Riehl World View

Update: Smitty weighs in with a question. He sure axes a lot of questions for a guy named Smitty from Virginia.

The reason for the corruption is the lack of feeback. Irrespective of whom you vote into office, the Federal beast grows. What to do?

Instapundit links to an item on getting control of runaway government spending in which he's quoted. I think there are at least two paths to consider, one broader and one more targeted. As McClanahan points out, things do happen somewhat differently within the states. Rather than only export that type of remedy up to the federal level, there needs to be a more honest discussion of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment. Because progressives are predominantly federalists, as soon as someone brings up the concept of state's rights, it's immediately tarred with the brush of the Civil War. That would have to abate if the country is going to be able to have a genuine discussion of state versus federal power and control, particularly as it impacts spending.

The other path includes a more informative approach to accounting for government spending. While it shouldn't become so micro as to simply gloss over one's eyes, we need to get away from simply discussing budgets as vast piles of money. If one is going to cut federal spending on Education for instance, it should be more clear what silo within the budget it's targeted at. We don't approach it that way today. As soon as one hears about cuts to education, the Left immediately paints a picture of poor children going without their school lunch, upon which more and more of them have come to depend. As an aside, that specific discussion would be better served at the state level.

It is hard to get one's mind around, but I believe clearer cost accounting at the federal level and a more robust discussion of state versus federal government and their respective roles in our lives are at least two good paths to begin exploring.

At the same time, politicians usually derive no direct reward for opposing powerful interest groups. Even if they make an effort to thwart a loophole or quash an earmark, many of the people they intend to benefit may not even be aware of what’s been done for the general interest, at the expense of the particular interest.

Yet when politicians do things to benefit special interests, the recipients are keenly aware. They offer support, money and volunteers.

Reynolds’ idea about taxes fluctuating with spending would be one way to encourage voters to monitor their elected leaders more closely. Lawmakers would know that if they spent recklessly, they’d be more likely to get an earful from the folks back home.

As a matter of fact, that’s how it works in most states, which have to balance their budgets.

But another part of the problem is our skewed tax system.

When so many people are freed from a significant tax burden, they have even less reason to pay attention to politics. And elected officials are likely to be even more attentive to special interests, because of the greater rewards they offer.