Why Government Grows

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Irrelevant. Nobody owns the money in the government's treasury.

Kind of gets to the heart of the matter doesn't it.

If no one owns it no one has to be responsible either.

Point is at this point in time the citizenry own it but allow a broken representative governement to steward it. Berz wants to redefine that ownership to those who actually pay and/or fix the problem with our stewards.

I see consitutional problems trying to redefine citizenry to property owners but do in fact understand Berz's logic.

Why is there still not a line item veto?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Right now each bill gets voted on, each amendment to each bill gets voted on

The amount of spending provisions in the Omnibus bill are insane. Much more than the amendments attached to them. To vote on it seperately is not feasible.

I took it to mean that you don't ask people who don't pay welfare what individual welfare payments should be, or that you don't ask people who don't pay for the science budget what the science budget should be. Perhaps it's still unworkable, but regardless (or irregardless???), the argument doesn't seem to be equivalent to the one that you're making.

Oy, I misunderstood.. but Berz will probably wish I did!! Imagine if China decides to slap massive, unfair tariffs on us, and we wish to retaliate.. we CAN'T. Because if the people who pay decide, then that means foreign companies to get to decide on US tariff policy and we wouldn't be able to match the Chinese (in this hypo)! Every illegal immigrant who works would now have a vote, increasing incentives to cross the border, and citizenship wouldn't mean a hill of beans really.

It'd be nuts!

[PLATO]

Here is the solution:

1.) Only parties NOT occupying the executive branch may sit on the appropriations commitee.

2.) Executive branch has a line item veto.

That ought to do it!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What are you trying to do, force bipartisanship and actual governing?

[GePap]

To base the ability to vote on paying taxes or not is a wonderful idea: the bloody revolution it would lead to would wipe away all the people who thought this a good idea!

[Vanguard]

Nevermind.

[Berzerker]

Tingkai -

Your property values are irrelevant.

They aren't irrelevant, that's the principle I'm using to justify my arguments throughout the thread (aside from taxes of course).

You used the analogy that the only people who have a say on who can use something (a computer) are those who paid for it.

That's right, I didn't pay for my neighbor's stereo and they didn't pay for my house. I don't get to use their stereo and they don't get to blast music at my house. Noise pollution is both a reality and a violation of property rights just like any other form of pollution...

Now you're contradicting yourself by saying that even though you didn't pay for something (a stereo), you still get a say about how it is used.

Your "analogy" included property owners who don't want to listen to a neighbor's stereo at 3 AM. My computer example doesn't involve non-consenting 3rd parties with valid property infringement claims. If I buy a computer, does the fact I paid for it mean I can dump it on your lawn without your permission?

Income taxes pay for government services. Those services affect everyone, including those who do not pay taxes.

"Affect" is ambiguous and irrelevant. If you don't pay taxes, that doesn't entitle you to taxes other people paid nor does it entitle you to decide how much they pay. You're arguing that people have a right to vote themselves other people's labor/property, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny when applied to various examples. Would you also argue that slavery is justified if I vote to make you a slave but you have the option of leaving the country?

Gepap -

To base the ability to vote on paying taxes or not is a wonderful idea: the bloody revolution it would lead to would wipe away all the people who thought this a good idea!

An idea countered only by "give us your money or we'll kill you"? Wonderful...

Imran -

The amount of spending provisions in the Omnibus bill are insane. Much more than the amendments attached to them. To vote on it seperately is not feasible.

They already vote on them separately, Imran. And then they gather them all together and vote on the whole thing and if it passes they send it off to the Prez, but for some reason (lack of political will?) he can't veto individual items in the bill.

Imagine if China decides to slap massive, unfair tariffs on us, and we wish to retaliate.. we CAN'T. Because if the people who pay decide, then that means foreign companies to get to decide on US tariff policy and we wouldn't be able to match the Chinese (in this hypo)!

Why can't we retaliate, a tariff is a sales tax. You pay for tariffs whenever you buy a product subject to tariffs.

Every illegal immigrant who works would now have a vote, increasing incentives to cross the border, and citizenship wouldn't mean a hill of beans really.

Why would they have a vote, they're here illegally.

It'd be nuts!

If you and Tingkai get together we'll have a peanut gallery.
Sheesh! Instead of dealing with my suggestions you guys are intent on stumbling across some "analogy" to offer as a rebuttal.

Ogie -

I see consitutional problems trying to redefine citizenry to property owners but do in fact understand Berz's logic.

I'm not trying to re-define citizenship, just who gets to vote and for what. But that would still require an amendment since voting "rights" don't reflect who pays the taxes. Of course, if we had a constitutional system in place, Congress would have strict (and severe) limitations on what it can spend money on and my suggestions wouldn't be necessary.

Plato -

Here is the solution:

1.) Only parties NOT occupying the executive branch may sit on the appropriations commitee.

2.) Executive branch has a line item veto.

That would help a little, we have a similar set up whenever 1 party controls the WH and the other controls the House and/or Senate, but we can see what happens then. The minority party in the legislature tells the majority to share the pork and they'll help over ride vetoes and help convince the Prez to sign all the spending bills. That's SOP in Congress, you vote for my pork and I'll vote for yours.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They already vote on them separately, Imran.

They group a bunch of spending provisions in bills and vote them up or down once. They usually don't vote on them seperately, at least not in the full House/Senate.

Why can't we retaliate, a tariff is a sales tax. You pay for tariffs whenever you buy a product subject to tariffs.

We indirectly pay for tariffs. Or do you think that those who pay indirect taxes should get the same right as those that pay direct taxes?

Why would they have a vote, they're here illegally.

They pay taxes. Under your plan, if they pay taxes, they should vote.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They group a bunch of spending provisions in bills and vote them up or down once. They usually don't vote on them seperately, at least not in the full House/Senate.

Triviality, in light of the fact that Berz's first preference stated was line item veto.

The preparation of individual bills was a second option.

So to the original intent, why would a line item veto not be feasible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So to the original intent, why would a line item veto not be feasible?

It's unconstitutional. The SCOTUS has said the Constitution contemplates all bills to follow the progression from Congress to the President, then he votes up/down on the bill. He cannot make his own amendments, basically.

[Ramo]

You don't have to be rich to pay $2000-$3000 in income taxes,

One'd have to be rich compared to what I make.

but I have no claim of "ownership" over the state if I don't pay the taxes it needs to function. The "state" is a piece of property, that's why we don't let foreigners vote on how it operates. They have their state and we have ours - that's called property

No, the state isn't a piece of property. Last time I checked, my computer wasn't able to toss me into a prison. Or keep me out of the country. Or force me to pay taxes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ok but either of the options presented require ammendment. Ammendment to make one bill one item or ammendment to make line item veto. You have raised perhaps a valid issue that says that individual bills would be too coumbersome for congress to deal with.

Seems to me that of the two options line item veto is more plausible.

[Aeson]

Allowing only people who pay a minimum of $2000 - $3000 in income taxes every year to vote. Consider that the worst cars to buy are usually former rent-a-cars and you'll understand why private property is better than "communal" property in the long run and you'll understand why it is destructive to let people who pay no income taxes (or actually get "credits", i.e., welfare for working) vote on how much other people pay in taxes...

First you need to specify if you mean someone who has paid $2000-3000 in the current year, or if it's a lifetime thing. A retired senior citizen isn't allowed to vote in one case, even though they may have helped fund the government for their entire career. So be more specific, otherwise the following will apply to your idea:

Losing your job for a fiscal year will mean that you no longer can vote. "Sorry, we only hire Republicans who vote for massive defense contract spending." or "Sorry, we only hire Democrats who vote for massive social care spending."... not in so many words obviously, but you get the picture. Won't it be fun when rich guy with X political view buys out the company you're working for previously owned by rich guy with Y political views.

The other problem is you are using an arbitrary income level as a cutoff point. Someone who pays $200 doesn't get to vote because they don't pay as much as someone else who pays $2000. Obviously someone who pays $2000 doesn't pay as much as someone who pays $200,000 does, so why should the 'poor' in this case get to vote either? Then again, someone paying $200,000 doesn't pay nearly as much as someone who pays $20 million. Sooner or later Bill Gates (or whoever is making the most money now and actually paying taxes) is voting and no one else by that logic. So why the arbitrary cutoff? What is it supposed to be indicative of?

[chequita guevara]

People who make more that a quarter million a year shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are too selfish to have the interests o the community at heart.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ok but either of the options presented require ammendment. Ammendment to make one bill one item or ammendment to make line item veto. You have raised perhaps a valid issue that says that individual bills would be too coumbersome for congress to deal with.

Seems to me that of the two options line item veto is more plausible.

Well one item / one bill, would only require a bill. Of course it could also overturned by a simple bill.