Posted on 02/01/2004 4:31:37 PM PST by Voice in your head
There seems to be a disagreement, regarding just what exactly limited government is. The recent expansion under the current administration has not helped. I just want to make sure that we are all on the same sheet of music. Below is my understanding of what would need to happen, for our government to be limited. If there is anything wrong with this, please let me know.
Disassociate our federal government from all boards, commissions and committees.
Eliminate the following departments of the federal government:
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Education
- Department of Energy
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Department of Labor
- Department of Transportation
- Department of the Interior
Some of the departments above have some necessary agencies. For these exceptions, do the following:
- Keep the Bureau of Census and place it in the executive branch. If the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics are deemed necessary for addressing the state of the union, then place them under the executive branch.
- For agencies that deal with the collection of weather, terrain and oceanic data, such as the National Weather Service, et cetera, place these agencies under the control of the CIA or DIA and allow the CIA or DIA to determine what functions to keep and what to eliminate.
- Place agencies that deal with nuclear emergencies and waste under the command of the department of Homeland Security. This includes test sites.
- Retain the Center for Disease Control and place it in the Department of Homeland Security. Limit its scope to infectious diseases, HIV, and other diseases or viruses of a national security nature.
Within the departments that remain, eliminate the following:
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- National Drug Intelligence Center
- Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
- Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
- Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
- Internal Revenue Service
For remaining infrastructure and real estate, do the following:
- Sell all laboratories, equipment and research facilities to the highest bidder. Restrict bidders to American citizens, American educational institutions, and American-based businesses. If equipment is of a sensitive nature, give it to the Department of Defense or CIA, as appropriate.
- Sell all national parks and federally owned land not used by the military or remaining agencies to the highest bidder.
- Sell all other infrastructure to the highest bidder.
Within the Executive Branch, eliminate the following:
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
- Office of National Drug Control Policy
- Office of Science and Technology Policy
- Office of the First Lady
Sell the US Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, all museums, all galleries, and the National Zoo.
Place the US Copyright Office under control of the Department of Justice.
Eliminate the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, the Small Business Administration, and the Social Security Administration.
Combine NASA and the Space Command. Place them under the command of the Air Force or create a new department within the Department of Defense. Place the CIA under the command of the Department of Homeland Defense.
"You forgot the FAA, which is currently in the Dept. of Transportation."
I wrote to eliminate the whole department. That would include the FAA.
Excise taxes and auctions. Tax alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, lottery winnings, and pornography, to start off. Sell all federal lands that are not needed for government infrastructure. Sell all infrastructure not within the bounds of limited government. Income taxes account for about half of federal revenue. If the changes outlined in this thread were to happen, then the budget would shrink by at least half.
I am a Constitutionist or minarchist. We need a limited govt as described by the Constitution. It needs some money to get the job done.
As to sin taxes vs tariffs:
(1) you define sinful substances as alcohol, tobacco and porn. OK....problem is the defintion of sin will change. Are you a religious person? In a few years maybe churches become non gratia. Like your SUV or pickup? Lot of people don't. Can't forget firearms and ammo....can't ban them due to that pesky 2nd but they can sure tax them into oblivion.
Further, taxing only a portion of the population for govt services all will benefit from is immoral. That is cost shifting and is no different from the welfare costs the productive currently bear to support the non producers.
(2) yes tariffs are a tax. It is a cost which will be added to the price of that particular item and is therefore a user tax. That makes it fair (fair based on the assumption that some minimal level of govt is required).
Regards
J.R.
I'll hit on something that I should have hit on in the previous post - I do not advocate "sin taxes". It just happens that advocates of sin taxes favor taxing certain items and I think that those choices of items make sense. But, I do not base my opinion of what items should be taxed upon some religious or other busy-body/do-gooder type of viewpoint. I favor a tax system in which you can choose to not pay, or to pay much less, without significantly altering your lifestyle. Alcohol, tobacco, etc are abundantly produced and consumed and make for a reliable source of revenue, but if people choose to stop purchasing them, to avoid taxation, then those people's lives will not significantly change. It makes more sense than taxing baby formula or sugar and it makes more sense than charging tariffs on steel and oil. I think that to tax the most unnecessary of items is most in line with promoting the general welfare.
Also, I think that tariffs are the worst type of taxation, because of their unintended consequences: retaliatory tariffs and increased lobbying by American businesses who want tariffs on their foreign competitors, to compensate for their substandard performance.
Tariffs cannot be ruled out, because they may be necessary, but I do not think that they should be the first or only option. If we do need to impose tariffs for additional revenue, then the careful selection of which products to impose tariffs on should be based upon the following criteria:
1) the importance of the product to the average American's lifestyle (the lower, the better)
2) the cost of collecting the tax versus the revenue collected (most efficient)
3) the effects upon the overall economy (least negatively)
4) the degree to which the tariff impacts upon the prices of similar products in the US (less impact, the better)
Those criteria seem to be most in line with promoting the general welfare, in my opinion.
The most ideal items to impose tariffs on would be on those items that are distinctive by virtue of only being made in foreign countries, such as Persian rugs, French Champagne, collectible items from Saddam's Palaces, etc.
"Further, taxing only a portion of the population for govt services all will benefit from is immoral. That is cost shifting and is no different from the welfare costs the productive currently bear to support the non producers."
How do we avoid this? There will always be the "buy American" crowd and there will always be a lower class. Tariffs will not result in those groups paying taxes.
"(2) yes tariffs are a tax. It is a cost which will be added to the price of that particular item and is therefore a user tax. That makes it fair (fair based on the assumption that some minimal level of govt is required)."
Fair does not equal best, because there are many methods of fair taxation. I think that my proposal is fair, because it is voluntary even within the context of a normal life, and it is better than imposing tariffs.
In regards to user taxes, I think that the best form of charging users is to have a user fee. For example, if you copyright an invention, then you pay the associated administrative fees; if you are in immigrant applying for a Visa or citizenship, then you pay the associated administrative fees; etc.
A moral judgement on your part.
Alcohol, tobacco, etc are abundantly produced and consumed and make for a reliable source of revenue, but if people choose to stop purchasing them, to avoid taxation, then those people's lives will not significantly change
Another moral judgement. You also seem to be aware that when the tax on these "unnecessary"items becomes too high the tax revenue will go down. People will either quit using the items or the black market will step in. Your plan will not provide enough revenue for a limited fedgov.
As to tariffs, the US enjoyed its greatest prosperity from the end of WW2 to the mid 70's. That with tariffs averaging 24% and total foreign trade below 14% of GNP.
Regards
J.R.
No. It is my interpretation of the preamble to the constitution. As I said, assuming that some taxes are necessary, "I think that to tax the most unnecessary of items is most in line with promoting the general welfare."
"You also seem to be aware that when the tax on these 'unnecessary' items becomes too high the tax revenue will go down. People will either quit using the items or the black market will step in."
Right. That is why care should be taken to not levy taxes that are so high that they encourage such behavior.
"Your plan will not provide enough revenue for a limited fedgov."
So far, this is what I've put forth as a potential plan in this fantasy limited government:
"Tax alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, lottery winnings, and pornography, to start off. Sell all federal lands that are not needed for government infrastructure. Sell all infrastructure not within the bounds of limited government."
"...I think that the best form of charging users is to have a user fee. For example, if you copyright an invention, then you pay the associated administrative fees; if you are in immigrant applying for a Visa or citizenship, then you pay the associated administrative fees..."
"Tariffs cannot be ruled out, because they may be necessary, but I do not think that they should be the first or only option. If we do need to impose tariffs for additional revenue, then the careful selection of which products to impose tariffs on should be based upon the following criteria:
1) the importance of the product to the average American's lifestyle (the lower, the better)
2) the cost of collecting the tax versus the revenue collected (most efficient)
3) the effects upon the overall economy (least negatively)
4) the degree to which the tariff impacts upon the prices of similar products in the US (less impact, the better)"
"As to tariffs, the US enjoyed its greatest prosperity from the end of WW2 to the mid 70's. That with tariffs averaging 24% and total foreign trade below 14% of GNP."
What's the point? Tariffs lead to prosperity? Prosperity can co-exist with tariffs? Something else?
I'm not sure what you're asking. I think that some taxes are necessary, so the government must determine what to tax. Since our government was established, in part, to promote the general welfare, and since taxes are only destructive, then the choice of what to tax should be based, in large part, on what least detracts from the general welfare.
"What is you opinion on the meaning of general welfare? Do you go with original intent or subsequent SCOTUS rulings?"
General welfare of the people is their state of health, security, happiness, prosperity. The general welfare of the people can only be improved by the people. The government can only promote the general welfare of the people by striking a balance between maximizing the freedom of the people and providing maximum protection of their rights - rights being all acts except those which impose force, fraud, or corruption against another person or his property.
I'll be out of the net until next week - headed to the field.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.