Time: Sat May 31 06:37:10 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA08870; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:24:42 -0700 (MST) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA05284; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:24:36 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 06:29:20 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: C-NEWS: Real Reform of American Politics (fwd) <snip> > >Real Reform of American Politics > > The burgeoning Clinton fund-raising scandals may provide the >impetus for Congress to finally pass a campaign finance reform bill. >The question is whether it will do anything to "clean up Washington." >Most likely, it won't. > > The reason is there is so much at stake in the spending and >taxing decisions made by post- Great Society government that interest >groups feel they can't afford not to play the game. Even if barriers >are erected to their current efforts at influence, because the stakes >are so high (the federal government will spend about $1.7 trillion this >year), lobbyists and groups will find alternative ways to pressure the >system. At base, it is an economic imperative for them. > > So is there any way to get all the money and self-interest out >of our elections and politics? Yes, but we won't do it by trying to >outsmart the interest groups -- we can only remove their incentives to >be so involved in the process. > > We do that first by drastically cutting the size and scope of >government in Washington. If there is less of a prize to be gained from >the policy process, there will be fewer campaign dollars seeking to >influence government. As columnist James Glassman observes, "Think of >campaign contributions as an investment -- and a fairly inexpensive one >-- toward securing those government benefits." It is not hard to >imagine for example that without big campaign bucks channeled to both >Republicans and Democrats from favored groups, the Department of >Commerce and most of its programs might have been eliminated long ago. > > Is big government really the primary cause of the explosion of >campaign contributions and the role of lobbying in Washington? Consider >that there are 125 people working to influence government policy for >every member of the House and Senate. In 1964, before enactment of >Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, there were 31. In Washington today >there are almost twice as many law firms as churches. > > More significant evidence however is the work of John Lott of >the University of Chicago, who has undertaken detailed statistical >analysis of federal and state politics and found a clear relationship >between bigger government and greater efforts to influence it. > > Cutting Washington down to size will mean taxes will be much >lower. But beyond drastically cutting the amount of spending and >taxing, our tax system needs to be radically reformed through a flat tax >that lowers income tax rates in exchange for ending deductions. > > The economic virtues of lower tax rates are clear -- today's >high marginal rates are a disincentive for working and investing. But >the combination of lowering rates and ending deductions will have a huge >political payoff as well -- the curtailing of interest group fighting >for special tax breaks. These breaks along with big government have >kept income tax rates too high for too long. > > Former Democratic Governor of California Jerry Brown, who is a >flat tax supporter, argues that fundamental tax reform would be an >assault on "the crooked Washington fund-raising machine that routinely >auctions off loopholes to the highest bidder." How big a machine does >our current tax code create? Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka > calculate the costs to the American economy of lobbyists and efforts to >influence the direction of the tax code at a staggering $50 billion per >year. Fundamental tax reform, drastically lowering rates and getting >rid of special breaks, would break up the game. > > In a system with low rates and no special breaks, the Washington >lobbying and PAC army will shrivel and that $50 billion will go towards >much more productive ends. American firms -- be they in the timber >business or oil business or insurance business -- can focus on building >a better widget and creating new jobs, instead of buying a better tax >loop-hole. > > Besides clamping down on special interest government, tax reform >will also mean more economic freedom for Americans. As Dick Armey >argues, the great virtue of a flat tax "is that it is neutral. It does >not seek to guide the economic decisions of free Americans." > > Congress and the President may well agree to some type of >campaign finance reform. If so, Senators and Representatives, along >with President Clinton will shower accolades on themselves for cleaning >up our political system. But it will be an illusion. When so much is >at stake, the special interests will find a way to funnel money and >their influence into campaigns and the governing of America. > > Only by taking away the incentives for the influence seekers >will we see a true reform of the American political system. > > >John Berthoud >Vice President >Alexis de Tocqueville Institution >(The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is a non-partisan public policy >research group in Arlington, Virginia). > >Note: this op-ed appeared in several newspapers around the country, >including The Indianapolis Star and The (Wheeling, WV) Intelligencer. >------- >To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message >UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact >owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail