|
Responsibility #80
To the People of the United States of America:
6th postscript, April 1994. This is the 8th essay on Taxes/Appropriations/Organization Reforms, based on news articles published during the terms to date, of the present Administration and Congress. We continue to see the confusion and divisiveness, that results from the unprincipled and unbridled handling of taxes and appropriations at all levels of our governments. We
fail to be a UNITED States of America so long as this continues.
Who gets taxed, who gets subsidies or benefits (that others pay for), depends on many factors--none of which are principled, or controlled by adequate democratic constraints. Among these are:
 What Political Action Committee(s) or lobbyist(s) got to which members of Congress (or to which officers in the Executive branch), with campaign funds or other inducements? What pressure was brought to bear by the media's concentration on some news event (or by an effective bleeding-hearts or holier than thou group)?
 Was the member of Congress, who wished to bring home (to his State or special interest group) a particular slab of bacon, sufficiently senior or influential, to get a seat on (or even more decisive, to be Chairman of) the controlling committee or subcommittee? Could the extraneous slab of bacon be slipped in on some "emergency" (or even normal) appropriations bill?
 If the President were known to be vehemently opposed to the "sneaker" slab of bacon, could he be forced to sign the otherwise sorely needed act (since the Congress time and time again refuses to grant the Constitutionally intended line item veto)? In administering taxes, fees, and appropriations, is the Presidential appointee biased (bought?) by an effected special interest group?
Notwithstanding the severe situation of our deficits and national debt, in 1993 and 1994, when it comes to taxes, the hew and cry is still NOT ME! NOT ME! When it comes to appropriations, tax deductions or tax credits, the resounding roar is GIMME! GIMME!
9. Consider the news article of July 20, 1993, with the banner "Panel to urge tax relief, more for airlines". Excerpts: "The U.S. airline industry ... needs tax relief to recover from its financial woes ..." "... exempt the industry from the fuel-tax hike Congress is considering ..." "... passenger-ticket and cargo taxes on the airlines should be rolled back to pre-1990 levels ..." "[Make] the airlines exempt from alternative minimum tax, so money-losing carriers would not be required to pay." "Give airlines a permanent investment-tax credit to help them buy quiet new planes or refit older planes to meet new noise restrictions.
"When it comes to administering the laws to set and collect appropriate fees (or revenues, by any other names) paid to the government for use of government land, facilities, or services; it is clear that executive political appointees must be unbiased, unbought, and competent. As an example let us look at one of the tasks that has burdened the new Secretary of the Interior since his appointment in 1993.
10. Let us examine extracts from opposing editorials, published together on July 7, 1993. The first was headed "Bring fees for grazing into 20th century". The second had the banner "Raising costs will drive out ranchers". Over 9 months later (one-third through the term of the Clinton administration), it was evident the issue was still not resolved, delaying further this proposed contribution to reducing the deficit and lessening increases in the national debt. The reference here is a third item printed April 16, 1994 entitled "Regional grazing fees mulled".
From the 1st article: "For the century past ... public rangelands were used to provide cheap forage for cattle and sheep." "... the American public must demand a fair return on the forage it sells to ranchers." "... a 1985 report to Congress determined that fair market value fees then averaged more than four times the federal fee. Grazing fees now cover only a fraction of the costs of administering the grazing program on federal lands."
In the 2nd editorial: "The most endangered species in the West ... are the family farmers." "... there is not enough private land in the West to sustain viable operations." "... ranchers must have access to grazing lands." "Ranchers don't want a subsidy; they are willing to pay a fair price for the grazing permits."
Third news item: "Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt says he'll consider setting grazing fees on a regional basis, instead of charging ranchers in 11 Western states the same price. I'll be a vigorous advocate of market-based fees." "For a decade, Congress has tried unsuccessfully to significantly raise the fees. Through an administrative order this fall, Babbitt will alter the fee formula and open grazing management to environmentalists and citizens."
In earlier RESPONSIBILITY papers, the case was made that the foundation for the setting and collecting of revenues by governmental bodies should be on the overall principle "He who benefits and he who causes costs, pays, in proportion to his share of the benefits or costs". This was expanded into a series of inviolable principles to govern the generation of revenues and the expenditure of appropriations. Among these was the proposition "Collect revenues in the most efficient manners at the most appropriate levels of governments, allocating and forwarding the receipts to the proper destinations designated to manage and expend the appropriations for which the revenues were collected".
In the next essays, we will explore some 1993-1994 examples, that illustrate how far we have to go in appreciating the needs for these reforms. A first instance will complete this paper.
11. Reading between the lines of a news article of June 16, 1993, we can appreciate why President Clinton's original proposal, to largely reduce the general deficit by the imposition of a broad-based energy tax, would not get up to steam. The piece was headed "Democratic senators divided over extent of new energy taxes".
Excerpts: "Senate Democratic tax-bill writers ... fell short of a consensus on a major deficit-reduction plan and remain split by competing regional interests over how to raise taxes on energy." "... senators seemed inclined to support a motor-fuels tax in the range of 5 cents a gallon, with no new taxes on other energy sources." "[An Oklahoma Senator], who forced Clinton to abandon a broad-based energy tax, said the emerging plan appears to be 'definitely in the direction I can sign on to'. But [a Montana Senator] ... was said to be holding out for a tax of 3.5 cents."
Our reading says that if the proposition is to impose an arbitrary amount of tax, on an arbitrary source, for unrelated or disproportionate purposes, the perfectly appropriate response will be: NOT IN MY REGION! NOT ON MY STATE! NOT TO MY CONSTITUENTS! And we end up with the usual politically expedient and unjust source, and distribution of tax burden.
Publius IV
|