Most people understand a budgeting process as a system based on how the available revenues, such as current actual revenue sources and actual credit availability, are tied to expenditures for specific life needs. How the tasks of government are paid for is an integral part of our assessing the worthiness, the value of, the importance of what our government is doing and where that expense should be placed on a citizen's view of priorities. In other words, we plan our budgets on the assumption we must have money to pay our bills, or credit to pay our bills, or renege on our bills, or do without. Why not apply that construct to government?
Government requires citizens to accept the costs laid out by Congress, often for activities which are conducted in other States, for other people, (total strangers) and for activities which seem like an unfair hand out to others paid for by skimping on our similar needs.
Why not portray revenues in by specifying by State, locality, activity, amount etc and attach these amounts to actual expenditures? I think this is the way citizens try to understand taxes and spending. Without good information that has meaning for taxpayers, all of us start feeling we are left only with the sense we are paying for things that others get for free. Citizens need to understand the revenue in/payments out amounts, in real time. We must understand and have some management power over how we raise revenues and we need to have power to dedicate personal taxation to pay for government based on a freely elected and personalized priority system. This is important to citizens, especially when mistrust of government is high.
Please sign in to leave a comment.