We The Persons

I don't like the word "people". Is it singular or plural? I think no matter the context, the word "people" never aptly describes the individual persons comprised within itself. "On behalf of the American people...the American people want this...the American people want that...etc.". Since I rarely feel as though my view is represented when the word "people" is used, I've grown a distaste for it. I'd like to propose that we try to speak without using it anymore.

As you can imagine, eliminating the use of the word "people" would have a strange effect. It might even change the way we hear rhetoric. If an elected official said, "we did this on behalf of the American Persons", our inclination would be to ask them to qualify that statement. "Which persons? ALL persons? Or was it only for the persons who voted for you?". The past couple of years have gotten extremely divisive in this country. The rhetoric has been extreme. I've heard passionate members of both houses of Congress from both major political parties say that "the American people want this bill" and others simultaneously say "the American people do NOT want this bill". Is one right? Is one wrong? The answer? They are both right and they are both wrong. There are many American persons who want the bill and many American persons who don't. But maybe an interesting omission from the English dictionary (i.e. the word "people") would create a sudden inclusion of qualifiers from elected officials so that they can explicitly state which persons about whom they are speaking. We would react, "which American persons want this bill?" and "which American persons do not?". We'd force them to answer. We'd force them to qualify it.

I've written before in this space that our country's elected officials have gotten away from the concept of representing ALL of their constituents and have moved towards representing only those constituents who voted for them (or who share their beliefs). So, we go from a 51 - 49 win one year where the winner tries to cater to the 51% who voted for them, followed by a 49 - 51 loss two years later. And throughout the past few decades, favorability for government has only decreased, despite the "political victories" that occur in between. Perhaps it is because the elected officials think that receiving 51% or 58% or whatever percent they received constitutes the right to neglect the views and opinions of all those people whose vote went elsewhere. I'd like to think that someday, someone will view themselves as the representative of all their constituents.

I think of the government as a giant checking account. ALL taxpayers (Note: From a Federal Tax standpoint, this is about 53% of American persons) make deposits into this giant checking account. Our elected officials are the "signors" on the account. They are the only ones authorized to write checks. They have to pay for themselves, their staff, their travel expenses, etc. Don't forget all the agencies, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, etc. After they are all paid, they then write checks for government programs, including entitlements, endowments, etc. So again, taxpayers make deposits. Government officials make withdrawals/write checks. And as of this writing, our elected officials from both major parties have written enough checks to ring up a debt to the tune of nearly $13 trillion dollars.

So, by catering to their supporters and condoning acts such as earmarks, renegade borrowing and printing money, our elected officials will tell you that the spending that has occurred has been "on behalf of the American people". But I say, "Not this person!". I'd like our elected officials to take consideration of every bill before they vote and ask themselves the question, "The price of this bill comes at whose expense?". The answer would be persons who are likely against the bill. And if a bill has a cost to a group of persons who do not benefit from it, and a group of beneficiaries who do not pay for it, it is legalized theft. So, a natural question would be, "what bills would ever pass this test?". And that is my point entirely. Government spending ought to occur when the price comes at "every person's expense" and reaps benefits for "every person". If our elected officials had governed this way and better yet, if the future elected officials resume this practice, the result would be the smaller, less bureaucratic government our founding fathers created. A novel concept, indeed.

A friend of mine and I talked the other day about a concept of optional taxation. I believe many persons would like to be able to "opt in" to taxation for certain government programs. If you opt in, you pay taxes marked for the program and when needed, you are entitled to utilize the program in question. If you opt out, you don't pay those particular taxes and you are not eligible to receive the benefit. Persons planning to raise a family might opt in to pay taxes for public education. Persons not planning on raising a family might opt out. Persons wanting to save their own retirement money throughout their career might opt out of Social Security. Others might not want to bother with the retirement planning and may want to opt in. The concept is an interesting one, because it would allow each and every person to choose how their deposits into the big checking account get spent, and would even allow each person to choose how large their deposits are. In this scenario, each and every person would be happy with how their tax dollars are spent. Good programs would get the support they need. Bad programs would go to the wayside.

I'd be able to shop for what I want, pay for what I want and opt not to buy things I find unnecessary. Sounds like the free enterprise system to me. We should try that sometime. My suspicion is that our elected officials would tell me that this "is not good for the American people". Well, it's good for this American person.