You can say what an increase in funding is meant to finance without earmarking the funds. Other countries do that just fine. In this example, you’d run on lowering property taxes, because campaign on the tax you’re increasing is never a good plan.
I get that there’ll always be some taxes collected at different levels, like some federal, some state level and some municipal, and that does to some extent direct how the funds can be used, but earmarking the funds beyond that just adds complexity and fucks up budgeting. It’s how you end up with stuff like every other thing on the budget borrowing from social security.
The real thing hindering these kinds of reform is that American politics are inherently resistant to change. With a two-party system in near equilibrium there will rarely be any opportunity to change big things, and in practice most big changes in the US happen at the judicial branch as a result. For example, WA doesn’t have income tax due to the WA supreme court declaring it unconstitutional, and changing the constitution is nearly impossible to get the votes for in the current political climate.
Dude, most other countries, bar the dictatorships, have more changes happening than the US. Most other countries don’t have two-party systems with filibusters, debt ceilings disconnected from the budget, and whatever else.
Any country implementing parliamentarism, especially those not implementing first past the post, will have a lot less stalemates, because there are multiple other parties to make horse trades with. Do you have experience with any other country’s system of governance?
You can say what an increase in funding is meant to finance without earmarking the funds. Other countries do that just fine. In this example, you’d run on lowering property taxes, because campaign on the tax you’re increasing is never a good plan.
I get that there’ll always be some taxes collected at different levels, like some federal, some state level and some municipal, and that does to some extent direct how the funds can be used, but earmarking the funds beyond that just adds complexity and fucks up budgeting. It’s how you end up with stuff like every other thing on the budget borrowing from social security.
The real thing hindering these kinds of reform is that American politics are inherently resistant to change. With a two-party system in near equilibrium there will rarely be any opportunity to change big things, and in practice most big changes in the US happen at the judicial branch as a result. For example, WA doesn’t have income tax due to the WA supreme court declaring it unconstitutional, and changing the constitution is nearly impossible to get the votes for in the current political climate.
Dude, politics is a system that society has created to prevent change. When you get that, the western system of governance makes more sense.
Dude, most other countries, bar the dictatorships, have more changes happening than the US. Most other countries don’t have two-party systems with filibusters, debt ceilings disconnected from the budget, and whatever else.
Any country implementing parliamentarism, especially those not implementing first past the post, will have a lot less stalemates, because there are multiple other parties to make horse trades with. Do you have experience with any other country’s system of governance?