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