What if we split the Federal budget?

If you’re an American adult your share is 25K. Based on the napkin math here: Federal spending divided by adult Americans. Let’s fire the government. If you can’t beat ’em join. I think we can do everything better.

What percentage of your monthly check do you want to automatically go toward funding a mars mission?

What percentage on agricultural subsidies?

I’m assuming we plan a smooth descent in military spending. We don’t want a military coup, but we don’t need to be spending more than the next 15 combined: China, United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, India, Brazil, South Korea, Australia, Iran, Italy, Israel, Canada. The rest of the world spends the final fifth. The US military officially spends 2/5 of global military spending.
http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/securityspending/articles/2012_topline_global_defense_spending/

If other large groups of people, often called countries, collectively and officially join us in taking responsibility for governing back from the government I’m sure we could bring military spending way down.

There would obviously be intense pressure for both government agencies to clearly articulate the justification for their budget and decentralized, funded investments to judge these pitches rationally.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the telecom industry wasn’t one of the first big losers. What do you think?

Our democracy becomes literal, liquid and participatory. Why settle for a basic income as a government subject? Why not make government subject to us? Pay yourself first. This isn’t just a basic income it’s the citizen’s dividend. And then to protect your investment you help everyone who is fucked up (and costing you money).

Once we’ve pretty much settled on public debate accountability arenas we could find the mathematically ideal voting system for changing the tax rates. Nothing else is voted on. Everything else is spent on. I don’t think you can have a more fine-grained and thus ideal system of expressing individual and collective will.

How many awards for various competitions would you fund? How many people do you want to compete to figure out the best answers to the toughest questions? “According to the research, coming up with an incentive structure that looks and sounds like a game can make people actually try a lot harder.”

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/09/391795455/how-do-you-get-people-to-work-harder-keep-the-reward-a-secret?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

So why fuck ourselves over while we figure shit out? The societal (not just governmental) costs of not successfully dealing with poverty are far greater than the cost of preventing it. I think I remember someone (was it Benjamin Franklin?) saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” A basic income is like a social vaccine from a host of poverty related issues related to health and crime.

View story at Medium.com

The beauty of budgetary transparency is the explicit recognition of the inextricability of public and private spending. No more of the lets cut taxes to save money (on taxes) and then spend more on the costs of not having spent that money. Indiana shut down its Planned Parenthood clinics and got an HIV outbreak.

This is 25K on top of your salary without any new taxes to start with. We could change the monetary system.

“The private sector economic costs of monetary reform are transfers of wealth from the banking industry to the American public. The replacement would be either non-profit banks operating as needed with minimum public cost such as fire departments and the postal service, for-profit banks lending time-deposits in regulated free-market competition, or a hybrid of the two (perhaps with government mortgages at a non-profit rate of 1%). The Public Banking Institute works for the public to act now for at-cost credit rather than waiting for federal reform.

Monetary reform stops the current built-in increases of the money supply through fractional reserve banking, and redirects it for direct payment of taxes for public goods and services. Each dollar transferred from bank creation to public benefit is one dollar less in public tax payment.”

“Monetary reform nationalizes the Federal Reserve (this name is deceptive so the public would perceive it as a government entity) and retain its use for bank administrative functions. Fractional reserve lending by private banks would be made illegal, with the US Treasury having sole legal authority to issue new money for the benefit of the American public rather than the benefit of the banking industry. About 30% of the national debt is intra-governmental holdings and ~16% held by the Fed; this debt would be cancelled as it becomes a bookkeeping entry with nationalization. Of the publicly-held debt of various parties holding US Securities, the US Treasury would monetize (pay) the debt in proportion to fractional reserves being replaced with full reserves over a period of one to two years to monitor money supply and avoid inflation. This means the US government would create debt-free money to pay the debt as it’s due exactly to the extent that private banks’ ability to create credit is reduced. The purpose of this is to avoid inflation.

The American Monetary Institute has a proposal called the American Monetary Act to do this. This proposal was also endorsed by America’s best-known economist, Milton Friedman, as the single most important action possible for US economic improvement. . .

The governmental cost of this reform is negligible because it simply authorizes Congress to enter money into its own account to directly pay for public goods and services. In fact, Americans would save money from decreased reliance on managing taxes.

The benefits are astounding: the American public would no longer pay over $400 billion every year for national debt interest payments (because almost 50% of the debt is intra-governmental transfers, this is a savings of over $200 billion/year). If lending is run at a non-profit rate or at nominal interest returned to the American public (for infrastructure, schools, fire and police protection, etc.) rather than profiting the banks, the savings to the US public is conservatively $2 trillion. If the US Federal government increased the money supply by 3% a year to keep up with population increase and economic growth, we could spend an additional $500 billion yearly into public programs, or refund it as a public dividend. This savings would allow us to simplify or eliminate the income tax. The estimated savings of eliminating the income tax with all its complexity, loopholes, and evasion is $250 billion/year. The total benefits for monetary reform are conservatively over three trillion dollars every year to the American public. Three trillion is $3,000,000,000,000. This saves the ~100 million US households an average of $30,000 every year. Another way to calculate the savings is to figure those amounts per $50,000 annual household income (for example, if your household earns $100,000/year, you save ~$60,000 every year with these reforms).”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/debt-damned-economics-either-learn-monetary-reform-kiss-assets-goodbye-7-7.html

New responsibility sure, but you care enough to find out who you trust that knows more about some particular issue to seek advice. Or if you’re scared, just keep the percentages the same and don’t keep any of it.
Is there anything obvious that I missed?

O yeah, “none of the top industries would be profitable if they paid for the natural capital they used.” It doesn’t make sense to continue coal power, cattle ranching, iron and steel mills and wheat farming in their current form. Let’s stop taking a loss on those.
http://grist.org/business-technology/none-of-the-worlds-top-industries-would-be-profitable-if-they-paid-for-the-natural-capital-they-use/