The Following Reforms Should Come To Pass

Salutations, Bubba the Clown and other readers! Thanks for the interesting debate topic--I think this is a common complaint of many Americans and one which should be addressed. While Pro's arguments are undoubtedly appealing at first, we must remember that the United States has a representative government. This means that we elect officials to the government whom we believe will fight for our ideals, whatever they may be. I intend to approach this debate on its general meaning, not the specifics of pro-this and anti-that. My arguments will be against any reform that states something to the effect of: If you do not agree with X, the government will not spend your taxes on X. I believe this conforms with Pro's sentiments. As anyone who has ever done them knows, taxes are quite complicated. Therefore, I think I'll restrict my first round to federal income taxes. If Pro would like to include state taxes, I'll be happy to reciprocate. Some important events for federal income taxes: In 1862, Congress established the position of Commissioner of Internal Revenue in order to levy and collect taxes which would finance the Union Army. http://money.howstuffworks.com... In 1913, the income tax was clarified in the 16th amendment "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". http://www.usconstitution.net... In 2013, a breakdown of what federal income taxes were spent on: http://nationalpriorities.org... We are not individually responsible for setting an agenda for the country, nor should we want to be. The social contract came about so that we would place certain responsibilities in the hands of a few in return for security. The concept of democracy is also peculiar to human nature. Americans pride themselves on fair elections that give reasonable opportunities to a variety of candidates. We gave up the right to certain aspects of our time and money but retained the right to frequently re-elect the people in power. http://oregonstate.edu... Our government basically operates under a system of checks and balances. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches theoretically work together to provide the necessary government services for the US. We may not always personally agree with how a service is run, but we gave the privilege and the responsibility of running it to the government. That's not to say that we should or do not have any input. In every election, we are given the choice of how we want our money spent. We make those decisions by voting for candidates who agree with our priorities. After elections, officials must remain responsive to their constituents. Call your congressman to ask for specific change in Washington. Volunteer for committees or take surveys that provide the government with popular response. Democracy is not a spectator sport. But it is also not an individual effort. If I may continue the sports analogy, it's a little like we're drafting players for a team except the players are picked by a majority vote of all the people. Once they're chosen, we don't get to say when they make a pass or take a shot. Sure, we can cheer and boo from the sidelines, and indeed we should commend and criticize politicians when necessary. Political parties are formed around certain agendas which are deemed important to the people. We, the electorate, may not care to examine all of a politician's stances for each election, so having political parties makes it easier for us to screen candidates and it helps candidates obtain access to resources that might otherwise be inaccessible. The majority of people care only about a few issues--abortion and the environment being two hotly contested topics which Pro brought up. But lack of interest or knowledge does not make other issues less pressing. Transportation and health care affect most people, but it's hard to prioritize highways over a deeply held conviction, and almost everyone has a different opinion on the proper way to address health care which, even if it includes the government probably doesn't include all of the current plan. Furthermore, there are over 300 million people in the US. The proposal of having each American tell the government how he or she wants tax money spent is not only undermining the democratic system, it is logistically impossible. I wrote more than I intended, so to sum up my arguments: appropriation of tax revenue is simply a necessary facet of our democratic government; there are more efficient and currently existing ways to direct the flow of such revenues; and the requirements for such proposals as Pro suggests would be burdensome and illogical. I am looking forward to Pro's response.