As if I hadn't tried to bite off more than I could chew with Cardigan on Law, now I'm trying to tackle the entire government. I guess someone's gotta do it. I'll be talking about the federal government, but much of what is included here can be applied to smaller governments, too.
Let's start with what is, in a way, the beginning of government: the election process.
One big step in making things more sensible is to eliminate political parties. Why? Because they are divisive and inflammatory. We have two primary parties, Democrats and Republicans. Who among us doesn't attach, mentally, the labels "liberal" and "conservative" to those, respectively? But not all Democrats are liberal, nor are all Republicans conservative. Yet we do tend to think of them this way, right or not, and it serves only to breed biased assumptions. The only way, of course, to dispel the assumptions is to take the time and effort to get to know the candidates. However, many people have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. To save themselves the trouble, they often vote the straight party ticket, assuming that the candidate will adhere to the party's general platform and they'll be happy with that.
The trouble with this is that every candidate knows that each election is a tough one. With the two party system (and let's be honest… even with Libertarians and others, the vast majority are still either Democrat or Republican), the votes of the other party are very important. So officials, once in office, often find themselves kowtowing to the wishes of the opposing party, in the hopes of being re-elected. This not only angers the voters in the official's party, but it makes the official seem wishy-washy, and no one wants that. What do we want? We want officials with ideals and principles, who will stick to them, no matter what. How do we get that?
Well, if there are no political parties, each person running for office is effectively an independent. We have no choice but to look and listen closely to their words, analyze their actions, or else remain ignorant. We would no longer be able to simply make an assumed judgment about them based on their party affiliation. We'd have to go on the data available.
One problem with such campaigning, however, is unfair advantages of one candidate over another by virtue of having more money to work with. This could be remedied by making sure that each candidate spends only a certain amount on campaigning. A candidate should not be allowed to spend a family fortune to get elected. We all know how gullible people can be. We tend to vote for the name we remember when we step into the booth. More money for advertising makes for broader name recognition, and therefore more votes. But a candidate should be elected upon their merit, not their wallet. A fixed spending sum for each candidate would eliminate this financial fairness imbalance.
And speaking of imbalances, what about the electoral college? Where's the sense in this? Votes are tallied by region, with each region having a certain number of electoral votes (varying from region to region), and these electoral votes are what determine the victor. It is theoretically possible for a candidate to have fewer overall votes in the country, but have more electoral votes and therefore win the election. It's even happened, once. In the election of 1876, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden received a more overall votes, but Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the election by one electoral vote. To my way of thinking, this is wrong. Our Representatives and Senators are elected by popular vote. And what is the President, but the ultimate representative of the people? That office should also be elected by majority vote, not by electoral votes. The electoral college is no longer necessary, if in fact it ever was.
Okay, so we have the elections covered. But what about once our man or woman is in office? What can we do to improve things, then?
To start, we should seriously look at lobbying. Special interest groups plying officials with money to get their own way is heinous. This is how groups such as the NRA and the tobacco industry have become so powerful. Not because they have lots of money, but because their money can buy political favors. This is criminal. Bribery by any other name is still despicable. True, not all lobbyists use money to get their way. Some use intimidation. Still others are actually nice about it. They voice their wishes and hope that they are listened to. But even so, the overall process is just wrong.
Of course, groups getting their own way isn't limited to lobbyists. Congress is guilty of it, too. All too often, a bit of questionable legislation is slipped into a larger bit of legislation. The tiny bit inside the bigger bit may be something that benefits a small percentage of our population at the expense of everyone else. Sometimes, it only benefits one person. Representatives and Senators are guilty of inserting these bits into legislation, usually to please their home town or state's people. It's known as "pork," and as you might have guessed, it's a drain on everyone except those benefited. Why does it pass? Because our President is less powerful than the governors of some states.
How's that? It's simple. You see, the President of the country does not have what's known as a line-item veto. This means that he can't look at the legislation and say, "Well, I'll approve all of it but this bit right here." Some state governors can. Some governors have line-item vetoes. It's a way to extract the pork from proposed legislation, a way of keeping greedy politicos in line. Without it, the President has to veto or approve the entire package. Proposed bills are under time constraints, too, so a lot of pork gets made into law simply because the President is under a time limit to approve. This is reprehensible, to say the least.
Money seems to be a pivotal issue in much of what I've said so far. Well, it's true. Americans are very concerned about their money, and a lot of the concern revolves around taxes. Taxes are a pain in everyone's behind, but the biggest one that people get worked up about is, of course, the federal income tax.
And well they should get worked up over it. Our current federal income tax law is really dumb. Anyone who looks more than passingly at it will realize that the greatest burden of our taxes falls upon the middle class. The least load, in the big picture, falls upon the wealthy. This is about as loopy as it can get.
We tax people on the money they make. A lot can be said about the wrongness of that whole idea, but rather than address that, let's look at how it breaks down. Currently, the more money you make, the higher percentage your taxes are. Some would argue that this makes sense. Rich people should pay a higher tax than poor people. I disagree. I feel that the percentage should be equal for all.
Would this hurt the poor and the middle class? Not at all, because that's not the end of it. As it stands right now, there are a lot more loopholes and tax breaks available for the rich than for anyone else. It's a proven fact that the wealthy pay proportionately less tax than any other group, and that the middle class pays proportionately more.
Here's the solution: Everyone is taxed the exact same percentage, say 25%. However, everyone is also given the same amount as a personal deduction, say $25,000. The only additional deductions would be standard ones, like for a spouse or dependents. There would be no other deductions allowed. The sensible result of this would be that the poor would effectively pay no taxes at all, the middle class would have a tremendous relief, and the wealthy would of course pay more.
Except that they're not paying more proportionately. Everyone would have the exact same tax rate, the exact same deductions. What could be more fair?
Let me get back to what I alluded to earlier, which is the elimination of an income tax completely. Many would argue that it would make more sense to have a consumption tax, instead. Tax people not on what they make, but on what they use. Tax goods that are purchased, services that are utilized, etc... Do not tax their income. Once again, those who consume more will pay more. This usually means the wealthy. The middle class and the poor would, most likely, pay less. This could work well, I think.
But I don't like taxes at all, not even ones that are obviously much fairer than what we currently have. I think all taxes should be eliminated. The government doesn't need to be involved in as many things as it is. The private sector could do almost everything the government does, and do it better and for less money. Private charities have always helped people, and more people would donate to charity if their money wasn't being so blatantly sucked away by Uncle Sam. The Libertarians equate taxes with theft. They're not voluntarily given. They're used for things the taxpayer may not want them used for. It's simply wrong.
Be that as it may, I don't think they're going away any time soon.
The final item I wish to discuss doesn't connect with the other items very smoothly. I have no deft segue to ease into the topic, so I'll just lay it out plainly. Church/State separation must be rigidly enforced. Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the First Amendment. If we refuse to separate religion from our government, only bad can come of it. Show me one theocracy that hasn't oppressed its people... Show me how a religious government can be fair to all citizens... Only when you can do this will I accept the notion that Church/State separation is unnecessary.
Our government was founded upon secular principles, not religious ones. Only by keeping our government secular can we be sure to be fair to one and all. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. We cannot condone our government promoting one religion over another, or religion over no religion. To do so would be to condemn anyone not of the "chosen" religion. I think we all can agree that this is not the kind of scenario we'd want enacted in our land of the free.
Once again, these ideas will not cure all of our government's ills, but it's a beginning.