The Constitution is pretty plainly written and is the founding legal document for how American citizens are supposed to be governed. It is the original founding contract supposedly keeping government from infringing the rights of its people as countless others before it had done. Hence, the reference to the American Dream and why people so often referred to its genius. So, it isn't an opinion I wish to impose on others... it is the opposite. The contract was supposed to outline how government would run to stay out of our lives and still protect our rights from being violated.
For instance... someone arbitrarily used a set of logic to impose various "sin" taxes for products like tobacco, alcohol, etc... They then used government to impose THEIR will on everyone else to "protect us from ourselves". This is CLEARLY outside the bounds of government's responsibility. For others, they decided to outlaw outright. Yet, having a family serves as a "good" thing and government should be giving people tax breaks for their good deeds to incentivize said behavior. Corporate cronyism steps in and decides to make sure that their lobbyists shore up favorable tax breaks for their businesses in the name of "protecting America's infrastructure". The list goes on for miles.
In the end, what I am compelled to pay in taxes goes towards all kinds of things that I fundamentally disagree with. I am not alone. So, here is the crazy idea... what if government stuck to its sole purpose of protecting its citizens and their rights? What if by some crazy notion we as citizens are left to our own devices to make our own decisions on what is moral and how to spend our time and resources accordingly?
I support the Fair Tax as a solution to the problem of just the tax code. The spending problem is something wholly different insofar as government is concerned (which skyrocketed under Reagan if I recall correctly). I would couple that with killing off the Fed as Ron Paul has outlined. That would help to stave off the blank check mentality that Washington wields at the expense of future generations. At that point the Fair tax would simply hold government accountable for how well its citizens do. It would also give people a REAL sense of what EXACTLY the government was taking from them rather than covering it up in graduated increments in the process of production.
After that, every citizen that votes, would actually have skin in the game and would then be incentivized to make informed decisions about what those persons representing them are actually doing with their confiscated coffers.
So many different places to go I hope you got time bud.
First off the Preamble to the US Constitution:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This statement pretty much leads into every other point in the Constitution and explains every role of government. The problem is that you and I will interpret them differently so we elect people to interpret them for us. I might feel like I would do a better job, or you might feel like they are doing to much but to say that the Constitution doesn't afford them
the power to make that decision is ludacris. Thats what it is to live in a Democratic Republic. Also lobbying is allowed in the Constitution and while the idea may be morally objectional (lord knows I dont like it) the act is permissable under the Constitution and protected under free speech.
As far as the government solely protecting people and its rights. The governement has had a system of "assisting" the poor and disadvantaged since its inception. Pre Civil war government constantly donated land and finances to people willing to settle west of the Mississippi. Or provided reconstruction funds and land post civil war. This came from money collected as taxes and is a major reason our country is prosperous today and some of the land has made people insanely rich.
Money was given to encourage growth in the stock market pre depression but it was the "deregulation" of the masses and hands off approach of government that allowed its crash. Post depression saw another increase in government aid and food for the millions of poor allowing many of our grandparents not to starve, even though the money came from the precious few that survived the depression unscathed. Post Civil Rights era has a different theme as it seems that people do not like the idea of poor minorities receiving financial aid. With this president the government has placed an emphasis on the education and health care of the poor, while also not
raising taxes on the middle income (which has never been accomplished before. I challenge you to prove that wrong) and only raising the taxes of the rich to a number even with one of the most prosperous times in our recent history. In short the general welfare
of the people includes a lot of governemnt programs that you may not agree with but you voted (or maybe you didn't) and the winner got to pick the ones that are important. He also gets to decide how to pay for it.
Being left to our own devices? What does that really mean? Taxing you less? So that you would have more money to pay to corporations that basically decide every facet of your life. Just because you get to pick which car you drive or what tv you watch doesnt mean you control what cars are available for you to choose from or what road they drive on. Or what fuel they use. This country is filled with supercorporations that make decisions on the quality of life of entire nations. Without goverment regulations the corporations would really
and unabashedly control our lives. Diminish the power of the government and watch companies like exxon mobil and microsoft start changing the whole dynamic of American life. Eliminate education incentives and yes the average family may recieve 150 more a month out of their taxes but that is not going to be enough to cover the new cost of unregulated health care, and education. All the companies would have to do is band together to establish a new price point that benefits them and there would be nothing you could do about it. They could even create situations that limit the ability of new entrepreneurs to enter the market, Case and point Walmart. They arbitrarily set the price of goods in an area to eliminate competition then raise the prices back when they are the only thing left. And you know what? We all still shop there.
And those "sin" taxes you speak of. Alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders every year in automobile accidents. By that fact alone the government is required to take steps to mitigate that unnecessary loss of life. However the previous attempt to ban it resulted in more loss of life, so they hired more cops, taxed the hell out of it and regulated its distribution. Seems reasonable to me. Same with cigarrettes. Cant ban it without possibly infringing on personal liberties, okay got it but to not do anything would be an affront to the millions that are really suffering from its accessibility.