Argument 1. The government is not going to allow We the People to file tax returns that allow us to spend the taxes we pay, on the programs we support and want to be funded.
The fundamental legal questions are:
1. Are we a democratic Republic or not”? The answer is an absolute yes. Not only do we have elected representation, we also vote directly on public policies at the State level through the ballot initiative process so we are in fact also a direct democracy and our elected representatives utilize democratic voting to create public policies at all levels, the municipalities, counties, States, and at the Federal Government level.
2. Do we as individuals have the right to direct the taxes we pay to the programs we desire to have funded. The answer is absolutely, yes. Article IX, states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means, that even though a right is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they can not deny us other rights retained by the people. It is our money and we should have the right to direct that money to the public programs we desire and our elected representatives and bureaucracy as our public servants have a responsibility to help us best perform this goal.
Is the government going to attempt to deny or disparate We the People from doing this. I think you can count on it. With over 235 years of power and control and $trillion now in the public Treasury each year, those who control the spending have inordinate amounts of power and they are not going to relinquish that power easily. $billions are literally spent each election cycle fighting over being in the highest positions, that allow those in power to spend our money and we now have the technology to stop this from continuing and take back control over our democratic Republic.
Argument 2. What about all the less popular, yet perhaps equally of more important government programs that could lose their funding over more popular programs by this new system? By having 1/3 of our taxes deemed non-discretionary, leaving our elected representative to continue to decide where these taxes are spent, it still leaves the taxpayers 2/3 of their taxes as discretionary funds in which they have total control over what programs they want it spent on and how much of their taxes would go to those programs. We would truly have a democratically controlled representative Republic. If our elected representatives believe we need to fund something that is not being adequately funded, they can go to We to People and try to persuade us to give a larger portion of our taxes to that programs.
Argument 3. Are the majority of people smart enough to participate in this process. First, many people pay no or very little taxes, so they don’t really matter much in this particular process. If our elected representatives believe we need to fund something that is not being adequately funded, they can go to We to People and try to persuade us to give a larger portion of our taxes to those programs. We can also have a simple form with the basic programs to choose from and we can have a more complex form which allows us to get more specific, so it is literally up to each taxpayer to make their own determinations. It would become as important a process, as the election process. It would actually help We The People in finding out who the best representatives are and what they really believe is in the best interests of the majority.
Argument 4. Will the wealthier choose to have their taxes go to the more conservative policies over the more liberal ones. The number of wealthy people who actually contribute to both major Parties is large enough on both sides to minimize any fears of drastic changes in the social policies being funded. Whether we swing more to the left or right over time will depend on We the People. What we can count on, is that the special interests not dominate the political process will become less influential. As an example, I think Big Sugar, sugar, corn syrup, and the beet interests are going to have a tough time convincing the taxpayers they need the direct financial subsidies they have been getting for decades.