rewards high spending members of the legislature that vote for more spending than low spenders. The high spending members “bring home the bacon”, seek positive press by supporting new spending, and approval of their political contributors. This increase in spending is paid for with increased taxes by all citizens, not just the local district that put the representative in office. This lack of linkage between spending by a representative and the district tax rate rewards high spending representative’s districts, and other representative’s districts unfairly suffer the high tax rate with out the high spending benefits.

A tax system in which the personal and corporate tax rates have a district specific multiplier would adjust the tax rate such that districts of high spender representatives would pay a higher rate than an average district.

The legislative record of votes on spending bills would provide the required spending information. This would require that all spending bills be passed by recorded vote, not with a voice vote. It would also require that the all of the government spending be subjected to an annual vote, or at least every two years so as to match the election cycle. The sum of each representatives voting would provide their total spending, and the total of all the members numbers would provide an average spend per representative.

If a member’s vote record matched the average, the tax rate for the district would remain unchanged at 100% of the stated tax rate. If a member voted for 50% more spending than average, the district tax rate would be changed from 100% of the stated rate to 150% of the stated rate. With the US Congress, the district rate would need to reflect the House representative and both senators. Districts that value high government spending would be willing to pay a higher tax rate and send high spending members to Congress. Districts that value lower tax rates over higher government spending could send members that reflect their wishes.

The district representative adjustments would reset each tax year, and the adjustment for each House and Senate member would be clear and separate line in the tax form. The rate for multiple years of service from the most recent election would be based on the average for the representative for the years from the last election cycle. The tax rates would be computed on the votes for spending from October to the next years September, and announced on the second week of October, so as to be known to the voters prior to the elections.

This proposal if adopted should change the motivations of our representatives, making them more sensitive to high levels of spending.
 You could pretty much guarantee that high spending Congressmen wouldn't stay in Congress too damn long...as their constiuents would get very tired, very quickly on paying the higher level of taxation to support all that spending.

H/T to the blogfather:  Instapundit

No comments: