Direct Democracy in Budgeting

[kent_allard_jr]

Ta-Nehisi Coates posted this chart from the Third Way foundation:

I think the notion of a "taxpayers receipt" is a great idea; we'd have a much saner politics in this country if the public understood where tax dollars were spent. I made a suggestion in comments:

Y'know, direct democracy gets a bad rap -- deservedly so -- but we'd have a saner fiscal policy in this country if we asked folks to mail these back, crossing out the items they didn't want to pay for, and then dropped programs that were crossed out my a majority of taxpayers. I'm sure the public would make lousy choices, but at least they'd be grounded in reality, and politicians wouldn't give us nonsense like the "Pledge to America" anymore.

People responded with horror -- you can't mention "direct democracy" without folks going "California!!!! Nooooooooooooo" -- but I stand by it. Not all forms of direct democracy are equal, and I would never say America should adopt a California-style referendum system.

Nevertheless, I don't think representative government works properly with a badly misinformed electorate; all that happens is that the public elects folks who promise to fulfill their fairy tales. Today, when the average American thinks Foreign Aid takes up 40% of federal expenditures, we get nonsense like the last 30 years of Republican budgets, promising to slash taxes and balance the budget without cutting any program of substance.

With my proposal, the public would be forced to acknowledge reality. Want to cut spending? Here's where the budget goes; tell me when you've deleted $1,000 you think we should save; enjoy! In the end, I think direct democracy with an informed electorate works better than a representative government without one, so a democratic process that forces the public to be informed would be superior to what we have today.

Comments

[peacewood.livejournal.com]

Ha! I posted this to my Facebook mere minutes after you...or hours...or whatever.

I'll state what I stated on FB: the only objection I can think of to this idea is that an individual receipt doesn't give a complete accounting of taxation/spending -- for example, all the plebes would howl about the cost of Social Security (it would be the top ticket for many low income taxpayers)...even though Social Security would vanish for high earners, since it's paid for regressively.

To further the example, we spend about as much as a country on the military as we do on Social Security -- but even with this system, over two-thirds of the country might not know it.

[bugsybanana.livejournal.com]

I wonder - since FICA and Medicare are separate from income tax, would it make sense to have a breakdown for just income tax, to bring home the point that Social Security and Medicare aren't part of it? Is Medicaid funded by the Medicare tax or through income taxes? My fear is that this list brings the "entitlements" to the forefront of attention for where to cut, when one can just as easily set them aside altogether as irrelevant for income tax purposes.

And I think having the percentage of each item as well as the dollar value would be enlightening.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

The thing is, if you DO want to cut the budget, Social Security, Medicare and defense are where the savings will have to come (not "non-defense discretionary spending," where the Pledge promises to cut). Like you, I don't want the first two to be cut, but it's hard to have an honest argument about this stuff without a grounding in reality.

Nevertheless, I think you're right that we could remove SS and Medicare from the income tax "receipt." Put that way, national defense would become the most obvious target for budget-cutters.

[avram]

Can we also re-label "Combat Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan" to "Traveling All the Way to the Other Side of the Planet to Murder Lots of Brown People"?

[avram]

Or maybe a pleasant euphemism, like "Afghan Wedding Prevention".

[tmlforsyth.livejournal.com]

Well, you need a breakdown of how the money is spent. It's one thing to cut inefficient programs by the Dept of Defense, especially some fancy and really useless weapons system that isn't cutting the mustard. Budget money spent on military personnel would only make sense slashing it on redundant high ranking figures. Going after military pensions and veterans benefits is an equally cold move, though I guess an exchange can be made like offering retired soldiers a foreclosed house in lieu of a few thousand dollars a year.

I admit I have personal feelings about veterans benefits, so I'm not objective.

Also, the military has certain types of assistance like the GI Bill that allows people to earn their assistance, and stay out of Al Lord's evil clutches (accidentally discharging a drone on his affluent noveau-riche home may give Obama a boost like when he called Kanye West a jackass).

Granted on a cynical and mean-spirited note, some cuts to social security and Medicare could make same sex marriage a reality much sooner.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

I'm more curious about the fact that the receipt up there doesn't add up to $5400...

An individual receipt mailed to each household would probably be revolutionary enough in and of itself. Forcing people to mark it up like a scorecard might be a little bit much, though.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

then we could also re-label the DEA as "Effort to Terrorize Brown People Domestically"