A proposition.

The money we pay in taxes is funneled into various state and federal projects. Our monetary participation in the maintenance of these programs is compulsory. I propose that the funding for federal programs become optional. The plan would be as follows: we would continue paying a certain amount of taxes, but, instead of paying blindly to the federal government, we get to choose which programs our money supports, i.e. civil construction, war, social welfare, public education etc. This would allow the people to vote with their money for which programs survive.

There are various branches under the social welfare program -- unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.  My first contention is that of federal contraction. In approximately a decade, our government has accumulated a federal debt of a little over $15 trillion. $2.738 trillion of this national debt can be attributed to social welfare programs. With the proposed change, whatever is donated towards these programs may be used, no more, no less. This way, the federal government would not have to pay for the monetary difference this program accrues; they would survive based on whether or not the people want for it to exist. Certain branches, such as food stamps, may be eliminated for lack of funds, while others could survive. It cannot be denied that the federal government has overstretched its finances. It's time to contract.

My second contention in support of this proposal is personal liberty. I am forced by law to pay a "membership fee" if I want to live in this country. This money is used to support the system that in turn supports me. This is fair. Nothing is free. However, what if my money is being funneled into programs I disagree with? I am forced to pay into a Social Security fund that is being used for ulterior purposes. I am forced to pay into Medicaid and Medicare, programs I am not allowed to participate in because I am not poor enough. I help pay for a war I may not agree with. If I am going to pay to live here, I would like to choose where my money is invested. I do not want to fund a war, a personal retirement fund I may never see, the unemployment check of someone who has too much pride to work in a school cafeteria.

My third contention can be simply stated as "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." This last contention is closely tied with my argument for personal liberty. The current system works as follows: federal and state programs decide upon which programs are to exist, we pay taxes, they take care of the rest. The only way to control which programs exist is by voting for candidates, petitioning, protesting, etc. These are all indirect. We still rely on the officials to create actual change. If we were to implement the new system, the people would have a direct say as to what our government funds. If the majority of the United States does not want to fund a war the federal government believes we should fight, it will not be funded. Instead, they would rather fund public education. If people have enough self-restraint to invest in their own retirement, they would instead pay into a private account, or not pay at all. The people would use their tax dollars to create a nation of their own, not one decided by a few hundred individuals.

If we were to work out a new system similar to the one proposed, the American people would have more control over their lives and over the system they belong to.

The borrowed $15 trillion may seem free now, but future tax payers will have to pay, with interest. It's time we buy what we can afford.