To the editor:

            Once again it was quite possible to talk about taxes – without ever mentioning how our money is being spent.   Instead of suggesting solutions candidates proposed [or boasted about] enacting “solutions” that reacted to bad public policy by either scapegoating unpopular caricatures – harming innocent people instead, or diverting funds for popular victims.   Bad public policies – which waste taxpayer money - were “not open for discussion”!

            Next year they will be sending us a proposal to raise taxes to fully fund popular government functions; those based on bad policies are “not open for discussion”.  I offered a truly radical [means something that addresses causes of problems] proposal 5 years ago: Why not let taxpayers vote on the amounts spent on EVERY budget item – with every item linked to a specific revenue source? This periodic referendum would have to include the base amount for each category of spending and an option to increase or decrease amount budgeted by 5% per annum. The legislature or citizen groups could – by petition - offer alternative amounts based on proposed policy changes [huge property tax cuts > specific spending cuts, mass incarceration scams > specific tax increases or specific cuts elsewhere].  Every attempt to poll citizen taxpayers on how to spend their money has shown huge differences over actual budgets.  Bad public policy – which elects our current leadership – would be under heavier scrutiny from those who pay the bills. The predictable response: the taxpayers “shouldn’t worry their pretty little heads” over how to pay the bills.

            It would work very simply. There would be a base budget – or a base effective budget adjusted for inflation. There would be 2 proposals for a base budget with a 5% annual increase and a 5% annual decrease. There would be alternative amounts based on proposed policy changes submitted by legislature or citizens through the initiative process. ALL proposals affecting spending would automatically have to have one or more budget alternatives, depending on how many revenue sources or budget items are affected. Every time either a revenue source or spending item is affected voters have to have an alternative in budget referendum to reflect that change. If voters overwhelmingly approve expansion of government spending or tax cuts without approving the appropriate tax increase [or spending cuts elsewhere], or tax cuts without spending decreases, those measures would be either invalidated – or if possible – the legislature would have to make adjustments within categories to reflect voter will [an example: mass incarceration scam with no budget increase for public safety could result in less money for police departments].

            The amounts adopted would work just as simply. If you accumulate votes in progression going from greatest to least [or vice versa; it works the same] one category will eventually accumulate more than 50% of the vote and will be adopted. Once all spending amounts are determined, the legislature will adjust tax rates to reflect voter will. The legislature’s function will be minimal and their ability to effect bad policy changes minimized.  This will make life easier for legislators who really don’t want to address causes of problems anyway.  Then they can blame the voters for not being able to deliver taxpayer funded goodies to their contributors.